"... The book was The Constitution of Liberty by Frederick Hayek . Its publication, in 1960, marked the transition from an honest, if extreme, philosophy to an outright racket. The philosophy was called neoliberalism . It saw competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. The market would discover a natural hierarchy of winners and losers, creating a more efficient system than could ever be devised through planning or by design. Anything that impeded this process, such as significant tax, regulation, trade union activity or state provision, was counter-productive. Unrestricted entrepreneurs would create the wealth that would trickle down to everyone. ..."
"... But by the time Hayek came to write The Constitution of Liberty, the network of lobbyists and thinkers he had founded was being lavishly funded by multimillionaires who saw the doctrine as a means of defending themselves against democracy. Not every aspect of the neoliberal programme advanced their interests. Hayek, it seems, set out to close the gap. ..."
"... He begins the book by advancing the narrowest possible conception of liberty: an absence of coercion. He rejects such notions as political freedom, universal rights, human equality and the distribution of wealth, all of which, by restricting the behaviour of the wealthy and powerful, intrude on the absolute freedom from coercion he demands. ..."
"... The general thrust is about the gradual hollowing out of the middle class (or more affluent working class, depending on the analytical terms being used), about insecurity, stress, casualisation, rising wage inequality. ..."
"... So Hayek, I feel, is like many theoreticians, in that he seems to want a pure world that will function according to a simple and universal law. The world never was, and never will be that simple, and current economics simply continues to have a blindspot for externalities that overwhelm the logic of an unfettered so-called free market. ..."
"... J.K. Galbraith viewed the rightwing mind as predominantly concerned with figuring out a way to justify the shift of wealth from the immense majority to an elite at the top. I for one regret acutely that he did not (as far as I know) write a volume on his belief in progressive taxation. ..."
"... The system that Clinton developed was an inheritance from George H.W. Bush, Reagan (to a large degree), Carter, with another large assist from Nixon and the Powell Memo. ..."
"... What's changed is the distribution of the gains in GDP growth -- that is in no small part a direct consequence of changes in policy since the 1970s. It isn't some "market place magic". We have made major changes to tax laws since that time. We have weakened collective bargaining, which obviously has a negative impact on wages. We have shifted the economy towards financial services, which has the tendency of increasing inequality. ..."
"... Wages aren't stagnating because people are working less. Wages have stagnated because of dumb policy choices that have tended to incentives looting by those at the top of the income distribution from workers in the lower parts of the economy. ..."
"... "Neoliberalism" is entirely compatible with "growth of the state". Reagan greatly enlarged the state. He privatized several functions and it actually had the effect of increasing spending. ..."
"... When it comes to social safety net programs, e.g. in health care and education -- those programs almost always tend to be more expensive and more complicated when privatized. If the goal was to actually save taxpayer money, in the U.S. at least, it would have made a lot more sense to have a universal Medicare system, rather than a massive patch-work like the ACA and our hybrid market. ..."
"... As for the rest, it's the usual practice of gathering every positive metric available and somehow attributing it to neoliberalism, no matter how tenuous the threads, and as always with zero rigour. Supposedly capitalism alone doubled life expectancy, supports billions of extra lives, invented the railways, and provides the drugs and equipment that keep us alive. As though public education, vaccines, antibiotics, and massive availability of energy has nothing to do with those things. ..."
"... I think the damage was done when the liberal left co-opted neo-liberalism. What happened under Bill Clinton was the development of crony capitalism where for example the US banks were told to lower their credit standards to lend to people who couldn't really afford to service the loans. ..."
The events that led to Donald Trump's election started in England in 1975. At a meeting a few months after Margaret Thatcher became
leader of the Conservative party, one of her colleagues, or so the story goes, was explaining what he saw as the core beliefs of
conservatism. She snapped open her handbag, pulled out a dog-eared book, and
slammed it on the table . "This is what we believe," she said. A political revolution that would sweep the world had begun.
The book was The Constitution
of Liberty by Frederick Hayek . Its publication, in 1960, marked the transition from an honest, if extreme, philosophy to an
outright racket.
The philosophy
was called neoliberalism . It saw competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. The market would discover a
natural hierarchy of winners and losers, creating a more efficient system than could ever be devised through planning or by design.
Anything that impeded this process, such as significant tax, regulation, trade union activity or state provision, was counter-productive.
Unrestricted entrepreneurs would create the wealth that would trickle down to everyone.
This, at any rate, is how it was originally conceived. But by the time Hayek came to write The Constitution of Liberty, the
network of lobbyists and thinkers he had founded was being lavishly funded by multimillionaires who saw the doctrine as a means of
defending themselves against democracy. Not every aspect of the neoliberal programme advanced their interests. Hayek, it seems, set
out to close the gap.
He begins the book by advancing the narrowest possible conception of liberty: an absence of coercion. He rejects such notions
as political freedom, universal rights, human equality and the distribution of wealth, all of which, by restricting the behaviour
of the wealthy and powerful, intrude on the absolute freedom from coercion he demands.
Democracy, by contrast, "is not an ultimate or absolute value". In fact, liberty depends on preventing the majority from exercising
choice over the direction that politics and society might take.
He justifies this position by creating a heroic narrative of extreme wealth. He conflates the economic elite, spending their money
in new ways, with philosophical and scientific pioneers. Just as the political philosopher should be free to think the unthinkable,
so the very rich should be free to do the undoable, without constraint by public interest or public opinion.
The ultra rich are "scouts", "experimenting with new styles of living", who blaze the trails that the rest of society will follow.
The progress of society depends on the liberty of these "independents" to gain as much money as they want and spend it how they wish.
All that is good and useful, therefore, arises from inequality. There should be no connection between merit and reward, no distinction
made between earned and unearned income, and no limit to the rents they can charge.
Inherited wealth is more socially useful than earned wealth: "the idle rich", who don't have to work for their money, can devote
themselves to influencing "fields of thought and opinion, of tastes and beliefs". Even when they seem to be spending money on nothing
but "aimless display", they are in fact acting as society's vanguard.
Hayek softened his opposition to monopolies and hardened his opposition to trade unions. He lambasted progressive taxation and
attempts by the state to raise the general welfare of citizens. He insisted that there is "an overwhelming case against a free health
service for all" and dismissed the conservation of natural resources. It should come as no surprise to those who follow such matters
that he was awarded
the Nobel prize for economics .
By the time Thatcher slammed his book on the table, a lively network of thinktanks, lobbyists and academics promoting Hayek's
doctrines had been established on both sides of the Atlantic,
abundantly financed by some of the world's richest people and
businesses , including DuPont, General Electric, the Coors brewing company, Charles Koch, Richard Mellon Scaife, Lawrence Fertig,
the William Volker Fund and the Earhart Foundation. Using psychology and linguistics to brilliant effect, the thinkers these people
sponsored found the words and arguments required to turn Hayek's anthem to the elite into a plausible political programme.
Thatcherism and Reaganism were not ideologies in their own right: they were just two faces of neoliberalism. Their massive tax
cuts for the rich, crushing of trade unions, reduction in public housing, deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition
in public services were all proposed by Hayek and his disciples. But the real triumph of this network was not its capture of the
right, but its colonisation of parties that once stood for everything Hayek detested.
Bill Clinton and Tony Blair did not possess a narrative of their own. Rather than develop a new political story, they thought
it was sufficient to
triangulate
. In other words, they extracted a few elements of what their parties had once believed, mixed them with elements of what their
opponents believed, and developed from this unlikely combination a "third way".
It was inevitable that the blazing, insurrectionary confidence of neoliberalism would exert a stronger gravitational pull than
the dying star of social democracy. Hayek's triumph could be witnessed everywhere from Blair's expansion of the private finance initiative
to Clinton's
repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act , which had regulated the financial sector. For all his grace and touch, Barack Obama, who didn't
possess a narrative either (except "hope"), was slowly reeled in by those who owned the means of persuasion.
As I warned
in April, the result is first disempowerment then disenfranchisement. If the dominant ideology stops governments from changing
social outcomes, they can no longer respond to the needs of the electorate. Politics becomes irrelevant to people's lives; debate
is reduced to the jabber of a remote elite. The disenfranchised turn instead to a virulent anti-politics in which facts and arguments
are replaced by slogans, symbols and sensation. The man who sank Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency was not Donald Trump. It
was her husband.
The paradoxical result is that the backlash against neoliberalism's crushing of political choice has elevated just the kind of
man that Hayek worshipped. Trump, who has no coherent politics, is not a classic neoliberal. But he is the perfect representation
of Hayek's "independent"; the beneficiary of inherited wealth, unconstrained by common morality, whose gross predilections strike
a new path that others may follow. The neoliberal thinktankers are now swarming round this hollow man, this empty vessel waiting
to be filled by those who know what they want. The likely result is the demolition of our remaining decencies,
beginning with the agreement to limit global warming .
Those who tell the stories run the world. Politics has failed through a lack of competing narratives. The key task now is to tell
a new story of what it is to be a human in the 21st century. It must be as appealing to some who have voted for Trump and Ukip as
it is to the supporters of Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn.
A few of us have been working on this, and can discern what may be the beginning of a story. It's too early to say much yet, but
at its core is the recognition that – as modern psychology and neuroscience make abundantly clear – human beings, by comparison with
any other animals, are both
remarkably social and
remarkably
unselfish . The atomisation and self-interested behaviour neoliberalism promotes run counter to much of what comprises human
nature.
Hayek told us who we are, and he was wrong. Our first step is to reclaim our humanity.
justamug -> Skytree 16 Nov 2016 18:17
Thanks for the chuckle. On a more serious note - defining neoliberalism is not that easy since it is not a laid out philosophy
like liberalism, or socialism, or communism or facism. Since 2008 the use of the word neoliberalism has increased in frequency
and has come to mean different things to different people.
A common theme appears to be the negative effects of the market on the human condition.
Having read David Harvey's book, and Phillip Mirowski's book (both had a go at defining neoliberalism and tracing its history)
it is clear that neoliberalism is not really coherent set of ideas.
ianfraser3 16 Nov 2016 17:54
EF Schumacher quoted "seek first the kingdom of God" in his epilogue of "Small Is Beautiful: a study of economics as if people
mattered". This was written in the early 1970s before the neoliberal project bit in the USA and the UK. The book is laced with
warnings about the effects of the imposition of neoliberalism on society, people and the planet. The predictions have largely
come true. New politics and economics needed, by leaders who place at the heart of their approach the premise, and fact, that
humans are "by comparison with any other animals, are both remarkably social and remarkably unselfish". It is about reclaiming
our humanity from a project that treats people as just another commodity.
Filipio -> YouDidntBuildThat 16 Nov 2016 17:42
Whoa there, slow down.
Your last post was questioning the reality of neoliberalism as a general policy direction that had become hegemonic across
many governments (and most in the west) over recent decades. Now you seem to be agreeing that the notion does have salience, but
that neoliberalism delivered positive rather than negative consequences.
Well, its an ill wind that blows nobody any good, huh?
Doubtless there were some positive outcomes for particular groups. But recall that the context for this thread is not whether,
on balance, more people benefited from neoliberal policies than were harmed -- an argument that would be most powerful only in
very utilitarian style frameworks of thought (most good for the many, or most harm for only the few). The thread is about the
significance of the impacts of neoliberalism in the rise of Trump. And in specific relation to privatisation (just one dimension
of neoliberalism) one key impact was downsizing (or 'rightsizing'; restructuring). There is a plethora of material, including
sociological and psychological, on the harm caused by shrinking and restructured work-forces as a consequence of privatisation.
Books have been written, even in the business management sector, about how poorly such 'change' was handled and the multiple deleterious
outcomes experienced by employees.
And we're still only talking about one dimension of neoliberalism! Havn't even touched on deregulation yet (notably, labour
market and financial sector).
The general thrust is about the gradual hollowing out of the middle class (or more affluent working class, depending on
the analytical terms being used), about insecurity, stress, casualisation, rising wage inequality.
You want evidence? I'm not doing your research for you. The internet can be a great resource, or merely an echo chamber. The
problem with so many of the alt-right (and this applies on the extreme left as well) is that they only look to confirm their views,
not read widely. Open your eyes, and use your search engine of choice. There is plenty out there. Be open to having your preconceptions
challenged.
RichardErskine -> LECKJ3000 16 Nov 2016 15:38
LECKJ3000 - I am not an economist, but surely the theoretical idealised mechanisms of the market are never realised in practice.
US subsidizing their farmers, in EU too, etc. And for problems that are not only externalities but transnational ones, the idea
that some Hayek mechanism will protect thr ozone layer or limit carbon emissions, without some regulation or tax.
Lord Stern called global warming the greatest market failure in history, but no market, however sophisticated, can deal with
it without some price put on the effluent of product (the excessive CO2 we put into the atmosphere).
As with Montreal and subsequent agreements, there is a way to maintain a level playing field; to promote different substances
for use as refrigerants; and to address the hole in ozone layer; without abandoning the market altogether. Simple is good, because
it avoids over-engineering the interventions (and the unintended consequences you mention).
The same could/ should be true of global warming, but we have left it so late we cannot wait for the (inevitable) fall of fossil
fuels and supremacy of renewables. We need a price on carbon, which is a graduated and fast rising tax essentially on its production
and/or consumption, which has already started to happen ( http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/SDN/background-note_carbon-tax.pdf
), albeit not deep / fast / extensive enough, or international in character, but that will come, if not before the impacts really
bite then soon after.
So Hayek, I feel, is like many theoreticians, in that he seems to want a pure world that will function according to a simple
and universal law. The world never was, and never will be that simple, and current economics simply continues to have a blindspot
for externalities that overwhelm the logic of an unfettered so-called free market.
LionelKent -> greven 16 Nov 2016 14:59
And persistent. J.K. Galbraith viewed the rightwing mind as predominantly concerned with figuring out a way to justify the
shift of wealth from the immense majority to an elite at the top. I for one regret acutely that he did not (as far as I know)
write a volume on his belief in progressive taxation.
RandomLibertarian -> JVRTRL 16 Nov 2016 09:19
Not bad points.
When it comes to social safety net programs, e.g. in health care and education -- those programs almost always tend to be more
expensive and more complicated when privatized. If the goal was to actually save taxpayer money, in the U.S. at least, it would
have made a lot more sense to have a universal Medicare system, rather than a massive patch-work like the ACA and our hybrid market.
Do not forget that the USG, in WW2, took the deliberate step of allowing employers to provide health insurance as a tax-free
benefit - which it still is, being free even from SS and Medicare taxes. In the post-war boom years this resulted in the development
of a system with private rooms, almost on-demand access to specialists, and competitive pay for all involved (while the NHS, by
contrast, increasingly drew on immigrant populations for nurses and below). Next, the large sums of money in the system and a
generous court system empowered a vast malpractice industry. So to call our system in any way a consequence of a free market is
a misnomer.
Entirely state controlled health care systems tend to be even more cost-effective.
Read Megan McArdle's work in this area. The US has had similar cost growth since the 1970s to the rest of the world. The problem
was that it started from a higher base.
Part of the issue is that privatization tends to create feedback mechanism that increase the size of spending in programs.
Even Eisenhower's noted "military industrial complex" is an illustration of what happens when privatization really takes hold.
When government becomes involved in business, business gets involved in government!
Todd Smekens 16 Nov 2016 08:40
Albert Einstein said, "capitalism is evil" in his famous dictum called, "Why Socialism" in 1949. He also called communism,
"evil", so don't jump to conclusions, comrades. ;)
His reasoning was it distorts a human beings longing for the social aspect. I believe George references this in his statement
about people being "unselfish". This is noted by both science and philosophy.
Einstein noted that historically, the conqueror would establish the new order, and since 1949, Western Imperialism has continued
on with the predatory phase of acquiring and implementing democracy/capitalism. This needs to end. As we've learned rapidly, capitalism
isn't sustainable. We are literally overheating the earth which sustains us. Very unwise.
Einstein wrote, "Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to
protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate
abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures,
to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting,
strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual
can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society."
Personally, I'm glad George and others are working on a new economic and social construct for us "human beings". It's time
we leave the predatory phase of "us versus them", and construct a new society which works for the good of our now, global society.
zavaell -> LECKJ3000 16 Nov 2016 06:28
The problem is that both you and Monbiot fail to mention that your "the spontaneous order of the market" does not recognize
externalities and climate change is outside Hayek's thinking - he never wrote about sustainability or the limits on resources,
let alone the consequences of burning fossil fuels. There is no beauty in what he wrote - it was a cold, mechanical model that
assumed certain human behaviour but not others. Look at today's money-makers - they are nearly all climate change deniers and
we have to have government to reign them in.
aLERNO 16 Nov 2016 04:52
Good, short and concise article. But the FIRST NEOLIBERAL MILESTONE WAS THE 1973 COUP D'ETAT IN CHILE, which not surprisingly
also deposed the first democratically-elected socialist government.
accipiter15 16 Nov 2016 02:34
A great article and explanation of the influence of Hayek on Thatcher. Unfortunately this country is still suffering the consequences
of her tenure and Osborne was also a proponent of her policies and look where we are as a consequence. The referendum gave the
people the opportunity to vent their anger and if we had PR I suspect we would have a greater turn-out and nearly always have
some sort of coalition where nothing gets done that is too hurtful to the population. As for Trump, again his election is an expression
of anger and desperation. However, the American voting system is as unfair as our own - again this has probably been the cause
of the low turn-out. Why should people vote when they do not get fair representation - it is a waste of time and not democratic.
I doubt that Trump is Keynsian I suspect he doesn't have an economic theory at all. I just hope that the current economic thinking
prevailing currently in this country, which is still overshadowed by Thatcher and the free market, with no controls over the city
casino soon collapses and we can start from a fairer and more inclusive base!
JVRTRL -> Keypointist 16 Nov 2016 02:15
The system that Clinton developed was an inheritance from George H.W. Bush, Reagan (to a large degree), Carter, with another
large assist from Nixon and the Powell Memo.
Bill Clinton didn't do it by himself. The GOP did it with him hand-in-hand, with the only resistance coming from a minority
within the Democratic party.
Trump's victory was due to many factors. A large part of it was Hillary Clinton's campaign and the candidate. Part of it was
the effectiveness of the GOP massive resistance strategy during the Obama years, wherein they pursued a course of obstruction
in an effort to slow the rate of the economic recovery (e.g. as evidence of the bad faith, they are resurrecting a $1 trillion
infrastructure bill that Obama originally proposed in 2012, and now that they have full control, all the talk about "deficits"
goes out the window).
Obama and the Democratic party also bear responsibility for not recognizing the full scope of the financial collapse in 2008-2009,
passing a stimulus package that was about $1 trillion short of spending needed to accelerate the recovery by the 2010 mid-terms,
combined with a weak financial regulation law (which the GOP is going to destroy), an overly complicated health care law -- classic
technocratic, neoliberal incremental policy -- and the failure of the Obama administration to hold Wall Street accountable for
criminal misconduct relating to the financial crisis. Obama's decision to push unpopular trade agreements didn't help either.
As part of the post-mortem, the decision to continuing pushing the TPP may have cost Clinton in the rust belt states that went
for Trump. The agreement was unpopular, and her shift on the policy didn't come across as credible. People noticed as well that
Obama was trying to pass the measure through the lame-duck session of Congress post-election. With Trump's election, the TPP is
done too.
JVRTRL daltonknox67 16 Nov 2016 02:00
There is no iron law that says a country has to run large trade deficits. The existence of large trade deficits is usually
a result of policy choices.
Growth also hasn't gone into the tank. What's changed is the distribution of the gains in GDP growth -- that is in no small
part a direct consequence of changes in policy since the 1970s. It isn't some "market place magic". We have made major changes
to tax laws since that time. We have weakened collective bargaining, which obviously has a negative impact on wages. We have shifted
the economy towards financial services, which has the tendency of increasing inequality.
The idea too that people will be "poorer" than in the 1920s and 1930s is just plain ignorant. It has no basis in any of the
data. Wages in the bottom quartile have actually decreased slightly since the 1970s in real terms, but those wages in the 1970s
were still exponentially higher than wages in the 1920s in real terms.
Wages aren't stagnating because people are working less. Wages have stagnated because of dumb policy choices that have tended
to incentives looting by those at the top of the income distribution from workers in the lower parts of the economy. The 2008
bailouts were a clear illustration of this reality. People in industries rigged rules to benefit themselves. They misallocated
resources. Then they went to representatives and taxpayers and asked for a large no-strings attached handout that was effectively
worth trillions of dollars (e.g. hundreds of billions through TARP, trillions more through other programs). As these players become
wealthier, they have an easier time buying politicians to rig rules further to their advantage.
JVRTRL -> RandomLibertarian 16 Nov 2016 01:44
"The tyranny of the 51 per cent is the oldest and most solid argument against a pure democracy."
"Tyranny of the majority" is always a little bizarre, given that the dynamics of majority rule are unlike the governmental
structures of an actual tyranny. Even in the context of the U.S. we had minority rule due to voting restrictions for well over
a century that was effectively a tyranny for anyone who was denied the ability to participation in the elections process. Pure
majorities can go out of control, especially in a country with massive wealth disparities and with weak civic institutions.
On the other hand, this is part of the reason to construct a system of checks and balances. It's also part of the argument
for representative democracy.
"Neoliberalism" is entirely compatible with "growth of the state". Reagan greatly enlarged the state. He privatized several
functions and it actually had the effect of increasing spending.
When it comes to social safety net programs, e.g. in health care and education -- those programs almost always tend to be more
expensive and more complicated when privatized. If the goal was to actually save taxpayer money, in the U.S. at least, it would
have made a lot more sense to have a universal Medicare system, rather than a massive patch-work like the ACA and our hybrid market.
Entirely state controlled health care systems tend to be even more cost-effective. Part of the issue is that privatization
tends to create feedback mechanism that increase the size of spending in programs. Even Eisenhower's noted "military industrial
complex" is an illustration of what happens when privatization really takes hold.
daltonknox67 15 Nov 2016 21:46
After WWII most of the industrialised world had been bombed or fought over with destruction of infrastructure and manufacturing.
The US alone was undamaged. It enjoyed a manufacturing boom that lasted until the 70's when competition from Germany and Japan,
and later Taiwan, Korea and China finally brought it to an end.
As a result Americans born after 1950 will be poorer than the generation born in the 20's and 30's.
This is not a conspiracy or government malfunction. It is a quirk of history. Get over it and try working.
Arma Geddon 15 Nov 2016 21:11
Another nasty neoliberal policy of Reagan and Thatcher, was to close all the mental hospitals, and to sweeten the pill to sell
to the voters, they called it Care in the Community, except by the time those hospitals closed and the people who had to relay
on those institutions, they found out and are still finding out that there is very little care in the community left any more,
thanks to Thatcher's disintegration of the ethos community spirit.
In their neoliberal mantra of thinking, you are on your own now, tough, move on, because you are hopeless and non productive,
hence you are a burden to taxpayers.
Its been that way of thinking for over thirty years, and now the latest group targeted, are the sick and disabled, victims
of the neoliberal made banking crash and its neoliberal inspired austerity, imposed of those least able to fight back or defend
themselves i.e. vulnerable people again!
AlfredHerring GimmeHendrix 15 Nov 2016 20:23
It was in reference to Maggie slapping a copy of Hayek's Constitution of Liberty on the table and saying this is what we believe.
As soon as you introduce the concept of belief you're talking about religion hence completeness while Hayek was writing about
economics which demands consistency. i.e. St. Maggie was just as bad as any Stalinist: economics and religion must be kept separate
or you get a bunch of dead peasants for no reason other than your own vanity.
Ok, religion based on a sky god who made us all is problematic but at least there's always the possibility of supplication
and miracles. Base a religion on economic theory and you're just making sausage of your neighbors kids.
TanTan -> crystaltips2 15 Nov 2016 20:10
If you claim that the only benefit of private enterprise is its taxability, as you did, then why not cut out the middle man
and argue for full state-directed capitalism?
Because it is plainly obvious that private enterprise is not directed toward the public good (and by definition). As we have
both agreed, it needs to have the right regulations and framework to give it some direction in that regard. What "the radical
left" are pointing out is that the idea of private enterprise is now completely out of control, to the point where voters are
disenfranchised because private enterprise has more say over what the government does than the people. Which is clearly a problem.
As for the rest, it's the usual practice of gathering every positive metric available and somehow attributing it to neoliberalism,
no matter how tenuous the threads, and as always with zero rigour. Supposedly capitalism alone doubled life expectancy, supports
billions of extra lives, invented the railways, and provides the drugs and equipment that keep us alive. As though public education,
vaccines, antibiotics, and massive availability of energy has nothing to do with those things.
As for this computer being the invention of capitalism, who knows, but I suppose if one were to believe that everything was
invented and created by capitalism and monetary motives then one might believe that. Energy allotments referred to the limit of
our usage of readily available fossil fuels which you remain blissfully unaware of.
Children have already been educated to agree with you, in no small part due to a fear of the communist regimes at the time,
but at the expense of critical thinking. Questioning the system even when it has plainly been undermined to its core is quickly
labelled "radical" regardless of the normalcy of the query. I don't know what you could possibly think left-wing motives could
be, but your own motives are plain to see when you immediately lump people who care about the planet in with communist idealogues.
If rampant capitalism was going to solve our problems I'm all for it, but it will take a miracle to reverse the damage it has
already done, and only a fool would trust it any further.
YouDidntBuildThat -> Filipio 15 Nov 2016 20:06
Filipo
You argue that a great many government functions have been privatized. I agree. Yet strangely you present zero evidence of
any downsides of that happening. Most of the academic research shows a net benefit, not just on budgets but on employee and customer
satisfaction. See for example.
And despite these privitazation cost savings and alleged neoliberal "austerity" government keeps taking a larger share of our
money, like a malignant cancer. No worries....We're from the government, and we're here to help.
Keypointist 15 Nov 2016 20:04
I think the damage was done when the liberal left co-opted neo-liberalism. What happened under Bill Clinton was the development
of crony capitalism where for example the US banks were told to lower their credit standards to lend to people who couldn't really
afford to service the loans.
It was this that created too big to fail and the financial crisis of 2008. Conservative neo-liberals believe passionately in
competition and hate monopolies. The liberal left removed was was productive about neo-liberalism and replaced it with a kind
of soft state capitalism where big business was protected by the state and the tax payer was called on to bail out these businesses.
THIS more than anything else led to Trump's victory.
"... Trump is exactly where he is today because he attacked that same party. He called bullshit on the Bush's claims to have made the US safer and called bullshit on the idea that Iraq was something that we should still do in hindsight. He trashed the idea of free trade and TTIP - another Republican shibboleth. He refused to go down the standard Republican route of trashing social security... ..."
"... All he needs to do is call bullshit on this 'evidence' of Russian hacking and remind everyone that it wasn't Russians who manned the planes on 9/11. Trump is a oafish clown - but he's not a standard politician playing standard politics. He can shrug off this oh-so-clever manoeuvre by Obama with no trouble. ..."
"... Sanctions = token gestures that will soon fade into the distance. Much like you know who. Obama is salty because of Kilary getting whupped and Putin out-playing him in Syria. Never thought I would see the day when I sided with Trump over Obama. Interesting times. ..."
"... Yes, the so-called liberals are losing all over. They blame everyone but themselves. The problem is that they have been found out. They were not real liberals at all. They had little bits of liberal policies like "Gay rights" and "bathrooms for Transgenders" and, of course, "Anti-Anti-Semitism Laws" and a few other bits and pieces with which they constructed a sort of camoflage coat, but the core of their policies was Corporatism. Prize exhibits: Tony Blair and Barak Obama. ..."
"... The extreme Left and extreme Right ("Populists") are benefiting by being able to say what they mean, loud and apparently clear. People are not, on the whole, politically sophisticated but they do realise that they have been lied to for a very long time and they are fed up. That is why "Populists are making such a showing in the polls. People don't believe in the centre's "Liberalism" any more. ..."
"... Obama acting like a petulant child that has to leave the game and go home now, so he's kicking the game board and forcing everyone else to clean up his mess. Irresponsible. ..."
"... Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly I suspect he be silent, because Trump is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried under Obama, just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from the Bush area. You are a wishful thinker, if you think Obama is going anything after he leaves office. ..."
"... So the person awarded a Nobel Peace Prize uses his last weeks in office to sour relations between the only 2 superpowers on Earth for - what ? ..."
The president-elect has been consistently ->
skeptical
about the US intelligence ->
consensus that Russia ordered cyber-attacks on Democratic party targets as a way to influence the 2016 election in his favor
– the reason for Obama's new sanctions. At one point, he suggested the culprit might have been China, another state or even
a 400lb man in his bedroom .
On taking office in January, Trump might therefore be expected to simply end the Obama sanctions. And as president, he could do
so; presidential orders can simply be repealed by the executive branch.
But the situation is not that simple. If Trump did choose to remove the sanctions, he would find himself at odds with his own
party. Senior Republicans in Congress responded to the Obama sanctions by identifying Russia as a major geopolitical foe and criticizing
the new measures only as a case of too little too late. Some promised a push for further measures in Congress.
Trump may therefore choose not to reverse the new sanctions. If so, he will find himself at odds with the man he so constantly
praises.
On Friday, the Kremlin responded to the moves, including the expulsion of 35 suspected intelligence operatives and the closing
of two Russian facilities in the US,
with
a shrug . Putin, it seems, is willing simply to wait until Trump moves into the Oval Office. Trump's tweet suggested he is too.
But such provocative words could not distract the media and public from another domestic concern for Trump – the growing perception
that his predecessor has acted
to
his disadvantage .
"The sanctions were clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to throw a wrench into – or [to] box in – the next administration's
relationship with Russia,"
All Obama does with his clumsy movements is just attempting to blame Russians for Democrat's loss of elections. Also he is obscuring
peaceful power transition while at it.
All what Trump needs to do is to just call the looser a loser a move on.
White House/StateDep press release on sanctions is ORWELLIAN: corruption within the DNC/Clinton's manager Podesta undermines the
democracy, not its exposure as claimed (let alone the fact that there is still no evidence that the Russian government has anything
to do with the hacks).
The press release also talks about how the security of the USA and its interests were compromised, so Obama in effects says
that national security interest of the country is to have corrupt political system, which is insane.
This argumentation means that even if Russian government has done the hacking, it was a good deed, there is nothing to sanction
Russia for even in such case.
'Fraid both Putin and Trump are a lot smarter than Barry. Putin's move in not retaliating and inviting US kids to the Kremlin
New Year party was an astute judo throw. And Barry is sitting on his backside wondering how it happened.
.. Probably Obama's "exceptionalism" made him so clumsy on international affairs stage..
.. just recently.. snubbed by Fidel.. he refused to meet him..
.. humiliated by Raul Castro, he declined to hug president of USA..
.. Duterte described.. hmm.. his provenance..
.. Bibi told him off in most vulgar way.. several times..
.. and now this..
..pathetic..
P.S.
You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus some that are beyond imagination."
Charles de Gaulle.
Yes, the so-called liberals are losing all over. They blame everyone but themselves. The problem is that they have been found
out. They were not real liberals at all. They had little bits of liberal policies like "Gay rights" and "bathrooms for Transgenders"
and, of course, "Anti-Anti-Semitism Laws" and a few other bits and pieces with which they constructed a sort of camoflage coat,
but the core of their policies was Corpratism. Prize exhibits: Tony Blair and Barak Obama.
The extreme Left and extreme Right ("Populists") are benefiting by being able to say what they mean, loud and apparently clear.
People are not, on the whole, politically sophisticated but they do realise that they have been lied to for a very long time and
they are fed up. That is why "Populists are making such a showing in the polls. People don't believe in the centre's "Liberalism"
any more.
"US intelligence consensus that Russia ordered cyber-attacks on Democratic party targets as a way to influence the
2016 election in his favor "
These people either think that an ex-British Ambassador is not an important witness or they don't want to hear anything that
contradicts the narrative they have been told to spin. It has to be one or the other.
Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly I suspect he be slient, because Trump
is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried under Obama, just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from
the Bush area. You are a wishful thinker, if you think Obama is going anything after he leaves office.
We watched trump defeat republican favourites to get the nomination. He has not really needed them as much as they have felt they
need him. Then he has big oil in his transition team, tillerson if I am not mistaken, connected to exxon which has oil interests
in Russia....
I also think this is Obama's move to direct attention away from the cease fire in Syria. There the US has been supporting all
these groups, flying air missions and dropping special forces in Syria for years now, and the US has no seat at the table of the
cease fire negotiations. That should be very embarrassing for the US, but it apparently is not, because all the media wants to
talk about are these sanctions, which seem pretty trivial to me. The Obama/media machine scores another hollow victory. Can't
wait until this guy is out of office.
Still no proof of any meddling by the Russians. Only a last gasp attempt by a weak president in what is starting to look like
a boys against men tussle with Putin. Add the Syria ceasefire brokered by Turkey and Putin to this to show how Obama is being
outmanouvered at every turn.
Sad to see what a far cry from Obama the candidate Obama the president has turned out to be.
Action makes propaganda's effect irreversible. He who acts in obedience to propaganda can never go back. He is now obliged to
believe in that propaganda because of his past action. He is obliged to receive from it his justification and authority, without
which his action will seem to him absurd or unjust, which would be intolerable. He is obliged to continue to advance in the direction
indicated by propaganda, for action demands more action.
Jacques Ellul:
The Obama administration should be thanking Russian efforts to end the war in Syria. We know the MIC wanted this civil war to
go on for another decade.
PS once you are there, read everything else Craig Murray has written there. This is the ambassador HM government fired for
daring to speak out against the Uzbek government's human rights abuses.
All Americans should be alarmed that their country is now losing its edge in terms of the manipulation of other countries' electoral
processes. This is "unpresidented". Where previously we had implemented such actions ourselves without fear of reciprocation we
should be concerned that we are no longer immune to such machinations by other states. These events may represent a turning point
as regards our accepted global hegemony. Share
Obama has been anti-Russia long before Trump came into the picture.
This article is more of a wish list than anything else.
We are told by 'experts' that 'There is now a public record of what Russia did'
Where is it? I would love to see this.
I do know that the 2 countries that carry out most cyber attacks in the world are the US and it's main ally in the Middle East.
Just ask the Iranians what they did.
Obama complaining about Russian influence in American elections.
Last time I've checked it was Mr. Obama that warned British people against Brexit, wasn't? What about the deposition of an
ELECTED president in Ukraine with their support of Obama and EU? Let's talk also about regime changes in Syria, Lybia and Egypt
undertaken under Obama's administration? Perhaps we could also remember that Obama's agencies spied 3 million of Spanyards, Merkel,
Dilma Rousseff (Brazilian President) and so on... WHAT A HIPOCRISY, OBAMA!!!!
You have hit the nail on the head on all your points. But America and especially the American military needs a boogy man to justify
the trillions of dollars of American tax payer money they request to keep their military empire going. Imagine if there was no
boogy man and the conclusion was to half the American military to a size only equal to the next 6 largest militarys instead of
the present 13. Incidentally, most of the next largest militarys are allies of the United States.
This whole kerfuffle about Russian hacking has the stink of shooting the messenger. What about concentrating on what was in the
leaked e-mails. They showed a high level of deep corruption in the DNC. That is the importance of the hacked e-mails. Whoever
hacked and released them to the American public has done the America public a great favor. If Wasserman Shultz in cohoots with
Hillary had not swung the primaries in favor of Hillary and if Obama had remembered that the constitution says the government
is for the people and by the people (the peoples choice was by a huge margin for Bernie) and come out for Bernie, we wouldn't
be in the CF we are in right now. I thought Obama is a constitutional lawyer. So much for the constitution. The only statesman
in this mess is Putin. Thank heaven for his level headedness. The American pronouncements have the stink of the build up to another
false flag operation (the CIA revelations themselves are probably a false flag operation). I hope Putin can keep his 'cool' in
the face of American provocation.
Well what a spiteful, petty man this Obama has turned out to be! This is the first time his side hasn't 'won' and he can't take
it so throws his toys out the pram and risks further souring relationships with the East. Thank goodness Putin rose above it.
Ha! Obama has obviously nothing to lose and decided to make hay in the limited time he has. More mischief making. Love it. Let's
face it the master spiteful petty man is the one about to occupy the white house.
This just shows the real character of Obama. Queering the pitch for Trump and the incoming administration. But well done Putin
for sidestepping. Clever. Much smarter than Obama. In the end lawyers make bad Presidents and bad Prime Ministers.
Bit of a pot-kettle interface going on here. America leads the way in the hacking of public servers around the world and spying
on friend and enemy alike. Not long ago the CIA tapped into Angela Merkel's mobile phone and I don't remember the same level of
public outcry. Seems like America is affronted that Russia and others are now doing what the US has done for years. And if it
is in fact the Russians - proof not yet forthcoming - this wasn't a hack into the electoral system at all; it was a simple phishing
email that the US officials were silly enough to click onto the link.
And finally - what eventually was released was the truth. Clinton was favoured by the DNC, she did say those things to Goldman
Sachs, a CNN reporter did provide her with the questions before the presidential debates. The truth is that the US elections were
corrupted, but not by the Russians - the culprits lie a little closer to home.
Obama tried to corner Russia, and almost all GOP lawmakers applauded Obama's action. Called it was well overdue. But our smart
president-elect comforted crying Putin right away by calling him a smart man for not taking any actions. It is becoming more and
more clear that Trump and Putin are made for each other. I think Trump is keeping Putin on his side to take air out of overinflated
Chinese balloon. May be he was advised by his team. No one knows his game plan.
Nearly 40 years ago , at the height of the cold war when I joined up to serve my country, never did i dream the day would come
when I had more respect for the leader of Russia than a president of the USA and that I would have more faith in the Russian media
than our own fake media.
Not content with merely stealing the silverware, BO is intent on causing as much mischief as possible before being booted out
of the White House, but the Russians are not falling for it. They will be dealing with Donald Trump in a few weeks, and there
is no need to respond to Barry's diaper baby antics.
I'm sure the Russians are hacking our internet systems, but the DNC emails that went to WikiLeaks did not come from them. The
content, outlining Podesta's plan to discredit Bernie supporters by falsely tying them to violent acts, would indicate that a
disgruntled and disgusted DNC employee was more likely the source.
The liberal media, I can't wait until they claim that Trump has few paths to victory from this trick bag he is in. We are living
in the dying days of the Obama administration. Things will be very different January 20, 2017. Things that appear difficult or
impossible now will suddenly be taken care of with the stroke of a pen. It will be exciting to see. Just a few months ago, Trumps
path to victory was so small that he shouldn't even bother trying, then it was the electors will do something about Trump. It
was all nonsense. This to about Obama limiting Trump is nonsense. Obama's lines in the sand are completely without effect.
It is of course impossible as the USA has the most and claimed most advanced spying network on the planet. It totally surrounds
both friends and foes alike - with such technical ability the only country who could spy and influence (e.g. arm twisting Merkal
is a prime example) on any country at will is the 'exceptional ' US Government.
If there was genuine evidence that Russia had somehow swayed the election, Hilary Clinton - who desires power above all other
things - would now be bringing a legal case to overturn the result and get a re-election.
But there is no evidence - only lies and cynicism. A few weeks ago I was convinced that US politics had hit a nadir and that
it couldn't smell any worse or get any more ridiculous. How wrong I was.
The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it's done so as many as
81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.
That number doesn't include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn't
like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election
monitoring. [...]
In 59% of these cases, the side that received assistance came to power, although Levin estimates the average effect of "partisan
electoral interventions" to be only about a 3% increase in vote share. (
Source
)
I understand why some may find outside interference objectionable, but I reckon many of those who think so fail to recognise
America's far-from-faultless behaviour. Curses are like chickens; they always come home to roost.
Of course had the DNC leadership and the Clinton camp behaved ethically in the primary by not conspiring to tip the scale in
Clinton's favour, the hack would have found nothing. What we have now is Obama forced to divert the public attention because of
yet another messy scandal Hillary finds herself involved in. Clinton must be one of the most blessed people on earth; everyone
bends over backwards to accommodate her ambitions.
Also the CIA-Belgian assassination of Lamumba in 61, Congo's first democratically elected president, for the same 'geopolitical'
aka 'big business' reasons as the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 53, who wanted the nationalize Iranian oil for their people,
and Lumumba had similar 'socialist' ideas for all the vast Congolese resources. To cut out the western business interests. And
think how well the Congo has fared since, one of the worst, saddest places, chaos, civil war, more dead than in Rwanda or anywhere
I think. They have not recovered from that.
And Iran, they were democratic, secular, elected a guy like Mossadegh, they were 'European', but the the US and Britain overthrew
him on behest of British-US oil interests, installed the Shah, their puppet dictator, and the blow-back was the Iranian religious
right-wing revolution and dictatorship some 20 years later. And now the Iranian people and our 'foreign policy' are suffering.
And all these US and CIA 'activities' the government had admitted and declassified, like the Gulf of Tonkin lie and false flag
in Vietnam, because it was so long ago nobody cares, so it's no 'conspiracy' here, just history. But now these Clinton Democrats
they really love and trust anything the CIA says, of course, they are big patriots now, and call people unpatriotic and foreign
agents if they question the so honorable CIA, because they are on Hillary's side now.
And the CIA in cahoots with Bush and Cheney also told us how there were these big, scary WMDs in Iraq, and mushroom clouds, and
how Saddam had links with Al Qaida, all obvious lies, that any amateur who knew basic world history could tell you even then.
And speaking of 'meddling', and overthrowing democratic governments, the US did the same under Obama and Hillary in Honduras
just a few years ago, backed the violent coup of a democratic leftist government there, and they still refuse to call it a coup,
and have legitimized the new corrupt and violent regime, are training their army, etc. Even though the EU and the US ambassador
to Honduras called it a coup at the time.
And for the same reasons, that leftist government didn't want to play ball with big US and western 'business interests', energy
companies, didn't want to sell them their rivers and resources like the new 'good' regime now. And since that coup, 100s of indigenous
activists and environmentalists have been killed, like Berta Caceres, and the violence and corruption has gone up big time under
the new regime, with 1000s more killed 'in general'. Yet Obama is so concerned about 'the integrity of democracy' and elections
and freedom and all that, what a nice guy.
The real question that Americans should be asking why Barack Obummer failed again to provide security in case of hacking Democrat's
emails?
Clinton did not deny that emails published by WikiLeaks were genuine.
That is called freedom of press.
What's wrong with public finding the truth about Clinton? Share
Facebook
Twitter
Haven't you noticed that whole of the West has already moved that way? I do not mean pro-Putin, I mean priority of national interests
at home and some isolationism.
Obama is leaving office with the record of saving American troops lives by the process of using drones which on dodgy information
mainly target wedding parties. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Appears suspiciously likely that Obama is just bitter that his legacy is about to be dumped in the nearest skip on Jan 20, and
wants to make trouble for Trump during his last 3 weeks in office.
Hard to see how Putin could have engineered Hillary Clinton's defeat, given she won the popular vote by 3 million.
Also Obama is extremely hypocritical as the CIA has repeatedly interfered in the affairs of other countries over the past 60
years.
The CIA never released emails of any country's people. It's simply bad tradecraft, meaning that it can't be used when one really
needs it. Share
Facebook
Twitter
The story is that they were 'leaked' to Wikileaks and that only stuff that helps Trump was leaked. There are loads of Republican/Trump
mails that remain secret (presumably). Sounds plausible to me but the how the hell would I know? Share
Facebook
Twitter
Not really. Democrats lost the election, through their own fault, and now Putin is waiting till Trump comes in office. All will
go swimmingly and we can look forward to better relations between the USA-Russia. Win win. Share
Facebook
Twitter
On Thursday, the Arizona senator John McCain and South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham said in a joint statement: "The retaliatory
measures announced by the Obama administration today are long overdue.
That's all I needed to know. If lunatic war monger John McCain wants to ratchet up the tension with a nuclear power - then
it is very wise to do the opposite. Share
Wouldn't it be hilarious if a revolution broke out next year in Russia, over the downward spiralling Russian economy, just when
Putin thinks he has victory in sight?
Ah! The evident effects of sipping too much Death Wish Coffee 64 fl.oz - 3,472 mg of caffeine it could do serious damage to your
brain. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Wow, the Trump/kremlin brigade zoomed in on this comments section faster than greased lightening! Good to know that some people
just love them some fascism! Share
Facebook
Twitter
Red baiting won't close down the debate. There's still no evidence of Russian hacking of the US election.
And fascism is shouting people down who ask for evidence and don't just follow the President because he is attacking the outsiders.
Share
Facebook
Twitter
I don't usually follow American elections but is this the usual way to hand over to a new president is to try to kick him in the
teeth? Share
Facebook
Twitter
It were GOP senators leading the huzzas for invading Iraq too. But Ted Cruz? James Inhoffe? Half of the GOP senators are just
hirelings for big business. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Such a move - did you manage to think this one up by yourself? Or is it just recient history repeating itself - you have only
a one tracked mind, a bit like your icon. Share
Facebook
Twitter
The fact that the Russian sanctions makes things difficult for blowhard Trump is not the issue nor the intent. President Obama
was acting in response to Russia's interference with our diplomats and cyber attacks. This needed to be done. As to Trump, that's
tough. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Why would Russia be happy that Clinton lost? Why would any foreign power be happy that Clinton lost?...
How many years did HRC, in her arrogance-fuelled denial, provide foreign intelligences with literally tonnes of free info??!
Trump might therefore be expected to simply end the Obama sanctions. .... But if he did choose to do so, he would find himself
at odds with his own party.
Trump is exactly where he is today because he attacked that same party. He called bullshit on the Bush's claims to have
made the US safer and called bullshit on the idea that Iraq was something that we should still do in hindsight. He trashed the
idea of free trade and TTIP - another Republican shibboleth. He refused to go down the standard Republican route of trashing social
security...
All he needs to do is call bullshit on this 'evidence' of Russian hacking and remind everyone that it wasn't Russians who
manned the planes on 9/11. Trump is a oafish clown - but he's not a standard politician playing standard politics. He can shrug
off this oh-so-clever manoeuvre by Obama with no trouble.
Simple solution, publish the commenter geolocation and ban proxy, clean the comment section from putinbots. Putin like ASBO's
must stop to do more harm against democracy.
There's still no evidence regarding the origin of the cyber attack. I've seen you posting a link to the report. The first line
in it is a disclaimer: "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information
contained within". Which is very wise from them.
Sanctions = token gestures that will soon fade into the distance. Much like you know who. Obama is salty because of Kilary
getting whupped and Putin out-playing him in Syria. Never thought I would see the day when I sided with Trump over Obama. Interesting
times.
Yes, the so-called liberals are losing all over. They blame everyone but themselves. The problem is that they have been found
out. They were not real liberals at all. They had little bits of liberal policies like "Gay rights" and "bathrooms for Transgenders"
and, of course, "Anti-Anti-Semitism Laws" and a few other bits and pieces with which they constructed a sort of camoflage coat,
but the core of their policies was Corporatism. Prize exhibits: Tony Blair and Barak Obama.
The extreme Left and extreme Right ("Populists") are benefiting by being able to say what they mean, loud and apparently
clear. People are not, on the whole, politically sophisticated but they do realise that they have been lied to for a very long
time and they are fed up. That is why "Populists are making such a showing in the polls. People don't believe in the centre's
"Liberalism" any more.
Ben, I found Glenn Greenwald's take on you quite interesting. Have you responded? And, yes, I know, my polite and pertinent question
will violate the terms here.
Good to see someone with the bollox to call a spade a spade.
More importantly it helps lift the eyelids of those who think our msm tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
You just know these people, like Johnny boy, who are pointing fingers at Russia are doing so based upon long laid plans to bind
up Trump from building a healthy relationship with Russia which would put an end to terrorism and likely all of these petty little
wars that are tearing the world to pieces. These people want war because division keeps them in power and war makes them lots
of money. I hope that Trump and Putin can work together and build a trust and foundation as allies in that together we can stamp
out terrorism and stabilize the worlds conflicts. Everything these people do in the next 20 days has a single agenda and that
is to cause instability and roadblocks for Trump and his team. Hope is just around the corner people so let's help usher it in.
Don't trust anyone until you know them. Been married and watched it turn to shit? You can't really trust anyone. The same can
be said for any country member.
"US intelligence consensus that Russia ordered cyber-attacks on Democratic party targets as a way to influence the
2016 election in his favor "
These people either think that an ex-British Ambassador is not an important witness or they don't want to hear anything that
contradicts the narrative they have been told to spin. It has to be one or the other. Share
First... let's see some actual evidence/proof. Oh, that's right, none has been offered up.
Second... everyone is upset that the DNC turd was exposed, but no one upset about the existence of the turd. ?
Obama acting like a petulant child that has to leave the game and go home now, so he's kicking the game board and forcing
everyone else to clean up his mess. Irresponsible.
Hundred times repeated lie will become the truth... that's the US officials policy for decades now. In 8 years, they did nothing,
so they are trying to do "something" in the last minute. For someone, who's using his own brain is all of this just laughable.
United States are not united I guess. Guess, that Merkel is the next on the list...
Hopefully now this will enable senate and congress republicans to prevent these crazy ideas of Russian appeasement take hold and
pursue a hardline against Russia, Hamas, Iran and Cuba.
Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly I suspect he be silent, because Trump
is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried under Obama, just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from
the Bush area. You are a wishful thinker, if you think Obama is going anything after he leaves office.
I think you can blame Obama for underestimating Putin. Remember when he told Putin before the 2012 election off mike that he would
have more leeway after the election. Remember when Romney in 2012 warned us that Russia was a big threat and Obama thought that
was silly. Obama has been outclassed by Putin at every turn. Whatever else you may say about Trump, he recognizes that Putin is
worthy adversary not one to be marginalized. Putin has manage to marginalize the US in Syria despite all the money and effort
we have dumped into it.
The foreign power did the American people a favor when it exposed the corruption within the Democratic Party; something the establishment
media was apparently unable or unwilling to do. Rather than sanctioning Putin, Americans should be thanking him!
His recent announcement (no tit-for-tat) was masterful politicking. Should Trump refuse to do anything, Putin knows he can
wrap Trump around his finger, with the added bonus of both US houses kicking off.
If Trump does do something, relations will sour and Putin can blame the US.
" and decides not to accept it he will have to make it public,"
Solely a presumption on your part, a simple statement by the new agency heads saying that the info is inconclusive and the
method of the investigation will not be revealed cancels your whole argument. Sure the press will howl, but Trumps using Twitter
to talk to the people and unless someone leaks you got nothing.
Seems a no brainer, reverse Obama's ridiculous posturing gesture. As if the US doesn't have a long track record of interfering
in the affairs of other countries.
Personally I think the US should do as it wishes but it's extremely hypocritical to act shocked when the same meddling is returned
by others. Obama is acting foolishly as if the final weeks of his presidency have any genuine traction on future events.
We watched trump defeat republican favourites to get the nomination. He has not really needed them as much as they have felt they
need him. Then he has big oil in his transition team, tillerson if I am not mistaken, connected to exxon which has oil interests
in Russia....if trump removed big oil from his team maybe he can get out of this without escalating the issue or appearing to
be a putin puppet...
"... I also think this is Obama's move to divert attention away from the cease fire in Syria. ..."
"... The Obama/media machine scores another hollow victory. Can't wait until this guy is out of office. ..."
"... The Obama administration should be thanking Russian efforts to end the war in Syria. We know the MIC wanted this civil war to go on for another decade. ..."
"... Oh for christ's sake, once again: There were no hacks, the emails were LEAKED! Probably by Democrats disgusted by the way Bernie was treated. ..."
"... All Americans should be alarmed that their country is now losing its edge in terms of the manipulation of other countries' electoral processes. This is "unprecedented". ..."
"... Red baiting won't close down the debate. There's still no evidence of Russian hacking of the US election. And fascism is shouting people down who ask for evidence and don't just follow the President because he is attacking the outsiders. Share Facebook Twitter TheControlLeft -> osprey1957 , 30 Dec 2016 21:12 It's preferable to the Obama brigades sponsorship of Islamic terrorism Share Facebook Twitter monsieur_flaneur , 30 Dec 2016 20:49 Obama, envisioning a spot on Mt Rushmore, exits a laughing stock. Ah well Share Janjii , 30 Dec 2016 20:54 Russia defeated the US in the Ukraine and recently it received an even harder blow Syria. Next think you know the US 'administration' makes a fool of itself by expelling 35 RF officials, who would have though that! Sad to see this beautiful continent is being compromised by someone's puppets in the white house. Nato is crumbling now that Turkey t-he gateway to the Balkans, the Caspian, to the Stannies- rethinks its ties with US/NATO and moves towards Russia. It is crumbling beacuse the world begins to understand that the rationale behind 'operation gladio' /strategy of tension is still ruling the US admin. We could do without NATO, and could use a US government supporting peace rather than an administration creating war. Even Germany starts to realize that, because of the abundance of US military bases in this country, Germany is in fact 'occupied territory', a US colony if you will. The USA has underestimated people on this planet who, as opposed to US politicians, were able to put current politics in a historical perspective. US policymakers took a part of Heidegger, Locke, Freud, Descartes and others without knowing their interpretations were at least incomplete. It results from the way in which US universities teach the discretized model of two extremes with the requirement of choosing one of these without putting both in one perspective: 'Descartes or Pascal' (not both as the French do); 'black or white'; 'with or against us'. The result Americans aimed for was a stable socio-political model, same with 'Neue Sozialismus'. What they obtained was a polarized world, because, a rigid stable model can only be governed by suppression (which the Military industrial Complex is currently doing) and we do not want that. Trump may lack political experience, he may be supported by a group of ideosyncratic wealthy people attracting bad press from 'regulated media'. Equal chance of Trump having a positive or negative effect on US internal and external policy-making, and on the relationship with RF. But, Trump has one advantage: the more the Obama 'administration' barks, the more support Trump will receive to change what Bush-Clinton-Obama have ruined for their electorates; the more to celebrate for the Russians on January 13. LMichelle -> Janjii , 30 Dec 2016 20:57 Bingo. This is not about the integrity of US elections. It's about being punked in Syria this week. The problems with the electoral process in the US were massive before 2016 and never received this many Presidential press conferences. Share ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 20:55 The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it's done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University. That number doesn't include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn't like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring. [...] In 59% of these cases, the side that received assistance came to power, although Levin estimates the average effect of "partisan electoral interventions" to be only about a 3% increase in vote share. ( Source ) I understand why some may find outside interference objectionable, but I reckon many of those who think so fail to recognise America's far-from-faultless behaviour. Curses are like chickens; they always come home to roost. Of course had the DNC leadership and the Clinton camp behaved ethically in the primary by not conspiring to tip the scale in Clinton's favour, the hack would have found nothing. What we have now is Obama forced to divert the public attention because of yet another messy scandal Hillary finds herself involved in. Clinton must be one of the most blessed people on earth; everyone bends over backwards to accommodate her ambitions. Paull01 -> ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 21:18 Please provide an example of a political party behaving ethically during an election campaign? You reckon the republicans weren't trying to tip the scales away from Donny? Also, Clinton lost despite getting way more votes so Donny will be president and it is pointless to continue to indulge in bashing Hillary, she is now just another elderly lady enjoying her golden years. Share Facebook Twitter europeangrayling -> ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 21:23 Also the CIA-Belgian assassination of Lamumba in 61, Congo's first democratically elected president, for the same 'geopolitical' aka 'big business' reasons as the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 53, who wanted the nationalize Iranian oil for their people, and Lumumba had similar 'socialist' ideas for all the vast Congolese resources. To cut out the western business interests. And think how well the Congo has fared since, one of the worst, saddest places, chaos, civil war, more dead than in Rwanda or anywhere I think. They have not recovered from that. And Iran, they were democratic, secular, elected a guy like Mossadegh, they were 'European', but the the US and Britain overthrew him on behest of British-US oil interests, installed the Shah, their puppet dictator, and the blow-back was the Iranian religious right-wing revolution and dictatorship some 20 years later. And now the Iranian people and our 'foreign policy' are suffering. And all these US and CIA 'activities' the government had admitted and declassified, like the Gulf of Tonkin lie and false flag in Vietnam, because it was so long ago nobody cares, so it's no 'conspiracy' here, just history. But now these Clinton Democrats they really love and trust anything the CIA says, of course, they are big patriots now, and call people unpatriotic and foreign agents if they question the so honorable CIA, because they are on Hillary's side now. And the CIA in cahoots with Bush and Cheney also told us how there were these big, scary WMDs in Iraq, and mushroom clouds, and how Saddam had links with Al Qaida, all obvious lies, that any amateur who knew basic world history could tell you even then. And speaking of 'meddling', and overthrowing democratic governments, the US did the same under Obama and Hillary in Honduras just a few years ago, backed the violent coup of a democratic leftist government there, and they still refuse to call it a coup, and have legitimized the new corrupt and violent regime, are training their army, etc. Even though the EU and the US ambassador to Honduras called it a coup at the time. And for the same reasons, that leftist government didn't want to play ball with big US and western 'business interests', energy companies, didn't want to sell them their rivers and resources like the new 'good' regime now. And since that coup, 100s of indigenous activists and environmentalists have been killed, like Berta Caceres, and the violence and corruption has gone up big time under the new regime, with 1000s more killed 'in general'. Yet Obama is so concerned about 'the integrity of democracy' and elections and freedom and all that, what a nice guy. fanUS , 30 Dec 2016 20:58 The real question that Americans should be asking why Barack Obummer failed again to provide security in case of hacking Democrat's emails? Clinton did not deny that emails published by WikiLeaks were genuine. That is called freedom of press. What's wrong with public finding the truth about Clinton? Share Not4TheFaintOfHeart , 30 Dec 2016 20:59 Why would Russia be happy that Clinton lost? Why would any foreign power be happy that Clinton lost?... How many years did HRC, in her arrogance-fuelled denial, provide foreign intelligences with literally tonnes of free info??! Share furiouspurpose , 30 Dec 2016 21:03 Trump might therefore be expected to simply end the Obama sanctions. .... But if he did choose to do so, he would find himself at odds with his own party. Trump is exactly where he is today because he attacked that same party. He called bullshit on the Bush's claims to have made the US safer and called bullshit on the idea that Iraq was something that we should still do in hindsight. He trashed the idea of free trade and TTIP - another Republican shibboleth. He refused to go down the standard Republican route of trashing social security... ..."
"... All he needs to do is call bullshit on this 'evidence' of Russian hacking and remind everyone that it wasn't Russians who manned the planes on 9/11. Trump is a oafish clown - but he's not a standard politician playing standard politics. He can shrug off this oh-so-clever manoeuvre by Obama with no trouble. ..."
On Friday, the Kremlin responded to the moves, including the expulsion of 35 suspected intelligence
operatives and the closing of two Russian facilities in the US, with a shrug. Putin, it seems, is
willing simply to wait until Trump moves into the Oval Office. Trump's tweet suggested he is too.
But such provocative words could not distract the media and public from another domestic concern
for Trump – the growing perception that his predecessor has acted to
his disadvantage .
"The sanctions were clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to throw a wrench into – or [to]
box in – the next administration's relationship with Russia," said Boris Zilberman, a Russia expert
at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
"Putin, in part, saw through that and sidestepped it by playing good cop to [Russian foreign minister
Sergey] Lavrov and the [state] Duma, who were calling for a reciprocal response."
I also think this is Obama's move to divert attention away from the cease fire in Syria.
There the US has been supporting all these groups, flying air missions and dropping special
forces in Syria for years now, and the US has no seat at the table of the cease fire negotiations.
That should be very embarrassing for the US, but it apparently is not, because all the media wants
to talk about are these sanctions, which seem pretty trivial to me.
The Obama/media machine scores another hollow victory. Can't wait until this guy is out
of office.
Still no proof of any meddling by the Russians. Only a last gasp attempt by a weak president in
what is starting to look like a boys against men tussle with Putin. Add the Syria ceasefire brokered
by Turkey and Putin to this to show how Obama is being outmaneuvered at every turn.
Sad to see what a far cry from Obama the candidate Obama the president has turned out to be.
Action makes propaganda's effect irreversible. He who acts in obedience to propaganda can never
go back. He is now obliged to believe in that propaganda because of his past action. He is obliged
to receive from it his justification and authority, without which his action will seem to him
absurd or unjust, which would be intolerable. He is obliged to continue to advance in the direction
indicated by propaganda, for action demands more action.
Jacques Ellul:
The Obama administration should be thanking Russian efforts to end the war in Syria. We know
the MIC wanted this civil war to go on for another decade.
PS once you are there, read everything else Craig Murray has written there. This is the ambassador
HM government fired for daring to speak out against the Uzbek government's human rights abuses.
Share
No, no, you see you just put the word "consensus" before a pathetically transparent lie and then
apparently it magically becomes evidence based and well sourced...
All Americans should be alarmed that their country is now losing its edge in terms of the
manipulation of other countries' electoral processes. This is "unprecedented".
Where previously we had implemented such actions ourselves without fear of reciprocation we
should be concerned that we are no longer immune to such machinations by other states. These events
may represent a turning point as regards our accepted global hegemony.
Obama has been anti-Russia long before Trump came into the picture.
This article is more of a wish list than anything else.
We are told by 'experts' that 'There is now a public record of what Russia did'
Where is it? I would love to see this.
I do know that the 2 countries that carry out most cyber attacks in the world are the US and it's
main ally in the Middle East. Just ask the Iranians what they did. Share
I think all American presidents are anti Russian. Sounds like you was born 2005 or you just doing
your British citizenship. You don't know much so read this
Life in the uk test Share
Facebook
Twitter
Obama complaining about Russian influence in American elections.
Last time I've checked it was Mr. Obama that warned British people against Brexit, wasn't?
What about the deposition of an ELECTED president in Ukraine with their support of Obama and EU?
Let's talk also about regime changes in Syria, Lybia and Egypt undertaken under Obama's administration?
Perhaps we could also remember that Obama's agencies spied 3 million of Spanyards, Merkel, Dilma
Rousseff (Brazilian President) and so on... WHAT A HIPOCRISY, OBAMA!!!! Share
You have hit the nail on the head on all your points. But America and especially the American
military needs a boogy man to justify the trillions of dollars of American tax payer money they
request to keep their military empire going. Imagine if there was no boogy man and the conclusion
was to half the American military to a size only equal to the next 6 largest militarys instead
of the present 13. Incidentally, most of the next largest militarys are allies of the United States.
This whole kerfuffle about Russian hacking has the stink of shooting the messenger. What about
concentrating on what was in the leaked e-mails. They showed a high level of deep corruption in
the DNC. That is the importance of the hacked e-mails. Whoever hacked and released them to the
American public has done the America public a great favor. If Wasserman Shultz in cohoots with
Hillary had not swung the primaries in favor of Hillary and if Obama had remembered that the constitution
says the government is for the people and by the people (the peoples choice was by a huge margin
for Bernie) and come out for Bernie, we wouldn't be in the CF we are in right now. I thought Obama
is a constitutional lawyer. So much for the constitution. The only statesman in this mess is Putin.
Thank heaven for his level headedness. The American pronouncements have the stink of the build
up to another false flag operation (the CIA revelations themselves are probably a false flag operation).
I hope Putin can keep his 'cool' in the face of American provocation.
It starts to look as if Putin and Trump wipe their shoes on Obama at this point, and it is Obama
who asked for it. Embarrassing. Share
Facebook
Twitter
I've read Guardian's article on Russia's response to Obama's tantrum. Yep, it's clear why Obama
lost to Russians and can't cope with it. Now use your own advice, Barry. Go to the back of the
queue. Share
Facebook
Twitter
They were gossipy emails ffs. If that was all it took for H. Clinton to lose to Trump, then the
Democrats really need to do an autopsy on itself. Or, here's a thought, VISIT the states where
you need the support to win. This is becoming soooooo boring! Share
Facebook
Twitter
Well what a spiteful, petty like man this Obama has turned out to be! This is the first time his
side hasn't 'won' and he can't take it so throws his toys out the pram and risks further souring
relationships with the East. Thank goodness Putin rose above it. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Few words left.....the future presidency and its administration is an absolute farce....a 'free
for all' for Trump and his cronies. Watch the rich get even richer and the poor get screwed. America
chose....they have to deal with it.
Unfortunately for those of us who aren't are going to be screwed as well. Lack of tact and ignorance
of diplomacy could ignite a power keg. Share
Facebook
Twitter
The problem is no one trusts the agencies you mentioned anymore based on their past record....
As regards the FBI being no friend of the democrats, didn't they just let her off for storing
thousands of classified emails on a private server?
Besides, the whole world knows that the US have been sponsoring changes of Govs around the world
so it comes across as completely hypocritical.
This appears to be a smokescreen for numerous embarrassing issues relating to the election
& foreign policy.
For the record, I'm not a putin bot or fan if DT. So tired of the same old hackie responses
to anyone who questions the narrative. It's getting really boring. Share
This just shows the real character of Obama. Queering the pitch for Trump and the incoming administration.
But well done Putin for sidestepping. Clever. Much smarter than Obama. In the end lawyers make
bad Presidents and bad Prime Ministers. Share
Bit of a pot-kettle interface going on here. America leads the way in the hacking of public servers
around the world and spying on friend and enemy alike. Not long ago the CIA tapped into Angela
Merkel's mobile phone and I don't remember the same level of public outcry. Seems like America
is affronted that Russia and others are now doing what the US has done for years. And if it is
in fact the Russians - proof not yet forthcoming - this wasn't a hack into the electoral system
at all; it was a simple phishing email that the US officials were silly enough to click onto the
link.
And finally - what eventually was released was the truth. Clinton was favoured by the DNC, she
did say those things to Goldman Sachs, a CNN reporter did provide her with the questions before
the presidential debates. The truth is that the US elections were corrupted, but not by the Russians
- the culprits lie a little closer to home.
Obama tried to corner Russia, and almost all GOP lawmakers applauded Obama's action. Called it
was well overdue. But our smart president-elect comforted crying Putin right away by calling him
a smart man for not taking any actions. It is becoming more and more clear that Trump and Putin
are made for each other. I think Trump is keeping Putin on his side to take air out of overinflated
Chinese balloon. May be he was advised by his team. No one knows his game plan. Share
He is a great tactician. It certainly makes Obama look less threatening.
But he is a horrible strategist. A good strategy doesn't surprise. It makes plain to one's
opponent that things will only get worse--and one had better accommodate sooner rather than later.
It was at the heart of Reagan's strategy, which destroyed the SU.
And this is exactly the situation that Putin faces with or without sanctions. The renewed fracking
is going to keep oil and gas at lows not seen since the 90s. What was interesting was that even
Putin's stooge in the UK, Krassnov, said that Russia faced a very dire economic future. Whatever
Trump does, few Republicans are going to be accommodating after:
1) Crimea and Donbass
2) Blasting Aleppo to smithereens
3) Trying to throw the US election
The latter is an existential threat to every lawmaker, and they are hopping mad at the thought
that it could happen again.
Ironically, Putin is proving ever more clearly that Obama should have used air power in 2013,
as Putin has done in 2016.
It is a lesson that will not be lost on a Republican Congress.
1) situation caused by US Newland causing havoc in Ukraine by spending millions on regime change.
2) caused by US arming terrorists
3) lol - no serious person believes the Reds had any influence. It was the candidate. (If interference
in someone else's election was an international crime, the US would be in the dock every 6 months!)
The fool trump cannot do any worse than what's been occurring the last 15 years! Wars, invasions,
terrorist support and dossiers on mythical WMDs! It's been a disaster. US foreign policy is heavily
influenced by the CFR. He won't have a say in it. They will continue in the same diabolical fashion.
Nearly 40 years ago , at the height of the cold war when I joined up to serve my country, never
did i dream the day would come when I had more respect for the leader of Russia than a president
of the USA and that I would have more faith in the Russian media than our own fake media.
Not content with merely stealing the silverware, BO is intent on causing as much mischief as possible
before being booted out of the White House, but the Russians are not falling for it. They will
be dealing with Donald Trump in a few weeks, and there is no need to respond to Barry's diaper
baby antics.
I'm sure the Russians are hacking our internet systems, but the DNC emails that went to WikiLeaks
did not come from them. The content, outlining Podesta's plan to discredit Bernie supporters by
falsely tying them to violent acts, would indicate that a disgruntled and disgusted DNC employee
was more likely the source. Share
Of course everyone on here decrying Obama's actions knows far more and understands the cyber-attacks/election
interference issue far better than the combined resources and considered judgement of the US intelligence
community.
Of course you do. Goes without saying, all you have to do is cite an example of incompetence or
malfeasance by US intelligence agencies in the past and you rest your case.
Or maybe it's like parents who can't accept their child has been a bully or a general shit at
school. If you are a fan of the Trump-Putin axis you'll go through any self-deceiving contortions
necessary to avoid accepting reality.
Stop defending the indefensible. It happened, Obama acted (albeit slowly) and now Trump quite
properly will be expected to justify any softening of position.
Talking about self-deceiving contortions while performing your own mental gymnastics. It's quite
a show.
You say "stop defending the indefensible", while waving away any past instances of malfeasance
by US intelligence agencies in the past. To be explicit: yes, that includes meddling in other
countries' political affairs. Share
Facebook
Twitter
It is of course impossible as the USA has the most and claimed most advanced spying network on
the planet. It totally surrounds both friends and foes alike - with such technical ability the
only country who could spy and influence (e.g. arm twisting Merkal is a prime example) on any
country at will is the 'exceptional ' US Government.
Appears suspiciously likely that Obama is just bitter that his legacy is about to be dumped in
the nearest skip on Jan 20, and wants to make trouble for Trump during his last 3 weeks in office.
Hard to see how Putin could have engineered Hillary Clinton's defeat, given she won the popular
vote by 3 million.
Also Obama is extremely hypocritical as the CIA has repeatedly interfered in the affairs of
other countries over the past 60 years.
On Thursday, the Arizona senator John McCain and South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham said
in a joint statement: "The retaliatory measures announced by the Obama administration today
are long overdue.
That's all I needed to know. If lunatic war monger John McCain wants to ratchet up the tension
with a nuclear power - then it is very wise to do the opposite. Share
Red baiting won't close down the debate. There's still no evidence of Russian hacking of the
US election.
And fascism is shouting people down who ask for evidence and don't just follow the President
because he is attacking the outsiders. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Russia defeated the US in the Ukraine and recently it received an even harder blow Syria. Next
think you know the US 'administration' makes a fool of itself by expelling 35 RF officials, who
would have though that!
Sad to see this beautiful continent is being compromised by someone's puppets in the white
house. Nato is crumbling now that Turkey t-he gateway to the Balkans, the Caspian, to the Stannies-
rethinks its ties with US/NATO and moves towards Russia. It is crumbling beacuse the world begins
to understand that the rationale behind 'operation gladio' /strategy of tension is still ruling
the US admin. We could do without NATO, and could use a US government supporting peace rather
than an administration creating war. Even Germany starts to realize that, because of the abundance
of US military bases in this country, Germany is in fact 'occupied territory', a US colony if
you will.
The USA has underestimated people on this planet who, as opposed to US politicians, were able
to put current politics in a historical perspective. US policymakers took a part of Heidegger,
Locke, Freud, Descartes and others without knowing their interpretations were at least incomplete.
It results from the way in which US universities teach the discretized model of two extremes with
the requirement of choosing one of these without putting both in one perspective: 'Descartes or
Pascal' (not both as the French do); 'black or white'; 'with or against us'. The result Americans
aimed for was a stable socio-political model, same with 'Neue Sozialismus'. What they obtained
was a polarized world, because, a rigid stable model can only be governed by suppression (which
the Military industrial Complex is currently doing) and we do not want that.
Trump may lack political experience, he may be supported by a group of ideosyncratic wealthy
people attracting bad press from 'regulated media'. Equal chance of Trump having a positive or
negative effect on US internal and external policy-making, and on the relationship with RF. But,
Trump has one advantage: the more the Obama 'administration' barks, the more support Trump will
receive to change what Bush-Clinton-Obama have ruined for their electorates; the more to celebrate
for the Russians on January 13.
Bingo. This is not about the integrity of US elections. It's about being punked in Syria this
week.
The problems with the electoral process in the US were massive before 2016 and never received
this many Presidential press conferences. Share
The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries
– it's done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political
scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.
That number doesn't include military coups and regime change efforts following the election
of candidates the U.S. didn't like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include
general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring. [...]
In 59% of these cases, the side that received assistance came to power, although Levin estimates
the average effect of "partisan electoral interventions" to be only about a 3% increase in vote
share. (
Source )
I understand why some may find outside interference objectionable, but I reckon many of those
who think so fail to recognise America's far-from-faultless behaviour. Curses are like chickens;
they always come home to roost.
Of course had the DNC leadership and the Clinton camp behaved ethically in the primary by not
conspiring to tip the scale in Clinton's favour, the hack would have found nothing. What we have
now is Obama forced to divert the public attention because of yet another messy scandal Hillary
finds herself involved in. Clinton must be one of the most blessed people on earth; everyone bends
over backwards to accommodate her ambitions.
Please provide an example of a political party behaving ethically during an election campaign?
You reckon the republicans weren't trying to tip the scales away from Donny?
Also, Clinton lost despite getting way more votes so Donny will be president and it is pointless
to continue to indulge in bashing Hillary, she is now just another elderly lady enjoying her golden
years. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Also the CIA-Belgian assassination of Lamumba in 61, Congo's first democratically elected president,
for the same 'geopolitical' aka 'big business' reasons as the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in
53, who wanted the nationalize Iranian oil for their people, and Lumumba had similar 'socialist'
ideas for all the vast Congolese resources. To cut out the western business interests. And think
how well the Congo has fared since, one of the worst, saddest places, chaos, civil war, more dead
than in Rwanda or anywhere I think. They have not recovered from that.
And Iran, they were democratic, secular, elected a guy like Mossadegh, they were 'European',
but the the US and Britain overthrew him on behest of British-US oil interests, installed the
Shah, their puppet dictator, and the blow-back was the Iranian religious right-wing revolution
and dictatorship some 20 years later. And now the Iranian people and our 'foreign policy' are
suffering.
And all these US and CIA 'activities' the government had admitted and declassified, like the
Gulf of Tonkin lie and false flag in Vietnam, because it was so long ago nobody cares, so it's
no 'conspiracy' here, just history. But now these Clinton Democrats they really love and trust
anything the CIA says, of course, they are big patriots now, and call people unpatriotic and foreign
agents if they question the so honorable CIA, because they are on Hillary's side now.
And the CIA in cahoots with Bush and Cheney also told us how there were these big, scary WMDs
in Iraq, and mushroom clouds, and how Saddam had links with Al Qaida, all obvious lies, that any
amateur who knew basic world history could tell you even then.
And speaking of 'meddling', and overthrowing democratic governments, the US did the same under
Obama and Hillary in Honduras just a few years ago, backed the violent coup of a democratic leftist
government there, and they still refuse to call it a coup, and have legitimized the new corrupt
and violent regime, are training their army, etc. Even though the EU and the US ambassador to
Honduras called it a coup at the time.
And for the same reasons, that leftist government didn't want to play ball with big US and
western 'business interests', energy companies, didn't want to sell them their rivers and resources
like the new 'good' regime now. And since that coup, 100s of indigenous activists and environmentalists
have been killed, like Berta Caceres, and the violence and corruption has gone up big time under
the new regime, with 1000s more killed 'in general'. Yet Obama is so concerned about 'the integrity
of democracy' and elections and freedom and all that, what a nice guy.
The real question that Americans should be asking why Barack Obummer failed again to provide security
in case of hacking Democrat's emails?
Clinton did not deny that emails published by WikiLeaks were genuine.
That is called freedom of press.
What's wrong with public finding the truth about Clinton? Share
Why would Russia be happy that Clinton lost? Why would any foreign power be happy that Clinton
lost?...
How many years did HRC, in her arrogance-fuelled denial, provide foreign intelligences with literally
tonnes of free info??! Share
Trump might therefore be expected to simply end the Obama sanctions. .... But if he did
choose to do so, he would find himself at odds with his own party.
Trump is exactly where he is today because he attacked that same party. He called bullshit
on the Bush's claims to have made the US safer and called bullshit on the idea that Iraq was something
that we should still do in hindsight. He trashed the idea of free trade and TTIP - another Republican
shibboleth. He refused to go down the standard Republican route of trashing social security...
All he needs to do is call bullshit on this 'evidence' of Russian hacking and remind everyone
that it wasn't Russians who manned the planes on 9/11. Trump is a oafish clown - but he's not
a standard politician playing standard politics. He can shrug off this oh-so-clever manoeuvre
by Obama with no trouble.
"... One bankruptcy attorney told the Detroit Metro Times he had as many as 30 cases in 2015 tied to debt from the UIA; before the automated system was implemented, he said he would typically have at most one per year with such claims. The newspaper also found claimants who were charged with fraud despite never having received a single dollar in unemployment insurance benefits. ..."
"... A pair of lawsuits were filed in 2015 against the UIA over Midas. According to a pending federal case, in which the state revealed it had discontinued using Midas for fraud determinations, the system "resulted in countless unemployment insurance claimants being accused of fraud even though they did nothing wrong". ..."
"... Blanchard told the Guardian in February that many unemployment applicants may not have realized they were even eligible to appeal against the fraud charge, due to the setup of Midas. Attorneys representing claimants have said that many refuse to ever apply for unemployment benefits again. ..."
"... Levin, who represents part of metropolitan Detroit, said in his statement that Michigan officials had to fully account for the money that has flowed into the unemployment agency's contingent fund. ..."
Michigan government
agency wrongly accused individuals in at least 20,000 cases of fraudulently seeking unemployment
payments, according to a review by the state.
The review released this week found that an automated system had erroneously accused claimants
in 93% of cases – a rate that stunned even lawyers suing the state over the computer system and faulty
fraud claims.
"It's literally balancing the books on the backs of Michigan's poorest and jobless," attorney
David Blanchard, who is pursuing a class action in federal court on behalf of several claimants,
told the Guardian on Friday.
The
Michigan unemployment insurance agency (UIA) reviewed 22,427 cases in which an automated computer
system determined a claimant had committed insurance fraud, after federal officials, including the
Michigan congressman Sander Levin, raised concerns with the system.
The review found that the overwhelming majority of claims over a two-year period between October
2013 and August 2015 were in error. In 2015, the state revised its policy and required fraud determinations
to be reviewed and issued by employees. But the new data is the first indication of just how widespread
the improper accusations were during that period .
The people accused lost access to unemployment payments, and reported facing fines as high as
$100,000. Those who appealed against the fines fought the claims in lengthy administrative hearings.
And some had their federal and state taxes garnished. Kevin Grifka, an electrician who lives
in metro Detroit, had his entire federal income tax garnished by the UIA, after it accused him of
fraudulently collecting $12,000 in unemployment benefits.
The notice came just weeks before Christmas in 2014.
"To be honest with you, it was really hard to see your wife in tears around Christmas time, when
all of this went on for me," Grifka said.
The computer system claimed that he had failed to accurately represent his income over a 13-week
period. But the system was wrong: Grifka, 39, had not committed insurance fraud.
In a statement issued on Friday, Levin called on state officials to review the remaining fraud
cases that were generated by the system before the policy revision.
"While I'm pleased that a small subset of the cases has been reviewed, the state has a responsibility
to look at the additional 30,000 fraud determinations made during this same time period," he said.
Figures released by the state show 2,571 individuals have been repaid a total of $5.4m. It's unclear
if multiple cases were filed against the same claimants.
The findings come as Michigan's Republican-led legislature passed a bill this week to use
$10m from the unemployment agency's contingent fund – which is composed mostly of fines generated
by fraud claims – to balance the state's budget. Since 2011, the balance of the contingent fund has
jumped from $3.1m to $155m, according to
a report from a Michigan house agency.
The system, known as the Michigan Integrated Data Automated System (Midas), caused an immediate
spike in claims of fraud when it was implemented in October 2013 under the state's Republican governor,
Rick Snyder, at a cost of $47m.
In the run-up to a scathing report on the system issued last year by Michigan's auditor general,
the UIA began requiring employees to review the fraud determinations before they were issued.
The fraud accusations can carry an emotional burden for claimants.
"These accusations [have] a pretty big burden on people," Grifka said. While he said the new findings
were validating and his own case had been resolved, he called for state accountability.
"There's no recourse from the state on what they're doing to people's lives. That's my biggest
problem with all of this."
Steve Gray, director of the University of Michigan law school's unemployment insurance clinic,
told the Guardian earlier this year that he routinely came across claimants facing a significant
emotional toll. As a result, he said, the clinic added the number for a suicide hotline to a referral
resource page on the program's website.
"We had just a number of clients who were so desperate, saying that they were going to lose their
house they've never been unemployed before, they didn't know," said Gray, who filed a complaint
with the US labor department in 2015 about the Midas system.
The fines can be enormous. Residents interviewed by local news outlets have highlighted fraud
penalties from the UIA
upwards of $100,000 . Bankruptcy petitions filed as a result of unemployment insurance fraud
also increased during the timeframe when Midas was in use.
One bankruptcy attorney
told the Detroit Metro Times he had as many as 30 cases in 2015 tied to debt from the UIA; before
the automated system was implemented, he said he would typically have at most one per year with such
claims. The newspaper also found claimants who were charged with fraud despite never having received
a single dollar in unemployment insurance benefits.
A pair of lawsuits were filed in 2015 against the UIA over Midas. According to a pending federal
case, in which the state revealed it had discontinued using Midas for fraud determinations, the system
"resulted in countless unemployment insurance claimants being accused of fraud even though they did
nothing wrong".
Blanchard told the Guardian in February that many unemployment applicants may not have realized
they were even eligible to appeal against the fraud charge, due to the setup of Midas. Attorneys
representing claimants have said that many refuse to ever apply for unemployment benefits again.
A spokesman for the unemployment insurance agency, Dave Murray, said it appreciated Levin's work
on the issue and said it was continuing "to study fraud determinations".
The agency had already made changes to the fraud determination process, he said, and "we appreciate
that the state legislature this week approved a bill that codifies the reforms we've set in place".
Levin, who represents part of metropolitan Detroit, said in his statement that Michigan officials
had to fully account for the money that has flowed into the unemployment agency's contingent fund.
"While I am pleased that $5m has been repaid, it strikes me as small compared to the amount of
money that was collected at the time," he said. "Only a full audit will ensure the public that the
problem has been fully rectified."
ManuSHeloma 12 Feb 2016 9:02
Another failure of Gov Snyder's administration: first Flint water, now this. What can the people
of Michigan expect next? The recall of Snyder should be automated.
stuinmichigan pepspotbib 12 Feb 2016 10:02
It's not just Snyder and his lackies. You should see the radically gerrymanderd Michigan legislature,
run by rightist extremists, directed by the Koch Brothers, the DeVos family and others, via the
ALEC program that provides them with the radical right legislation they have passed and continue
to pass. Snyder ran saying that sort of stuff was not really on his agenda, but continues to sign
it. He's either a liar, an unprincipled idiot, or both. It's bad here. And it's getting worse.
DarthPutinbot 12 Feb 2016 9:09
What the f*ck is wrong in Michigan? Split it up among the surrounding states and call it good.
Michigan destroyed Detroit and cutoff their water. Michigan deliberately poisoned the residents
of Flint. Too many Michigan lawyers are crooks or basically inept. The court system screws over
parents in divorce cases. And now, Michigan is wrongly trying to collect money from people on
trumped up fraud charges. Stop it. The federal government needs to take over the state or bust
it up.
Non de Plume 12 Feb 2016 9:23
Hell, when the system *works* it's ridiculous. Watching my Dad - who had worked continuously since
14 years old save a few months in the early 90s - sitting on hold for hours... At least once a
week, to 'prove' he still deserved money from a system he paid into. Hours is not an exaggeration.
And now this. Goddammit Lansing! How many other ways can you try to save/take money from the
poor and end up costing us so much more?!?
Bailey Wilkins stuinmichigan 12 Feb 2016 21:56
Nothing against The Guardian's reporting, but if you follow the links, you'll see FOX 17 has been
covering the story locally since last May. It's their investigation that got the attention of
all the other publications (including Detroit Metro Times.) Local papers could have done a better
job though, agreed on that.
talenttruth 12 Feb 2016 12:48
Leering, Entitled Republican bastards like Governor Snyder simply HATE poor people. And THAT is
because all such bullies are cowards, through-and-through, always selecting as their "victims"
those who can't fight back. And, since such Puritan Cretins as Snyder "Believe" that they are
rich because of their superior merit, it stands to reason (doesn't it) that "poor people" (actually,
all us Little Folk) have NO merit, because we didn't inherit a Trust Fund, Daddy's Business or
other anciently stolen wealth. These people deserve stunningly BAD Karma. Unfortunately, Karma
has its own timeline and doesn't do what seems just, on a timely basis (usually).
Jim Uicker 12 Feb 2016 13:29
With today's sophisticated algorithms, computers are used to flag insurance claims all the time.
The hit rate is usually much better than 8%. But how can they even consider automating the adjudication
of fraud? Fraud is a crime; there should be a presumption of innocence and a right to due process.
Without telling people they had a right to appeal, didn't this system violate the constitutional
rights of Michigan's most vulnerable citizens: those with no job and therefore no money to defend
themselves?
And what about the employers who paid unemployment insurance premiums month after month, expecting
the system to protect their employees from business conditions that would necessitate layoffs?
Michigan has defrauded them as well, by collecting premiums and not paying claims.
Jim Uicker 12 Feb 2016 13:51
Even if the problem with Midas can be entirely blamed on the tech workers who built and tested
the software, there is no excuse for the behavior of the Snyder administration when they became
aware of the problem. Just like the cases of legionnaires disease, where the state failed to alert
the public about the outbreak and four more people died, the Snyder administration is again trying
to sweep its mistakes under the rug.
Before taking Midas offline, the UIA refused to comment on the Metro Times investigation, and
Snyder himself artfully avoided reporters' questions after being made aware of the result of an
investigation by a local television station. Now the state only revealed that it shut down Midas
to a pending lawsuit.
The state spent $47 million dollars on a computer system and then took it offline because it
didn't work. The flaws in the system are now costing the state many millions more. This level
of secrecy is evidence of bad government. The state is supposed to be accountable to taxpayers
for that money! Even if the Snyder administration isn't responsible for all of these tragedies,
it is definitely responsible for covering them up.
Jefferson78759 12 Feb 2016 13:55
This is the GOP "governing"; treat the average person like a criminal, "save" money on essential
infrastructure like water treatment, regardless of the consequences.
I get why the 1% votes GOP but if you're an average person you're putting your financial and
physical well being on the line if you do. Crazy.
MaryLee Sutton Henry 12 Feb 2016 22:30
I was forced to plead guilty by a public defender to the UIA fraud charge & thrown in jail for
4 days without my Diabetic meds or diet in Allegan county. As it stands right now the State of
Michigan keeps sending me bills that are almost $1000 more then what the county says I own. I
have done community service, and between witholding tax refunds and payments I have paid over
$1200 on a $4300 total bill. I have literally spend hours on the phone with UIA and faxing judgements
trying to straighten this out, yet still get bills for the higher amount from UIA. Its a nightmare,
I have a misdominer, until its paid and refuse to pay no more then $50 per month until they straighten
this out. Maybe joining the class action law suit would help. Does anyone have any better ideas??
Teri Roy 13 Feb 2016 13:27
My son and I both got hit, I was able to dispute mine but he has autism and they would not dismiss
his, so at 24 yrs old he's paying back 20 grand in pentailies and interest. Just not right
Outragously Flawless 14 Feb 2016 9:42
I also received a letter stating I owe and hadn't file taxes since 2007. I had to find all of
my taxes from 2007 to 2013 my question is why did they wait over 5yrs to contact me, or is that
the set up H&R block does my taxes and they didn't have records that far back.#sneakyass government
"... That those scheming Russians were clever enough to hack into voting machines, but not clever enough to cover their tracks? ..."
"... It's strangely reminiscent of the days of the Red scare, minus the Reds. ..."
"... The displaced machinists in the industrial midwest, whose votes helped put Trump in the White House, believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton's turn against the TPP. ..."
"... was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with "optics" at the expense of substance. ..."
"... They were so confident of their inevitable victory that they wrote off the old industrial states in favor of luring upscale suburbanites who normally vote Republican. They hoped they would be so revolted by Trump that they would vote for her, but they didn't. ..."
"... It's panic over loss of control. They aren't pondering ways to make things better for the American people. Not in the Beltaway. Not the duoploy. The handwringing is strictly about control and pasification of the population. ..."
"... The long, long list of dodgy-donors to The Clinton Foundation told large numbers of Democrat voters everything they needed to know about a potential Hillary Clinton presidency. This, and the 'knifing' of Bernie, sealed her fate. ..."
"... America will never, and should never, forgive Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. ..."
"... At last! Someone on this newspaper talking common sense. ..."
"... Absurd! She was a rich white hawkish neolib who has no one but herself and the Democratic Pary to blame for the terrible loss which will seal the supreme court for years. Face facts!! She couldn't even beat Trump and was widely viewed as a fraud. ..."
"... The person who lost the Presidential Election in USA is Hillary Clinton. She, like Blair is a war monger. I, if I had a vote, would not have voted for her. ..."
"... If she had been elected we would have had bigger and better wars in the Middle East. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan never ended despite Obama calling the Iraq war a "strategic mistake". One that continued for another eight years. To those two we have added Syria and Lybia. ..."
"... " ...reflecting on how baseless our self-image as the world's greatest democracy is. " The rest of the world has known that for decades. ..."
"... I don't understand how accurate reporting by Wikileaks of politicians' emails is considered 'interference' with the US elections. To me, it seems helpful. If a US newspaper made the report, they would probably get a prize. If a foreign organization made the report, so what? People abroad are free (I hope) to comment on US matters, and people in the US are free to read it or not. ..."
"... Perhaps they mean the Guardian's politics. Identity politics has been thoroughly rejected and instead of learning from the experience, Guardian has been electing to throw more of the same tactics, except louder ..."
"... Americans across the political spectrum are happy to use Putin to distract them from reflecting on how baseless our self-image as the world's greatest democracy is. ..."
"... You're absolutely right. Putin is the boogeyman for every ill, real or purported, of his own society, and when the American political system and its institutions prove to be broken, Putin gets to be the boogeyman for that, too. What a powerful man! He must be pleased. ..."
"... This is an ultimate truth because it explains why Merkel will not be elected. These days Putin is in full control of the world and is responsible for everything. ..."
"... Let's thank Hillary for that. There is a very good news: on the 20th January we'll cut all Saudi supply channels to the IS and kill all the bastards within 2 months. ..."
"... In the modern world it is enough to do nothing to be a good man, eg if Bush, Blair, Obama and Clinton didn't create ISIS, the world would be a much better place. You do not even need to be smart to understand this. ..."
"... It's crazy. Even if the Russian hacking claims are legitimate, the leaks still revealed things about the Democrats that were true. It's like telling your friend that their spouse is cheating on them, and then the spouse blaming you for ruining the marriage. ..."
"... The Clinton campaign spent like drunken sailors, on media. This is a new role for the media giants that took care of Clinton's every need, including providing motivational research and other consultants. ..."
"... The ongoing scenario that now spins around Putin as a central figure is a product of "after shock media". ..."
"... To weave fictional reality in real time for a mass audience is a magnum leap from internet fake news. This drama is concocted to keep DNC from going into seclusion until the inauguration. ..."
"... Doug Henwood is absolutely correct. This obsession with the supposed foreign interference is baseless. All the real culprits operate within our own system. ..."
"... Trump's embrace of Russia and decision to end the neocon-neoliberal agenda of regime change skewer two of the corporate establishment's cash cows - arms sales to the numerous conflicts in the Middle East initiated by the corporate cabal, and arms sales to NATO and all the new post Cold War NATO members to continue the buildup of armaments on Russia's borders." ..."
"... I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, and I note that already Trump's campaign has put down TWO odious political dynasties, AND the TPP -- all very healthy developments. ..."
"... The only thing that kept the contest somehow close was the unprecedented all-media fear campaign against Trump. ..."
"... It was always Hillary's election to lose and she lost it simply because she was not to be trusted. Her very public endorsement by gangster capitalist Jay-Z told you all you needed to know about who she represented. ..."
"... I was dubious before, but I'm now actively concerned. This crop of Democrats and their deep state cohorts are unhinged and dangerous. They see me and my families' lives as an externality in their eventual war with Russia. As Phyrric a victory as there could possibly be. They are psychotic; not only waging countless coups and intelligence operations abroad, but now in plain sight on American soil. The mainstream media seems to invoke the spirit of Goebbels more vividly with each passing day. Their disdain and manipulation of the general populace is chilling. They see us not as people to be won-over, but as things to be manipulated, tricked and coerced. Nothing new for politicians (particularity the opposition) - but the levels here are staggering. ..."
"... January couldn't come soon enough - and I say that as strong critic of Trump. ..."
"... A good article to counterbalance the reams of rubbish we are hearing in the US election post-mortem. Anyone who had neural activity should have known that when you steal the candidacy, you certainly won't get the votes. Clinton effectively handed the election to Trump by not having the humility, humanity and honesty to admit defeat by Benie Sanders. ..."
"... There's always the possibility of course, that the US establishment realised Clinton's blatant warmongering wasn't 'good for business'. ..."
"... So maybe, they thought, we can get the Russkies 'on side', deal with China (ie. reduce it to a 'client state'/ turn it into an ashtray) - and then move on Russia and grab all those lovely resources freed up by global warming.... ..."
"... Only her campaign volunteers knew, her message to the public was "dont vote for Trump" which translates to, I could lose to him, vote for me! ..."
"... The Podesta emails confirmed what many people already suspected and knew of Hillary and her campaign. Those who were interested in reading them had to actually look for them, since MSM was not reporting on them. It's not as if an avid MSNBC or CNN watcher was going to be exposed. ..."
"... It's hilarious how the major Left outlets (Washington Post) are now telling it's readers how Russia is to blame for people voting against Hillary due to the Podesta emails, when they didn't even report on the emails in the first place. ..."
"... EVERYTHING about the system all halfway decent people detest, is summed up in the figure of Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... Like Donald said, she had 'experience', but it was all BAD 'experience'. ..."
"... she is a frail, withered old woman who needs to retire - def the wrong democrat choice, crazy -- Berni.S would have won if for them - he is far more sincere ..."
"... "The displaced machinists... believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton's turn against the TPP. But that was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with "optics" at the expense of substance." ..."
"... This argument is as asinine as the one the author opposes. It was a collusion of events that led to this result, including the failure of both parties to adapt to an evolving economic and social climate over decades. The right wing hailing the collapse of liberalism as a result of decades of liberal mismanagement conveniently forget their own parties have held the reins for half that time, and failed just as miserably as the left.... ..."
"... It's quite bizarre to see "progressives" openly side with the military industrial complex, which is threatened by a president elect weary of more warfare. ..."
"... It's to be expected from career politicians like McCain who is kicking and screaming, but it's shameful to see supposed liberally-minded people help spread the Red Scare storyline. ..."
"... Obama has behaved dreadfully, first he or his office gets one of its poodles namely MI6 to point the finger at Putin re cyberwar, which was swiftly followed by the International Olympic Committee looking at Russia for 2012 Olympic games, the elections in the US and the Democrats CIA coming out with unsubstantiated nonsense (funny how they never like, providing collaborative evidence - on this or anything that supposedly Russia has done) then there is Syria, and Obama and the Democrats were the cheerleader for regime change, because they have been out manoeuvred in that sphere. All of it in less than a week. ..."
"... If Obama, the administration, and the CIA were smart they would have realised that a concerted effort to blame Putin / Russia would be seen for what it is - a liar and one of trying to discredit both the outcome of the US elections, the dislike of HRC, and her association with Wall St. - she raised more money for her campaign than Trump and Sanders put together (if the Democrats had chosen Sanders, then they would have stood a chance) and that their hawk would not be in a position to create WW111 - thank goodness. The Democrats deserved what they got. ..."
"... This organ of the liberal media (no scare quotes required - it is socially liberal and economically neoliberal), along with many others, dogmatically supported Clinton against Sanders to the point of printing daily and ridiculous dishonesty, even going so far as to make out as if anyone who supports any form of wealth redistribution is a racist, sexist, whitesplaining dude-bro. ..."
"... The Wikileaks emails proved the votes were rigged against Sanders, it why Debbie W Shulz had to resign ..."
"... The election was close, and if one less thing had gone wrong for Hillary she would have won. However I think an important thing that lost her the election was identity politics. She patronized Afro-Americans and Hispanics, by tell them that because they are Trump-threatened minorities, they should vote for her. In the same vein, gays and women were supposed to vote for her. But what she was really telling these groups was that they should revel in their supposed victimhood, which was not a great message. ..."
"... Completely agreed! The onus for defeat belongs to the Democrat party leadership as well. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both understood where the momentum of the election was headed before anyone else did. The election was won and lost in the white blue collar Midwest. A place that decided that diet corporatism is decidedly worse than a populist right wing extremist. ..."
"... No one here believed the ridiculous about-face Hillary pulled on the question of the TPP. I guarantee you Bernie would have cleaned Trump's clock in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and perhaps Ohio and Iowa. ..."
"... "Our self-image as the world's greatest democracy...." Well, speaking for myself and plenty of other Americans, I never said anything like that about us. In fact, like a lot of people I wish we would stick to our own business, quit trying to be the world's cop, and cease meddling in other countries' affairs. ..."
"... Assuming that it really was the Russians who done it, I guess they had a better game plan than the Saudis. ..."
"... Her 'deplorables' comment was every bit as telling as Mitt Romney's '47%'. We really needed to know about her 'public versus private positions', even if it only confirmed what everybody already knew. I am not 100% sure the system made the worst choice in raising up Donald Trump. ..."
"... The American voters heard a steady stream of these arguments. Some may have simply ignored them. Others took them into consideration, but concluded that they wanted drastic change enough to put them aside. White women decided that Trump's comments, while distasteful, were things they'd heard before. ..."
"... Reliance on the sanctity of racial and gender pieties was a mistake. Not everyone treats these subjects as the holiest of holies. The people who would be most swayed by those arguments never would have voted for Trump anyways. ..."
"... Colin Powell said Clinton destroys everything she touches with hubris. Seeing as how she destroyed the democrat "blue wall" and also had low turnout which hurt democrats down the ticket I agree. ..."
"... All this hysteria about the USA and Russia finally working together than apart doesn't help either for it appears that the [neoliberal] lefties want a perpetual war rather than peace. ..."
"... The CIA being outraged about a foreign state intervening in an election is quite funny. They have intervened so many times, especially in Latin America, to install puppet regimes. ..."
"... As for hacking... does anybody believe the CIA has never hacked anybody? ..."
Hillary Clinton was the symbol of neoliberal globalization and contept of neoliberal for common
poeple (aka deplorable). That's why she lost. this is more of the first defeat of neoliberal
candidate in the USA then personal defeat of Hillary. She was just a symbol, or puppet, if you wish.
... ... ...
And what exactly are the claims made by these Putin-did-it stories? That were it not for Russian
chicanery, Hillary Clinton would have won the popular vote by five million and not almost three million?
That displaced machinists on the banks of Lake Erie were so incensed by the Podesta emails that they
voted for Trump instead of Clinton? That Putin was pulling FBI director James Comey's strings in
his investigation of the Clinton emails? That those scheming Russians were clever enough to hack
into voting machines, but not clever enough to cover their tracks?
It's strangely reminiscent of the days of the Red scare, minus the Reds.
... ... ...
The displaced machinists in the industrial midwest, whose votes helped put Trump in the White
House, believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted
Clinton's turn against the TPP. But that was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle
and pathologically concerned with "optics" at the expense of substance.
They were so confident of their inevitable victory that they wrote off the old industrial
states in favor of luring upscale suburbanites who normally vote Republican. They hoped they would
be so revolted by Trump that they would vote for her, but they didn't.
... ... ...
Of course there are questions about our voting machines. The American balloting system is a chaotic
mess, with an array of state and local authorities conducting elections under a vast variety of rules
using technologies ranging from old-fashioned paper ballots to sleek touch-screen devices.
The former take forever to count, and the latter are unauditable – we can have no idea whether
the counts are accurate. The whole system is a perfect example of a quote attributed (probably falsely)
to Joseph Stalin: "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide
everything." It's not a system that inspires trust, but we barely discuss that.
It's panic over loss of control. They aren't pondering ways to make things better for the
American people. Not in the Beltaway. Not the duoploy. The handwringing is strictly about control
and pasification of the population.
And you're shocked? I'm shocked you expected more.
The really amazing story about the presidential elections 2016 was actually not Clinton or Trump.
It was how close the US actually got to get its first socialist, or factually rather social-democratic
president. Americans are craving for more justice and equality.
And no, Clinton does not stand for any "left values". Therefore the media favored her.
The long, long list of dodgy-donors to The Clinton Foundation told large numbers of Democrat
voters everything they needed to know about a potential Hillary Clinton presidency. This, and
the 'knifing' of Bernie, sealed her fate. A reincarnated Tricky Dicky would have trounced
her, too.
Weird in your mind only. A letter just before the election suggesting that Clinton might be indicted?
And was she? Of course not. Match the letter's release with the polls at the time to see it's
influence.
Clinton's problems such as her email server were nothing compared to all the baggage that Trump
carries, yet Trump's problems were blithely ignored by many because they thought Trump would make
a difference.
At last! Someone on this newspaper talking common sense.
For the last twenty years, (way before we even knew Putin's name) the Republican Party have
promoted, fomented and instigated the most ludicrous lies and calumnies about the Democratic Party
and particularly Hilary Clinton, who they quite rightly recognised as a future Democratic Presidential
candidate.
They have politicised: education, defense, Federal Parks, water, race, religion and even the
air we breath in their efforts to ensure victory and to this end, they bought and paid for populist
uprisings against Democratic politicians, like the now abandoned Tea Party.
The problem was that even when Republicans were elected, they obviously couldn't keep their
own nonsensical promises to their now rabid audience who no longer trusted their own elected Government.
When Trump, a disestablishment, anti-Government candidate came along, the electorate (naively)
saw a possibility of the change they have been promised.
Of course the Russians prefer Trump over Clinton, since they can see the destruction he can
cause their geopolitical adversary and Putin would say as much as he can to support Trump...errr....even
though it would be counter-productive with conservative voters...but it is unlikely that he bears
anywhere near the blame that the Republican Party does, who foolishly allowed their own 'attack
dog' to bite them on the arse.
I'm sorry to say that the Republican Party (and the US) has to suck this one up and admit...(to
mix my hackneyed metaphors) that they've blown themselves up with their own petard!
I think with hindsight Bernie Sanders is going to be blamed for dividing the Democratic Party
and bolstering the Republican propaganda against the Clintons. If only we had stuck together with
Clinton we wouldn't be facing the Trump disaster now. Hillary Clinton is not evil and she was
very highly qualified--to paraphrase Brando, we could have had progress instead of a disaster,
which is what we have now.
Absurd! She was a rich white hawkish neolib who has no one but herself and the Democratic
Pary to blame for the terrible loss which will seal the supreme court for years. Face facts!!
She couldn't even beat Trump and was widely viewed as a fraud.
You fool, the Libertarian party is the largest third party in the US and they mostly take votes
from the Republicans. Stop blaming third parties when their existence demonstrably helps the Democrats.
Or perhaps you dream of a world where conservatives still support their third party just as much
as they ever did but lefties all move in perfect lockstep? If so, it's time for a reality check.
Up jumped Hilary Benn with the theory that Jeremy Corbyn had caused the Brexit vote. His resignation
and the denunciation of 172 Labour MP's based on an "indisputable fact" that nobody believes to
be true today. The person who lost the Presidential Election in USA is Hillary Clinton. She,
like Blair is a war monger. I, if I had a vote, would not have voted for her.
If she had been elected we would have had bigger and better wars in the Middle East. The
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan never ended despite Obama calling the Iraq war a "strategic mistake".
One that continued for another eight years. To those two we have added Syria and Lybia. The
west, like Russia, is dabbling in other people's wars. They have been made one hundred times worse.
What Hillary would not have dabbled in is the industrial decline in the "Rust Belt" states.
She is proposing to do nothing. So they had the prospect of no rectification at home with yet
more wars abroad. No wonder they stayed at home. Hillary and Nu Labour are the same: belligerancy
in the Middle East coupled with tame pussy cat against failing capitalism at home. The middle
east has got total destruction from the west and total nothingness but austerity (ie more failure)
as the action plan for capitalism. They are on the "same page" then!
I don't understand how accurate reporting by Wikileaks of politicians' emails is considered
'interference' with the US elections. To me, it seems helpful. If a US newspaper made the report,
they would probably get a prize. If a foreign organization made the report, so what? People abroad
are free (I hope) to comment on US matters, and people in the US are free to read it or not.
It could be argued that only reporting democratic emails is distorting the truth: I'd say its
a step towards the whole truth. I welcome all disclosures that are pertinent to a good decision
by US voters.
Perhaps they mean the Guardian's politics. Identity politics has been thoroughly rejected
and instead of learning from the experience, Guardian has been electing to throw more of the same
tactics, except louder
Citizens of the UK are by far the most heavily surveilled in the western world. This has been
the case since long before the ubiquitous introduction of CCTV cameras.
Americans across the political spectrum are happy to use Putin to distract them from
reflecting on how baseless our self-image as the world's greatest democracy is.
You're absolutely right. Putin is the boogeyman for every ill, real or purported, of his
own society, and when the American political system and its institutions prove to be broken, Putin
gets to be the boogeyman for that, too. What a powerful man! He must be pleased.
Only, the thing is, the American political system and its institutions - American democracy
- weren't undermined overnight. It took several decades and it was done by Americans who weren't
so keen on democracy. Can't fob that off on Putin, try as they might.
If American power takes a big fat fall like Humpty Dumpty, don't look to Vladimir Putin, look
in a fucking mirror. That's where you'll find the culprit.
This is an ultimate truth because it explains why Merkel will not be elected. These days Putin
is in full control of the world and is responsible for everything.
Let's thank Hillary for that. There is a very good news: on the 20th January we'll cut all
Saudi supply channels to the IS and kill all the bastards within 2 months.
In the modern world it is enough to do nothing to be a good man, eg if Bush, Blair, Obama
and Clinton didn't create ISIS, the world would be a much better place. You do not even need to
be smart to understand this.
Your Donald.
From where you'd rather be.
With love.
It's crazy. Even if the Russian hacking claims are legitimate, the leaks still revealed things
about the Democrats that were true. It's like telling your friend that their spouse is cheating
on them, and then the spouse blaming you for ruining the marriage.
The Clinton campaign spent like drunken sailors, on media. This is a new role for the media
giants that took care of Clinton's every need, including providing motivational research and other
consultants.
The ongoing scenario that now spins around Putin as a central figure is a product of "after
shock media". Broadcast media bounced America back and forth from sit-com to gun violence
for decades, giving fiction paramount value. To weave fictional reality in real time for a
mass audience is a magnum leap from internet fake news. This drama is concocted to keep DNC from
going into seclusion until the inauguration.
Doug Henwood is absolutely correct. This obsession with the supposed foreign interference
is baseless. All the real culprits operate within our own system.
Maybe, in four years, Trump's administration can oversee a secure election. Unlike the Obama folks,
who seem to make a calamity out of any project bigger than making a sandwich.
This hullabaloo really highlights the disdain the establishment has for the American voter. They
thought they had it tied up. They thought they had pulled one over on the American people. They
are not interested in what the voter actually wants.
And this raises questions about why our servicemen and women are making sacrifices. The establishment
story-line talks about our brave soldiers dying so we can have free elections. Or something like
that. The establishment does not care about free and fair elections. In fact, this hullabaloo
should have demonstrated to everybody that the establishment does not respect or accepts the results
of elections that don't go their way.
Look at WikiLeaks. They died so Hillary could present her ever-so-clever "tick-tock on Libya"
and make fools think she's a constructive foreign policy force.
H. Clinton would have started a war against Russia in Syria come January; and war against Russia
in The Ukraine shortly after. Trump could yet end civilization as we know it: thereagain the CIA
might 'JFK' him early doors before he's able to.
Fully agree with you. Trump's victory is certain to have incalculable consequences for life on
earth. I believe he will give Netenyahu the green light to use tactical nuclear weapons against
Iranian nuclear and military facilities. I am no fan of Trump.
American 'exceptionalism;' The World's Policeman; The greatest country on earth. Descriptions
believed and espoused by the USA. So Exceptional is America that it claims a God-given right to
interfere with or sabotage political parties, foriegn governments (democratically-elected or not)
and sovereign states anywhere it chooses. Now we have the hilarious spectacle of a historically
blood-drenched CIA (Fake News Central) squawking and squealing completely fabricated nonsense
about Kremlin interference in Trump's election victory. Tell that to the tens of millions slaughtered
in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and the many other nations and people's around the globe who have
had first hand experience of American Exceptionalism. You could not make it up..
Arguably, Clinton and the DNC themselves showed very little respect for democracy, as we know
from leaks. And now they are whining because of a democratic outcome they don't like.
We should discuss two things:
- the content of the mails
- and the ethical question: did the hacker, whoever it is, did democracy rather a service than
a disservice? From when on is a piece of information so valuable that its origins don't matter
anymore?
Media, at least in times when msm still had some moral clout, often relied in their investigative
journalism on source which by themselves were not necessarily ethically bona fide - but the public
interest, the common good benefited by the information.
Had Clinton won the election and we only found out now about the trickery that aided in her
success we would have a major dilemma. We would have to have endless discussions now about her
legitimacy.
I am one who firmly believes that Clinton lost this election because of Clinton's and the DNC's
ineptitude and hubris.
But that doesn't mean the Russians weren't running a psy-ops campaign of fake news stories
and misinformation about Clinton and this election on Facebook.
Which was more responsible for Clinton's loss? Most probably Clinton's ineptitude but the fake
news campaigns on Facebook had some effect. It needs to be addressed...
But hadn't Hillary made it personal by saying Trump was Putin's puppet etc?
She even refused to state whether she'd seek to impose a no-fly zone over Syria; this despite
leading Generals telling her it would mean going to war with Russia and Syria.
Given all that, it's hardly surprising the Russian Duma broke into spontaneous applause upon
the confirmation of her defeat. She'd very much cast herself as the enemy of Russia in the campaign.
With the naming of Rex Tillerson, a close business, and personal, friend of Putin, to be Secy.
of State I am not sure the argument can be made that she was wrong in her assessment.
This article is absolutely right. Trump was not a good candidate and for him to beat Clinton should
be setting alarm bells ringing in Democrat HQ. The left though does have an entrenched culture
of deluding itself and convincing itself that its a victim of things beyond its control. That
lack of self awareness and inability to be brutally honest with itself is a major reason why the
left wins many fewer elections than the left. It is also why there are never shock wins for the
Democrats or Labour because they always assume too much. The Tories and Republicans are very good
at understanding their weaknesses and mitigating them to win elections.
It's absurd to consider Clinton and the mainstream Democrats as part of "the Left". Even the best
of the Democrats are generally more on the Right than on the Left, in that they are pro-capitalist
and defend the national interests of U.S. imperialism. Add to that their almost unanimous support
for the settler colony called "Israel" and there's very little leftism to be found among them.
Cunning of Putin to go back in time and persuade the framers of the US constitution to institute
an electoral college, so that he could put his own candidate in place all those hundreds of years
later.
No. Both candidates fought an election under the same rules. In the run up to the vote, Hillary's
spokesmen often argued that even if the vote was close, they had the electoral college sewn up.
She has nobody to blame but herself.
There are plenty of villains who contributed to the electoral downfall of HRC, mostly, though,
it's HRC who is primarily responsible, with a big assist from an arrogant & politically inept
DNC. Hillary won a bare majority of women, plus the average income of Trump voters exceeded that
of Hillies' supporters. Then all the groundwork for the deplorables was laid by Bill, who got
rid of Glass-Steagell. Too much is being made of the machinist from Erie & the deplorables generally
& if the Dems don't take a serious look at themselves we'll have Agent Orange for 8 rather than
4 deplorable years.
For goodness sake, it is not foreign governments , it is information. With advance of social media
and internet it became so much harder to control the information that gets out.
That is where we are in a post-propaganda world. You are not only receiving your government approved
daily portion of brainwashing but propaganda and brainwashing and information from various sources,
all with their various interests. It is your job a s an individual to decide what to believe.
You can't put the jinni back in the box.
It is all about a narrative to suit the agenda. Had Trump outspent Clinton 2:1 he would now be
reviled as the candidate of arms industry, pharmaceuticals and big banks. Had Clinton defeated
him it would be celebrated as a successful setback for the aforementioned industries; the intelligence
of the voters would have been praised. But then supposedly, Clinton was more supported by disadvantaged
groups, albeit they then also would be disadvantaged with regards to their education.
It will always end up in absurdity. However, the notion that "Putin" (never with first name,
or Mr, preferably pronounced "Poot'n") decided the US presidency is, interesting.
Usually the issue simply is, crap candidate, crap result.
Had Sanders been the candidate and had he lost to Trump, I doubt very much he'd have started all
this blaming the Russians nonsense.
Ultimately, Hilary had terrible trustworthiness ratings from nearly 25 years in frontline politics;
every shortcoming ruthlessly exploited along the way by her and her husband's political opponents.
Ignoring all that historic baggage(dating back to the early '90s) as irrelevant and blaming defeat
on the Russians makes everyone supporting that theory look equally absurd.
In the 2016 Presidential election, in the 49 States other than California, Trump won the popular
vote and enough electoral votes to win the election.
In California, the most populous State in America, the popular vote was so overwhelmingly in favor
of Hillary Clinton that she ended up winning the overall popular vote.
The electoral college is working exactly as the Founding Fathers intended.
In Shakespeare's book "Julius Caesar" the dictator was told not to go to the Capitol where he
will be murdered. His wife warned him, the soothsayer warned him but he ignored it. Caesar's wisdom
was consumed in confidence...confidence that he will be crowned king, confidence that all Romans
(most stupid people then) loved him, and confidence that those who surround him are his 'friends.'
He adamantly went to the Capitol and was murdered.
Clinton ignored most rural areas and I totally agree with the writer along this line "They
were so confident of their inevitable victory that they wrote off the old industrial states in
favor of luring upscale suburbanites who normally vote Republican." Clinton and her team paid
dearly for it just like Caesar did. Blaming Russian for the loss is like "You made me do it."
In the UK, Rupert Murdoch accesses a Prime Minister as readily as any government minister and
wields at least as much influence. At least he is open and honest about this. Similar oligarchs
exert their power more discretely. Murdoch's an Australian born US citizen (for business reasons)
with a truly global empire.
A country's big rich have always ruled it's politics. Imperial powers have intervened
in their spheres of influence . But now the big rich are international and, it seems,
1st world electorates are getting a taste of what 3rd world people have become used to.
What strikes me is the reluctance of the US political elite (including Obama) to intervene,
even when there's a suspicion of vote rigging. The right of the rich and powerful to control the
electoral process (as they have long done) trumps the national-interest (US v. rival powers)
side of politics.
Hilary Clinton won the popular vote. More people voted for her. What is the deal with the electoral
college? How is it possible to have such a huge discrepancy between the two. What is the point
of blaming the candidate when they can lose while winning?
And what is the point of blaming the candidate for their campaign when large numbers of Americans
are prepared to believe the most random bullshit? What did you want her to do, lie more often?
Because apparently, that's what it takes.
From my comment above... "In the 2016 Presidential election, in the 49 States other than California,
Trump won the popular vote and enough electoral votes to win the election.
In California, the most populous State in America, the popular vote was so overwhelmingly in favor
of Hillary Clinton that she ended up winning the overall popular vote.
The electoral college is working exactly as the Founding Fathers intended."
The election is decided by Electoral Votes. Everyone including Hillary knew that. Complaining
that she won the popular vote while losing in the Electoral College would be similar to the loser
of a soccer match complaining they lost 1-nil even though they outshot the victor by a 6-1 margin.
Whine all you want about the popular vote, it is irrelevant.
Hillary Clinton visited Arizona in the last week of the election, while visiting Wisconsin
ZERO times in the general election campaign. The trip to Arizona was a waste of time.
She lost because she was a horrible candidate with terrible strategy. All these people bleating
about "Putin" and or the "popular vote" make me laugh.
With respect, you're going to have to back up some of those claims in the second paragraph and
how they could apply to Russia.
As for the first paragraph, a few things come to mind.
Firstly, it's a huge simplification - there are things like public interest laws to be borne
in mind when talking about the press having to obey the law. I don't think there is much doubt
that this was in the public interest. I mean what Clinton did with the email server was actually
illegal. If someone hacked into a mob boss' computer, got evidence of his/her crimes, and leaked
them to the press, would you criticise the hacker or the mob boss?
Secondly, how on earth was this selectively released to favour one side? How do you favour
one side over the other when you only have information on one side. You are literally saying that
you shouldn't report on one side's wrongdoings if you can't find anything wrong about the other's!
If these are genuine - which absolutely no-one to do with Clinton has denied - then that is all
there is to it. Reality isn't partisan.
Or are you talking about how it was released? You mean dumped en masse onto Wikileaks? How
was that showing bias in any way? I just don't understand what you are trying to claim here.
Finally this comment makes me suspect you don't appreciate the American political climate:
But, given the result, the section of the press that would investigate hasn't got the money
or power to do so. You can be assured the Fox network would have devoted billions to the investigation
had HRC won though.
Fox News aren't the only people with money - indeed, Clinton vastly outspent Trump in the election...
by roughly half a billion(!) dollars.
O -- The Director of the CIA says it, then it must be true? Forgive me, but isn't this an organisation
created to spread disinformation around the world, overthrow foreign governments, and subvert
democracy? Which elections in the world has the CIA not tried to influence? Time Magazine openly
boasts that the US government and agencies had a direct role in securing the election of President
Yeltsin (who sold off a significant share of the country's assets under US advice, and plunged
Russia into the worst recession since the 1930s). Hillary Clinton openly supported the management
of the elections for the Palestine National Authority in 2006. Bill Clinton openly agitated for
the overthrow of President Aristide.
Now that the CIA's most assiduous supporters have lost office, up pops the CIA, blaming the Russians,
like we were in some bad 1950s Cold War pastiche. Get real. Take responsibility for your own failures,
Democrats. Time to cleanse the stables.
Where is even the proof of Russian propaganda? It all seems to come from an "Anonymous source",
without verfication I don't see how this is any more legitimate than the rest of the post truth
fake news out there that people believe just because it confirms their biases.
The CIA claim to know that Russian hackers leaked the Clinton campaign emails to Assange. You
can, of course, disbelieve them, but they're not a random anonymous source exactly.
Putin extremely powerful man. Make regime change in Amerika without needing invasion or rebels.
Soon regime change also in many Europan countries by sending copies of emails to small room in
embassy of little country in London.
You know how powerful Putin? Last week even show finger to Chuck Norris! Chuck Norris now call
Putin "sir".
Thank you, Doug Henwood for pointing out what the wholly-owned corporate "pundits" choose not
to divulge to coincide with their own agendas.
Hillary was a disastrous choice for the "Democratic" party, but the vast majority of Democratic
politicians were just too feckless to support Bernie Sanders, so now we have an equally terrible
choice in Donald Trump.
That Clinton and Trump even competed for the presidency is in itself an indication of just
how disconnected and undemocratic U.S. politics has become.
Moreover, as Henwood (a frequent and unsparing critic of Clinton, Inc. over the years) has
pointed out both Democrats and Republicans are supporting the Russia conspiracy theory in a cowardly
attempt to distract the U.S. public from the real and far more dire crisis, which is Washington's
enormous political dysfunction not Russia's complicity. (Read Henwood's essay: Stop Hillary! Vote
no to a Clinton Dynasty in Harper's Magazine, November 2014 - one article a month is free for
reading).
Yes, the electoral college is a ridiculous throwback to slavery which should be abolished,
but its dissolution is just one of many things I'd like to see eradicated from a governing body
that has long stopped representing the interests of working class Americans; unless, of course
you have the influence and money for such access.
The non-violent and powerful Black Lives Matter, Moral Mondays in North Carolina and Standing
Rock protesters (reinforced by U.S. veterans and other supporters) have demonstrated that change
is possible if we're carefully focused on uprooting and replacing government corruption.
The West support for regimes like Israel and Saudi Arabia makes it hard to present a credible
case against Putin on any issues but, rigging the election is just absurd. These days people are
more clued up and know Hillary lost because she was not trusted, carried baggage and was funded
by big banks. It is rather worrying that we've gone backward and Nazi propaganda tactics are the
norm again.
There was a 50/50 chance the Democrats would take the fall from grace; both parties are out of
touch with mainstream, middle-class America, it's just coincidence Trump manifested himself when
he did. Neither party had a good message or a good messenger; the dark phenomenon of Trump could
have come from either party, the nation was so desperate for change. Yet the GOP really maneuvered
for Jeb Bush to begin with; the Democrats, with a significantly smaller field, laid their bet
on Clinton. The public's rejection of both Bush and Clinton left the door open for a GOP interloper,
Trump; and Clinton was pushed on the Democrats rather than Sanders.
Even the GOP will have buyers remorse if/when they cannot temper Trump.
As someone who wanted Hilary to win, it is difficult to disagree with any of this.
If she couldn't beat Trump - who about three times a day said something idiotic or repugnant,
then she really was the wrong candidate
Since he won Trump has actually sounded miles more sensible. I can't help feel that if he had
adopted his current tone before the election that he would have won by a landslide
"This was the strategy not because Clinton was was incompetent; it was the strategy because all
available data pointed to the fact that it was working."
What a joke.
She had a billion dollars in her campaign fund. The money she spent on "data" was just money
flushed down the sewer. (No doubt various Clinton hangers-on got very nice "consulting" fees.)
She was a Democrat who publicly bragged about her devotion to **Henry Kissinger**.
She lost to **Donald Trump**. I think even Martin O'Malley could've beaten Trump; I'm certain
Sanders could. Only Hillary Clinton had the "magic" necessary to lose to a casino and real estate
huckster.
She was always a lousy candidate, and she's an incompetent politician as well. Dems can face
that, face reality, or keep going as they are, in which case there won't **be** a Democratic Party
before long.
Agreed. HRC, DNC and the Clintonistas are the only ones responsible for her loss. But there's
more to their post-election pushback than just shifting the blame, a lot more.
Demonizing Russia isn't just about seeking a scapegoat. Trump's embrace of Russia and decision
to end the neocon-neoliberal agenda of regime change skewer two of the corporate establishment's
cash cows - arms sales to the numerous conflicts in the Middle East initiated by the corporate
cabal, and arms sales to NATO and all the new post Cold War NATO members to continue the buildup
of armaments on Russia's borders.
That's a lot of anticipated arms sales and a lot of every bit as anticipated political "donations"
from the corporate establishment.
" Trump's embrace of Russia and decision to end the neocon-neoliberal agenda of regime change
skewer two of the corporate establishment's cash cows - arms sales to the numerous conflicts in
the Middle East initiated by the corporate cabal, and arms sales to NATO and all the new post
Cold War NATO members to continue the buildup of armaments on Russia's borders."
That's a mighty optimistic forecast, but it's not impossible. I think Trump is likely to be
a disaster, and even if he isn't, an unleashed Republican gang is a horrible thing to imagine.
Still, I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, and I note that already Trump's campaign has put
down TWO odious political dynasties, AND the TPP -- all very healthy developments.
Hillary Clinton lost because the majority of the voters were nauseated by her by her fake perma-
smile which might as well have been installed by cosmetic surgery. The well rehearsed, worn-out,
hollow on-message crap she spouted had zilch credibility and as much resonance. She had nothing
to say to the electorate.
That the Clinton spent about twice as much as the Trump camp in this case did not work to her
favour: every appearance on tv made her lose voters.
The only thing that kept the contest somehow close was the unprecedented all-media fear
campaign against Trump.
I have never had any doubt that that Trump would get the job. What surprised me though, is
that only one in 200 eligible voters bothered with the Green's Jill Stein: they are supposedly
relatively highly committed to their causes.
Another mistake of the Clinton campaign, btw. was to focus on scandal. My experience of 45
years of campaigning tells me "scandal" does not win any campaigns.
99% of the weapons in the Trump arsenal were Trumped up Hillary "scandals"
They did not decide it. Neither did the new "sexual victim" paraded every couple of days by
the Clinton camp. Scandal and counter-scandal are part of every campaign and ignored by non-committed
voters.
What did it for Trump was, that he spoke unscripted, thus came across a somewhat more genuine,
and at least acknowledged the victims of de-industrialisation, for which he could not be blamed,
but Clinton could. Clinton did not have anything she could present apart from "better equipped
because of experience" - with an undistinguished actual record. The name Clinton can be blamed
for the plight of the "rust-belt".
Americans have paid a heavy price because of free trade deals and they want a different direction.
In the last 15 years there is a noticeable difference in opportunity and wages and most of our
politicians don't care. Hillary lost this because she supported most free trade and outsourcing
jobs to India and China. They DNC has a chance to reform but they choose not to. I hope Bernie
starts a new party and leaves the neo liberals behind. Who knows where Trump will take us but
if he adds to the swamp he will be a one term president. Right now it looks like he is repaying
his Wall Street fundraisers and big oil super pacs. Our politicians deserve the embarrassment
for ignoring our citizens struggles.
Steven Mnuchin with ties to Wall Street stepped in when no one else would and fund raised for
Trump. Mnuchin is picked as secretary of treasury. Big oil supported Cruz and moved to Trump with
a few superpacs that Kellyanne Conway managed. Both Wall Street and energy will be deregulated.
Also tax reform for corporations. He will have to follow through on new trade deals, tax on imports
and immigration or he will only help the 1%. We will see if he follows through...
I bet in Moscow they're quite enjoying this notion Putin can simply dismiss any govt on earth
by simply letting loose a few hackers and propagandists. And probably thinking if only.
The west looks like its collectively losing its marbles. Political systems, like tastes and
fashion change naturally over time. Our two party systems struggle to cope with any change, thus
the bewildered politicians within these parties lash out.
On November 25, 2016, the Obama administration said the results from November 8, "accurately reflect
the will of the American people." The following day, the White House released another statement
saying, "the federal government did not observe any increased level of malicious cyberactivity
aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election Day."
And? Does anybody claim that any foreign power hacked the voting machines themselves?
The claim is that Russian directed operatives hacked the DNC, etc. in an attempt to find embarrassing
material that would damage Clinton's candidacy. They succeeded.
Doug Henwood trying to beat the Bernie Sanders drum. What I heard from Bernie Sanders Townhall
in Wisconsin is that people blamed illegal immigrants for their situation. Deep down inside they
have been Trump supporters for a while. That is why Trump won Wisconsin.
A Labour MP is claiming that Putin also fixed the Brexit vote - which also shows how people will
blame anyone but themselves for losing a vote. There is not one Clinton supporter who would have
complained about the result had she won the Electoral College and lost the popular vote.
That is not to say that the system should not be changed but Democrats and/or Clintonites should
not try to change it retrospectively. That would mean chaos.
Totally agree with this article by Mr. Henwood. If Democrats, and Republicans for that matter,
want to go on a wild goose chase to blame Russians for the election outcome, with basically no
hard evidence to back their claim, rather than look at the real reasons why they lost (disaffected
angry citizens and not being able to compete with Trump because they chose lousy candidates) then
they deserve to continue losing their future elections. So be it.
If she had not spent so much time calling Trump a Misogynist while taking money from Saudi Arabia
then maybe , just maybe she would have not come across as the most deceitful and toxic candidate
the US has ever seen.
Hillary Clinton lost Pennsylvania, Michigan & Wisconsin solely because of NAFTA & TPP. Bill &
Hillary Clinton supported NAFTA. Hillary Clinton had a history of supporting TPP & Obama was actively
pushing it. When Hillary Clinton changed her position on TPP people in the old industrial heartland
were not convinced that was sincere. The Russians were not responsible for Hillary, Bill & Obama's
history of support for trade deals that facilitate moving jobs to low wage countries that suppress
unions, allow unsafe working conditions & don't have meaningful environmental regulations.
Julian Assange denies that the Russian government was the source of the hacked emails
to and from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta that WikiLeaks published. Of course, there's
no way of knowing if he's telling the truth – but regardless of their source, how much influence
did they have on the election outcome?
oh, right
so when the Wikileaks reveals evilness of the conservatives, it's good, but when the liberals
get revealed, he's not telling the truth?
give me a break.
Wikileaks is a neutral source, not a conservative or a liberal one.
I agree with you. However may I add that the point is not whether Assange is of good character
or whether Wikileaks is left or right. The point is has any Wikileaks releases been proven false
in the last 10 years or so?
Wikileaks is a neutral source, not a conservative or a liberal one.
Bull. Assange dripped, dripped, dripped the leaks so that it would do maximum damage to Clinton.
Whether he has conservative or liberal leanings is irrelevant. What in incontrovertible, however,
is that he has an anti-Clinton bias.
What the leaks revealed is exactly the kind of internal policy debates, calibration of message,
and gossipy venting that occurs in any political campaign. Only out of context did they appear
damaging.
The other big elephant in the room is that nearly half of those eligible to vote did not. Instead,
the hysterical US media engage the gullible populace in yet another game of mass distraction,
and soon Putin will be forgotten and all will salivate over the Oscar nominations. Thus the United
States of Amnesia will settle into its usual addictive habit of running after any "news" that
holds the promise of distractive entertainment. Never mind the nation's democracy... "We amuse
ourselves to death" (Neil Postman).
Otto Bismarck once said: "laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made"
To paraphrase, I guess you could also say the same about elections. Leaks revealing behind
the curtains shenanigans of any election would turn most stomachs. After seeing this election
I may become a vegetarian.
Too right. It was always Hillary's election to lose and she lost it simply because she was
not to be trusted. Her very public endorsement by gangster capitalist Jay-Z told you all you needed
to know about who she represented.
I used to work for an American oil company. Clinton was the one thing that united Democrats and
Republicans over lunch time chats. She was unsuitable, and unfit for office. People voted not
necessarily for Trump, but against Clinton. Don't blame Trump for this result. Blame the democrats
and their poor candidates. So far I like his choice of cabinet members. Except for the banker
they are men that create wealth by providing work for talented people. Not something the Guardian
understands.
So your prime character witness for Hillary Clinton is.....Bill Clinton.
Good luck with that.
FYI mishandling protectively marked documents is wrongdoing, which James Comey testified that
she had. Had it been ANYBODY other than a presidential candidate their feet wouldn't have touched
the floor.
What the author fails to emphasize is the degree to which Dem. party 'insiders' like DWSchulz
and DBrazile and so on sabotaged their own nomination process by biasing the pre-primary and primary
contests in favor of Clinton in subtle and stupidly obvious ways.
Had this been a contest between Trump and B. Sanders, M. O'Malley, J. Biden, E. Warren, etc.
there would have been no Podesta emails to care hack, no home server to investigate, etc. By tipping
the scales in favor of Clinton early, parts of the Dem. party caused the current outcome.
I was dubious before, but I'm now actively concerned. This crop of Democrats and their deep
state cohorts are unhinged and dangerous. They see me and my families' lives as an externality
in their eventual war with Russia. As Phyrric a victory as there could possibly be. They are psychotic;
not only waging countless coups and intelligence operations abroad, but now in plain sight on
American soil. The mainstream media seems to invoke the spirit of Goebbels more vividly with each
passing day. Their disdain and manipulation of the general populace is chilling. They see us not
as people to be won-over, but as things to be manipulated, tricked and coerced. Nothing new for
politicians (particularity the opposition) - but the levels here are staggering.
January couldn't come soon enough - and I say that as strong critic of Trump.
There is an update to yesterday's Guardian article. Update: David Swanson interviewed Murray today,
and obtained additional information. Specifically, Murray told Swanson that: (1) there were two
American leakers ... one for the emails of the Democratic National Committee and one for the emails
of top Clinton aide John Podesta; (2) Murray met one of those leakers; and (3) both leakers are
American insiders with the NSA and/or the DNC, with no known connections to Russia.
"Putin didn't win this election for Trump. Hillary Clinton did"
Nailed it. If the Democrats had fielded someone who actually represented the people (and who
spoke the truth) instead of a corporate shill, the outcome would have been very different.
They had the ideal candidate in Sanders and they fucked him out of it. But have they learned
anything? I seriously doubt it.
Mrs Clinton is not blaming others. She never did. It's the CIA - backed by the 17 US intelligence
agencies - that's saying Russia interfered with the election process in the USA.
In UK as well, the MI6 said something similar a few weeks ago. Germany is also concerned about
the next elections in France and Germany. If any of this was true then it would be a serious threat
against democracy in Western countries.
So who's blaming who? Deep cheaters or bad loosers? The CIA could be wrong but is probably
correct this time. Trying to bury this unanimous call from western secret services under contempt
is significant by itself.
" It's the CIA - backed by the 17 US intelligence agencies - that's saying Russia interfered with
the election process in the USA. "
Way to parrot FAKE NEWS.
That is a COMPLETE LIE. Unless you honestly believe that agencies like the DEA and NASA's "intelligence"
conclusively found "proof" that does not exist. That TALKING POINT was a lie when CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN
originated it, and it is STILL a lie.
But hey, it's only wrong when the "bad guys" on the "other team" spread fake news and engage
in intellectual dishonesty, right? When it's the "good guys" it's just a case of the "ends justify
the means" and perfectly acceptable, right?
"Mrs Clinton is not blaming others. She never did."
Bullshit. Just last week she resurfaced (can't she grasp the idea of the graceful exit?) to
yammer on about the menace of "fake news". Because of course we all know that before 2016, all
American elections have been exercises in fair-mindedness and scrupulous devotion to truth.
It's funny how media simply refuses to admit that Trump did it.
Russians, Hilary, polar bears - none of them had anything to do with it - HE WON.
Live with it.
The clickbait headline is frustrating. No serious person is accusing Russia of having caused Clinton's
loss. Instead, serious people (including, thankfully, leading Republicans) are demanding that
we take a thoughtful and comprehensive look at the evidence that Russia intended to influence
the election. That's a necessary step for protecting our democracy and it's irresponsible to ascribe
political motives to that task.
There was a good article in The Intercept the other regarding the CIA's unsubstantiated (and subserviently
published by the media) claims of Russian interference - how it has essentially become a willy-waving
contest between the CIA and the FBI in the wake of the elections; how the CIA is an inherently
untrustworthy organisation and the media allowing "senior officials" to dictate the news with
empty leaks and no evidence (while shouting the loudest about fake news) is folly.
Very true. It takes an abysmal candidate to lose against (quoting Jimmy Dore here:) Donny Tinyhands.
It takes a special brand of dense to run
- for Wall Street (against reinstatement of Glass Steagall)
- for a direct military confrontation with nuclear power Russia (wich Clinton's pet-project of
no-fly zones in Syria would have signified)
- for trade deals (nobody bought Clinton was suddenly against that)
and expect the DEMOCRATIC base to turn out.
Jesus Christ, Donny ran to the left of Hillary on all three issues. Not that anyone trusts him
to keep any promise, but at least he didn't outright spit in the face of the people who want less
war, less neoliberalism and less Wall Street cronyism while running for election.
No Democratic candidate worth his/her name would have lost against Trump, not even if the Axis
of Evil (whoever that currently is) had hacked all their emails, photobooks and private porn-flicks,
in which they starred, and had them all run nonstop 24/7 on every screen on Earth.
I'm shocked!!! Aren't the Russians to blame for everything???
My t.v breaking, the rain outside, brexit, Donald trump, the Iraq war, the death of Jesus, those
damn Russians, nothing is safe around those monsters.
Hilarious
I am so sick and tired of hearing those whining elite democrats gone incessantly about white
males , the FBI , Putin , Russia , stupid red state citizens , etc., etc ..
I want say ' Shut the fuck up -- ..... and look in the bloody mirror ' .
I am a classic liberal .... always have been ..... always will be ...... and I don't know what
you would like to call these corrupt , elitist , contemporary democrats but you certainly can
not call them real liberals .
I call them designer democrats . They care only for their particular pet issues and they ongoing
pursuit of notions of their own superiority . They routinely generalize in highly sexist and racist
fashions and through the use of political correctness seek to silence all of their critics .
I , simply , loath them .
They sabotaged Bernie Sanders campaign . Bernie Sanders ..... the nicest , most caring man
to come along in American politics in the past 50 years . Not since , FDR , John and Robert Kennedy
have we seen such hope for average people .
But oh , no ..... Bernie was an outsider ..... not part of their corrupt , elite club . He
was a threat to their ongoing party . He had to go .
They didn't give a shit about what was good for the people . They only cared about themselves
and their exploitation of the Democratic Party and it's traditional status ..... and their vulgar
corruption of genuine liberalism for their own purposes .
The Democratic Party establishment will now undergo a long , long overdue cleansing . The Clintons
are the first to go as they should be . Two total career political scoundrels , if ever there
were any . Lies and secrecy were all that you ever got from them aside form the horrific repeal
of the 'Glass-Steggall Act ' and the Stock Trade Modernization Bill which lead to the licensing
of the financial elite to plunder the economy , ruin the lives of countless average Americans
and turn the economy into a complete casino .
Elitist to the core , they were .
Imagine an elite , spoon fed , self-interested urbanite like Hillary Clinton telling some poor
white male schmuck living in some small town , who for economic reasons has never had a good full
time time and works 3 temporary part-time jobs to pay the bills that he is privileged .
Bloody ridiculous --
Talk about overt sexism . Talk about overt racism .
It's these kinds of behaviours that doomed Hillary Clinton .
She only has herself to blame .
If she really had cared about average people she would have not sabotaged Bernie Sanders and
she would have stepped aside back in June when every poll indicated the she could not beat Trump
and that Bernie could beat him by 10 to 15 points .
Now , we the people are stuck with a Trump presidency ..... something which you can pretty
much be assured is going to be un mitigated disaster in ways that we can't even begin to imagine
yet .
Lord help us .
Good-bye Democratic Party elites ..... don't let the fucking door hit on the way out .
I wish I could say that it was nice knowing you but it wasn't .
Go off to your designer lives and pontificate about what is good for people ..... a subject
that you know little about and really don't give a damn .
Go back to Davos and party with the financial global elite for they are really your people
.... your kind . Certainly , average hardworking , genuinely liberal people are not .
Liberalism exists for all people not just the self-anointed few .
Have you noticed how recently the 'we are not racist and you are' left have started to use the
Chinese and Russians as convenient foreign bogeymen to scare the people with?
Awkward economic figures, blame the Chinese.
Awkward diplomatic issues or you lost a vote, blame the Russians.
The problem with this is that our media then amplifies these attacks on China and Russia, they
hear them, and they start to resent it and respond. And our future relations with two major world
powers are made worse than they needed to be.
A good article to counterbalance the reams of rubbish we are hearing in the US election post-mortem.
Anyone who had neural activity should have known that when you steal the candidacy, you certainly
won't get the votes. Clinton effectively handed the election to Trump by not having the humility,
humanity and honesty to admit defeat by Benie Sanders.
He was not a perfect choice, but he could have been a candidate who was everything that Trump
wasn't - uncorrupted, honest, and with a clearly thought out and principled agenda.
All Trump was facing was someone as entitled and establishment as he was,. but with less of
what passes for 'the human touch' across the pond.
There's always the possibility of course, that the US establishment realised Clinton's
blatant warmongering wasn't 'good for business'.
The Russians are no doubt aware that the US has to try and cut the Gordian knot - Washington
cannot face down China and Russia at the same time; and the two countries are mutually supportive
in the UN and are developing many economic projects together.
So maybe, they thought, we can get the Russkies 'on side', deal with China (ie. reduce
it to a 'client state'/ turn it into an ashtray) - and then move on Russia and grab all those
lovely resources freed up by global warming....
Seems to me like the Clinton agenda of big oil, big banks and alot of lies won the WH. Hillary's
big corporate donors are on Trumps transition team. Surely they didnt want her to win, since she
adopted Sanders regulatory, tax the wealthy platform, hence Clinton was duped with marketing strategy
which turned voters off, she was reduced to name calling over promotong policy...what did she
represent? Only her campaign volunteers knew, her message to the public was "dont vote for
Trump" which translates to, I could lose to him, vote for me!
The Podesta emails confirmed what many people already suspected and knew of Hillary and her
campaign. Those who were interested in reading them had to actually look for them, since MSM was
not reporting on them. It's not as if an avid MSNBC or CNN watcher was going to be exposed.
So, if you were seeking them out, A: you probably already suspected those things and B: you
weren't going to vote for Hillary to begin with.
It's hilarious how the major Left outlets (Washington Post) are now telling it's readers
how Russia is to blame for people voting against Hillary due to the Podesta emails, when they
didn't even report on the emails in the first place.
FINALLY sanity intrudes. For one article and one day. But hey , progress is progress. Trump will
NOT be what you think him to be. He will be far better. He will still do things you don't like,
but not REALLY bad things. :-)
There was no reason to vote for Clinton as the article says. She offered nothing except the
entitlement of HER. It wasn't enough. Thank The Gods. EVERYTHING about the system all
halfway decent people detest, is summed up in the figure of Hillary Clinton. And evidently
(and I stand to be corrected) she didn't even have the stones not to melt down on election night
and Podesta had to go out there and be a complete buffoon.
Trump might be an unknown but Clinton and her used up party were a complete known. Like
Donald said, she had 'experience', but it was all BAD 'experience'. Trump might not fix the
problems but at least he's going to try. Clinton didn't even see the problems.
she is a frail, withered old woman who needs to retire - def the wrong democrat choice, crazy -- Berni.S would have won if for them - he is far more sincere
Here is the key paragraph: "The displaced machinists... believe that free trade deals are
responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton's turn against the TPP. But
that was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with "optics"
at the expense of substance." Funny the author fails to notice that that describes to a T
Trump's campaign, and actually his whole life. That description applies to Trump several orders
of magnitude moreso than it applies to Hillary Clinton's life. If you think Trump is really interested
in bringing jobs, especially good paying jobs back, you are willfully blind.
"Putin didn't win this election for Trump. Hillary Clinton did"
Trump won, he played the game brilliantly to the rules (including the electoral college system),
Clinton lost (you can't win it for the opposition, you can just lose, and the Democrats didn't
put out their best hope) and Putin was irrelevant in terms of any interference (although maybe
Trump voters would rather the US develop a better relationship with Russia, but that's down to
Trump in playing that card).
This argument is as asinine as the one the author opposes. It was a collusion of events that
led to this result, including the failure of both parties to adapt to an evolving economic
and social climate over decades. The right wing hailing the collapse of liberalism as a result
of decades of liberal mismanagement conveniently forget their own parties have held the reins
for half that time, and failed just as miserably as the left....
It's quite bizarre to see "progressives" openly side with the military industrial complex,
which is threatened by a president elect weary of more warfare.
It's to be expected from career politicians like McCain who is kicking and screaming, but
it's shameful to see supposed liberally-minded people help spread the Red Scare storyline.
The Democrats are in full blown tantrum mode, throwing teddies out of their pram and spitting
dummies across the room, because their warmonger and deceitful candidate HRC, didn't win, that's
why there has been all this bad news nonsense about Putin and/or Russia since last week.
Obama has behaved dreadfully, first he or his office gets one of its poodles namely MI6 to
point the finger at Putin re cyberwar, which was swiftly followed by the International Olympic
Committee looking at Russia for 2012 Olympic games, the elections in the US and the Democrats
CIA coming out with unsubstantiated nonsense (funny how they never like, providing collaborative
evidence - on this or anything that supposedly Russia has done) then there is Syria, and Obama
and the Democrats were the cheerleader for regime change, because they have been out manoeuvred
in that sphere. All of it in less than a week.
If Obama, the administration, and the CIA were smart they would have realised that a concerted
effort to blame Putin / Russia would be seen for what it is - a liar and one of trying to discredit
both the outcome of the US elections, the dislike of HRC, and her association with Wall St. -
she raised more money for her campaign than Trump and Sanders put together (if the Democrats had
chosen Sanders, then they would have stood a chance) and that their hawk would not be in a position
to create WW111 - thank goodness. The Democrats deserved what they got.
This organ of the liberal media (no scare quotes required - it is socially liberal and economically
neoliberal), along with many others, dogmatically supported Clinton against Sanders to the point
of printing daily and ridiculous dishonesty, even going so far as to make out as if anyone who
supports any form of wealth redistribution is a racist, sexist, whitesplaining dude-bro.
Or more precisely the Superdelegates and the Democratic National Committee did. Her Goldman/Morgan
Stanley speechs were in 2013 ffs, they all knew she had form and was 'viewed as an insider' as
Obama put it in The New Yorker interview.
The election was close, and if one less thing had gone wrong for Hillary she would have won.
However I think an important thing that lost her the election was identity politics. She patronized
Afro-Americans and Hispanics, by tell them that because they are Trump-threatened minorities,
they should vote for her. In the same vein, gays and women were supposed to vote for her. But
what she was really telling these groups was that they should revel in their supposed victimhood,
which was not a great message.
Completely agreed! The onus for defeat belongs to the Democrat party leadership as well. Donald
Trump and Bernie Sanders both understood where the momentum of the election was headed before
anyone else did. The election was won and lost in the white blue collar Midwest. A place that
decided that diet corporatism is decidedly worse than a populist right wing extremist.
No one here believed the ridiculous about-face Hillary pulled on the question of the TPP.
I guarantee you Bernie would have cleaned Trump's clock in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan,
and perhaps Ohio and Iowa.
"Our self-image as the world's greatest democracy...." Well, speaking for myself and plenty
of other Americans, I never said anything like that about us. In fact, like a lot of people I
wish we would stick to our own business, quit trying to be the world's cop, and cease meddling
in other countries' affairs.
If we do that, then I could care less about our image or what the rest of the world thinks.
Let some other country be the "leader of the Free World." Who died and left the US in charge,
anyway? Not one war we have fought since WWII has been worth the price of one drop of American
blood.
Assuming that it really was the Russians who done it, I guess they had a better game plan
than the Saudis. I consider the Russians to have done us a favor of sorts by exposing Hillary's
secret Wall Street speeches and the machinations of the DNC. Her 'deplorables' comment was
every bit as telling as Mitt Romney's '47%'. We really needed to know about her 'public versus
private positions', even if it only confirmed what everybody already knew. I am not 100% sure
the system made the worst choice in raising up Donald Trump.
And even so, if it takes four years of Trump to remove the people who thought Hillary was a
good candidate from power in the Democratic Party, it may work out for the best in the long run.
And if it takes four years of Trump to show the people who voted for Trump that Republican ideologues
can only make their problems worse, so be it. It's mostly the hubris that amuses me at this point.
They thought they were the pros. They had the money. They had the ground game. All they did wrong
was to preselect and preordain a candidate nobody wanted.
abuses women, advances the cause of racism, attacks women's rights, is xenophobic
The American voters heard a steady stream of these arguments. Some may have simply ignored
them. Others took them into consideration, but concluded that they wanted drastic change enough
to put them aside. White women decided that Trump's comments, while distasteful, were things they'd
heard before.
Reliance on the sanctity of racial and gender pieties was a mistake. Not everyone treats
these subjects as the holiest of holies. The people who would be most swayed by those arguments
never would have voted for Trump anyways.
Colin Powell did not advise Clinton to do that, and even if he did she was a fool to take his
advice when her boss Obama explicitly told her not to keep a private server. Colin Powell
said Clinton destroys everything she touches with hubris. Seeing as how she destroyed the democrat
"blue wall" and also had low turnout which hurt democrats down the ticket I agree.
Zero evidence other than "he said, she said" regarding any involvement of Russian espionage agencies
in the U.S. elections but the left, incredulous once the result didn't go their way, are now clinging
to anything to divert attention from the issues that HRC ignored and Trump embraced.
All this hysteria about the USA and Russia finally working together than apart doesn't
help either for it appears that the [neoliberal] lefties want a perpetual war rather than peace.
The CIA being outraged about a foreign state intervening in an election is quite funny. They
have intervened so many times, especially in Latin America, to install puppet regimes.
As for hacking... does anybody believe the CIA has never hacked anybody?
Anyway, had the emails not existed, there would have been nothing with which to help Trump.
The Democrats have only themselves to blame. Bernie Sanders or ANY other candidate without the
Clintons baggage could have done a better job f beating Trump. They wanted Hillary at all cost;
they lost!
"... My perspective from across the ocean has always been that the McCarthy philosophy was the least admirable episode in recent US history. ..."
"... It's almost as if the West, or at least Western Elite circles who have strived to saturate the airways with Russia-the-bogey-man material since the year dot, can they, on the back of this one-sided propaganda machine, wheel-out blame directed towards Russia for .... well almost anything they desire. ..."
"... If only Barack Hussain Obama had not taken it upon his self to interfere in our referendum with his clear 'Back of the queue' threat, it may have been possible to not think he is a hypocrite. ..."
"... I suspect this is one last roll of the dice by the 'democrats' to keep Trump out of office. ..."
"... Obama is foolishly upping the ante, not on Putin, but on Trump. Trump's instinct will be to put a 10x hurt on Obama for this. Don't punk Trump. ..."
"... They are desperate to discredit the winner. It is as ineffective as any of his failed policies ..."
"... In other words, Obama admits he hasn't kept America secure versus 21st-century threats. ..."
"... Obama has said the intelligence agencies had the proof that Russia interfered with the election. With all their proof why order a review? Can't wait until Obama leaves office. ..."
"... what, is the USA the new Latin America, and Russia the new CIA ? forever meddling surreptitiously to undermine and overthrow other sovereign nation states democratic processes ? that's just so unfair ..."
"... It is a funny joke, but on the essence I would advise to read investigative report "The New Red Scare" in Harpers. The evidence of Russian government having anything to do with any hacks is literally non-existing. ..."
"... The US, heckler of the world for decades, stirring trouble wherever the dart falls, and yet Russian hackers and North Korean hookers are to blame for 99.9% of the worlds problems. Reality is, if the US didn't move past its own borders for 10 years the world would be already a much, much better place. ..."
"... The Guardian probably shouldn't go along in helping build the new McCarthyist, Cold War narrative, especially when it's just a bunch of US politicians and media figures repeating politically expedient, but factually unsupported claims. The Western media is trying to be Hearst Newspapers in the Spanish-American war. ..."
"... This is explicitly bad because it allows the suppression of dissent, of creating blacklists, the military industrial complex to further consolidate power, and to blame all sorts of domestic failures on shadowing foreign influence. ..."
"... But when Judith Miller, the NYT, George Bush and Hillary Clinton used fake news to kill hundreds of thousands, Obama told us to get over it, to "look forward and not backward." ..."
"... The United States has attempted to push its democratic ideologies on countries all over the world, using means much more direct than hacking. Yet they cannot take a fraction of what they dish out. If Russia is indeed intervening to aid nationalists around the world, then Russia is a friend and should be welcomed with open arms. Trump should do the same, and used the powers of the United States to undermine [neoliberal] leftists around the globe. ..."
Interesting - Obama never ordered an independent probe into 9/11 or invasion of Iraq or on the
Wall Street Collapse. Somehow Russian hacking seems to be more draconian than all the above.
And Russians somehow got into the brains of the disgruntled white population, and controlled
Trump's brain so that he would be voted to power. Then they still control Trump's brain so much
that he is wanting to let NATO countries pay for their security, make Japan, South Korea and everyone
else where US maintains its bases to pay for themselves.
And then suddenly there is a news of a thousand Russian athletes doing well in 2012 London
Olympics due to enhanced drugs. Until now, no one knew about this or heard about it.
It is not that I am supporting Russia all of a sudden. It is just that I am not supporting
the attempt to create enemies out of thin air and make them monstrous as needed, while covering
even more sinister schemes that need public attention.
Obama is part of the same system too that runs everything from behind the curtains. He still
is a good man. But he has only some much room to function within and survive.
A good man is not capable of bombing 7 countries in 8 years' time. People are too naive to believe
that someone could look as nice and sound as nice as Obama and push to advance the agenda of some
of the most evil and power-hungry megalomaniacs on the planet.
I don't know if the Russians provided Wikileaks with the actual emails or not but Wikileaks
like so many news organisations before them released info obtained illegally that they thought
the public had a right to know.
Now Assange has effectively been imprisoned in an Embassy in London for around 5 years on bogus
charges and his reputation was damaged by the same charges - Obviously Obama does not want to
give any credit to Assange and he knows he has played a part in this outrageous persecution.
This would also a could time to remind fellow commentators here about the Nuland - Pyatt conversation
that was recorded by Russia and released. This conversation showed the the involvement of two
high ranking US Politicians in the armed coup in Ukraine where an elected albeit corrupt leader
was forced to flee the country.
The period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from
1950 to 1956 and characterized by heightened political repression against supposed communists,
as well as a campaign spreading fear of their influence on American institutions and of espionage
by Soviet agents.
The third Red Scare? *clutches teddy bear*
Only one slight problem ...there aren't any reds in charge in Russia anymore.
My point being, there is no great ideological clash anymore. Assange volunteered the fact the
email data didn't come from the Russians. And whether Trump is better than Hillary is open to
debate.
My perspective from across the ocean has always been that the McCarthy philosophy was the
least admirable episode in recent US history. I doubt many people want to return to that
but surely, demonstrable evidence in either direction is the only antidote to accusations and
conspiracy theories, and is needed now more than ever in this supposed 'post truth' era.
Reply Share
I assume that Obama is being told to do this, and probably by the same people who backed the Clinton
individual for POTUS. The American people must be exceedingly dumb if they fall for this rubbish.
It's almost as if the West, or at least Western Elite circles who have strived to saturate
the airways with Russia-the-bogey-man material since the year dot, can they, on the back of this
one-sided propaganda machine, wheel-out blame directed towards Russia for .... well almost anything
they desire.
Problem is, are the public still eating out of their hands!?
Brext and the Trump victory is suggesting - not all of us by a long way.
If only Barack Hussain Obama had not taken it upon his self to interfere in our referendum
with his clear 'Back of the queue' threat, it may have been possible to not think he is a hypocrite.
what a joke, america has been 'interfering' (i.e. bombing and destroying) how many countries since
1945?? incredible hypocrisy and sickening double-standards.
War propoganda. Will the White Helmets be saving Russian civilians too? I suspect this is
one last roll of the dice by the 'democrats' to keep Trump out of office.
Obama has said the intelligence agencies had the proof that Russia interfered with the election.
With all their proof why order a review? Can't wait until Obama leaves office.
what, is the USA the new Latin America, and Russia the new CIA ? forever meddling surreptitiously
to undermine and overthrow other sovereign nation states democratic processes ? that's just so
unfair
It is a funny joke, but on the essence I would advise to read investigative report "The New
Red Scare" in Harpers. The evidence of Russian government having anything to do with any
hacks is literally non-existing.
The US, heckler of the world for decades, stirring trouble wherever the dart falls, and yet
Russian hackers and North Korean hookers are to blame for 99.9% of the worlds problems. Reality
is, if the US didn't move past its own borders for 10 years the world would be already a much,
much better place.
The Guardian probably shouldn't go along in helping build the new McCarthyist, Cold War narrative,
especially when it's just a bunch of US politicians and media figures repeating politically expedient,
but factually unsupported claims. The Western media is trying to be Hearst Newspapers in the Spanish-American
war.
This is explicitly bad because it allows the suppression of dissent, of creating blacklists,
the military industrial complex to further consolidate power, and to blame all sorts of domestic
failures on shadowing foreign influence. This is exactly what countries like Iran and North
Korea do. Bravo guys, for keep this story going for almost half a year with no substantial proof
whatsoever.
But when Judith Miller, the NYT, George Bush and Hillary Clinton used fake news to kill hundreds
of thousands, Obama told us to get over it, to "look forward and not backward." What a waste
of 8 years.
he suddenly discovered, 2-3 wks ago, that he was enthusiastic about space technology and exploration.
He (that is his ghost writers) published a 1 p. article about his love of space. Fact is, first
thing great-mind Obama did 8yrs ago is gut NASA's budget. He never mentioned space once in 8 yrs.
Suddenly, he is a fan. Creepy ... how does he deal with his hypocritical self every morning?
Political theatre. He will be out of office before anyone will even be asked to take office.
Its hilarious that The Guardian tries to frame US Intelligence as a single cohesive unit. Its
a splintered multi-headed hydra that will never act on this. Once again Obama brings righteous
powerful leadership to the act of being ineffective.
Starring:
Shirtless Putin
Legacy Obama
Hillary "I'm Not Trump" Clinton
Donald "OG Troll" Trump
Super Elite Genius Ninja Russian Hackers
The Poor Defenseless Victim DNC
John "Let's All Just Laugh at The Risotto Recipe and Not Pay Attention to any of my Other Emails"
Podesta
80's synth "rock" and really bright neon clothing
And featuring: Lou Diamond Phillips as.....Guccifer 2.0
The United States has attempted to push its democratic ideologies on countries all over the
world, using means much more direct than hacking. Yet they cannot take a fraction of what they
dish out. If Russia is indeed intervening to aid nationalists around the world, then Russia is
a friend and should be welcomed with open arms. Trump should do the same, and used the powers
of the United States to undermine [neoliberal] leftists around the globe.
No its by the letter actually. Libya, Yemen backed by US, Pakistan, Tunisia had some financial
and military backing. Obama is the drone king. And Ukraine well have you heard of Victoria nuland
before? Regime change in Ukraine cost the taxpayer 5 billion dollars
"... Outrageous how the Russians interfered with the Koch brothers and Soros's electoral process... ..."
"... No one, not the government agencies, not those ominous private security firms, no one presented even a shred of evidence for any involvement of the Russian government. Not even some lackluster ambiguous data, it was all anecdotal stuff, 'confidence' and fluffy rhetoric. ..."
"... The McCarthy-esque paranoia spread by the Clinton campaign to deflect from the content of those emails took foothold it seems. ..."
"... If the evidence were to hand, actually existed, it would have been all over the front pages of the WaPo, NYT and other major news outlets, not just in the US but everywhere else too. Investigating this 'evidence' is, to borrow William Gibson's simile, "Like planning to assassinate a figure out of myth and legend". The usual 'national security considerations' which have been and will continue to be adduced, as reasons for not publishing the evidence is pure triple-distilled BS and pretty much everyone knows that it's BS. ..."
Russia has always been the convenient whipping boy for the United States. We manufactured the
cold war because we needed an enemy to prop up our war economy. We built the Soviet Union into
this monolithic bogey man, spoiling to crush the west, enemies of "freedom," in order to keep
the west scared and pliant and in our pocket. After so-called communism collapsed, we found new
enemies in the middle east but they lacked the staying power. So now it's back to Russia. Maybe
the Russians did hack into the DNC. If so, they merely exposed the damning material. They didn't
write it.
Oh boy the knives are out against Russia, first I read about the 2012 Olympics which even if it
is true I would hold the British Olympic Committee responsible for the failure to find out about
the doping at the time of the Games and not 4 years later. I have just read US, Obama is now pointing
the finger at Russia for the outcome of the US Elections oh dear they are really scraping the
barrell to look for someone to blame instead of finding out why their own people decided to vote
for Trump. This is all typical American hyperbole and nonsense and a concerted effort on America's
efforts to orchestrate the next War.
America is so way behind with any modern services, they apparently do not have their bank cards
with pin or contactless as yet.
Unlucky failed mainstream media lost all confidence of its readership and are now broke. What
will they do next? ask for money saying that they're helping others whilst keeping most of it?
No one, not the government agencies, not those ominous private security firms, no one presented
even a shred of evidence for any involvement of the Russian government. Not even some lackluster
ambiguous data, it was all anecdotal stuff, 'confidence' and fluffy rhetoric.
But if it makes them happy....
The McCarthy-esque paranoia spread by the Clinton campaign to deflect from the content
of those emails took foothold it seems.
If the evidence were to hand, actually existed, it would have been all over the front pages
of the WaPo, NYT and other major news outlets, not just in the US but everywhere else too. Investigating
this 'evidence' is, to borrow William Gibson's simile, "Like planning to assassinate a figure
out of myth and legend". The usual 'national security considerations' which have been and will
continue to be adduced, as reasons for not publishing the evidence is pure triple-distilled BS
and pretty much everyone knows that it's BS.
Yeah sure, just like how it was 'all over the front pages' about what really happened on 9/11,
who was really involved etc.
And don't give me any of that conspiracy theory, tin-foil hat bs either...unless you are able
to be honest about this conspiracy: 19 or 20 strip-club lovin, don't-need-no-takeoff/landing-lessons
jihadists used box-cutters to overpower jet air planes and with the-luck-of-the-century HIT NOT
ONE....BUT TWO skyscrapers at the EXACT SPOT where the 47 concrete -steel inner columns were weak
enough to cause 'pancaking' of the undamaged 60-90 UNDAMAGED FLOORS. Collapsing (and pulverizing
concrete into dust) the building into itself.
And then weirdly enough a small cabal of PNAC signees who in writing had expressed that pax-americana
was going to be 'difficult unless a pearl harbor like event happens' had almost as much Luck-of-the-century
as the jihadists when......WA LA....into their lap.....a new pearl harbor.
Trying to blame one of the most flawed and undemocratic election process's in the Western hemisphere
on the Russians is laughable to the point of hysteria.
The dumb-ed down bigoted electorate is a direct result of decades of a two party political
system, backed up by a compliant media, that fosters mindless patriotism and ignorance rather
than enlightenment and intelligent discussion on the problems facing the country.
Never have I seen a better example of your own dog biting you on the arse!
But Clinton lost the election because the Republicans realised she was certain to be the Democratic
Presidential candidate fifteen years ago and they began their smear campaign against her right
there and then, and a lot of it stuck.
When you add to that tens of thousands on the left like me who voted for her...but would not
campaign for her because we didn't agree with her disastrous blunder in helping to overthrow Qaddafi
in Libya ( a country that is now a feudal backwater) and her stated goals of regime change in
Syria and all the while she had a domestic policy was cosying up to the bankers and Wall Street
elites, whilst ignoring blue collar Americans without jobs and prospects for their future...the
almost inevitable result is Trump as President of the United States.
'Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out!'
The US will get what it deserves...and it deserves Trump I'm afraid.
"... It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value - the largest economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years. ..."
"... IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as much reason to be afraid of China ..."
"... It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony -- similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans coming with the knife. ..."
The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system
excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea
was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.
It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value -
the largest economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the
past 70 years.
IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just
as much reason to be afraid of China as the US do and have a pretty capable army.
If the US patched things up with the Russians, firstly it could redeploy forces and military
effort away from the Middle East towards Asia Pac and secondly it would give the US effective
leverage over China -- with the majority of the oil producing nations aligned with the US, China
would have difficulty in conducted a sustained conflict.
It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony -- similar to how the
British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans coming with
the knife.
"... Speaking to a local radio station before the joint rally, Farage urged Americans to "go out and fight" against Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... "I am going to say to people in this country that the circumstances, the similarities, the parallels between the people who voted Brexit and the people who could beat Clinton in a few weeks time here in America are uncanny," Farage told Super Talk Mississippi. "If they want things to change they have get up out of their chairs and go out and fight for it. It can happen. We've just proved it." ..."
"... It's not for me as a foreign politician to say who you should vote for ... All I will say is that if you vote for Hillary Clinton, then nothing will change. She represents the very politics that we've just broken through the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom. ..."
...the British politician, who was invited by Mississippi governor Phil Bryant, will draw parallels
between what he sees as the inspirational story of Brexit and Trump's campaign. Farage will describe
the Republican's campaign as a similar crusade by grassroots activists against "big banks and global
political insiders" and how those who feel disaffected and disenfranchised can become involved in
populist, rightwing politics. With Trump lagging in the polls, just as Brexit did prior to the vote
on the referendum, Farage will also hearten supporters by insisting that they can prove pundits and
oddsmakers wrong as well.
This message resonates with the Trump campaign's efforts to reach out to blue collar voters who
have become disillusioned with American politics, while also adding a unique flair to Trump's never
staid campaign rallies.
The event will mark the first meeting between Farage and Trump.
Arron Banks, the businessman who backed Leave.EU, the Brexit campaign group associated with the
UK Independence party (Ukip), tweeted that he would be meeting Trump over dinner and was looking
forward to Farage's speech.
The appointment last week of Stephen Bannon, former chairman of the Breitbart website, as
"CEO" of Trump's campaign has seen the example of the Brexit vote, which Breitbart enthusiastically
advocated, rise to the fore in Trump's campaign narrative.
Speaking to a local radio station before the joint rally, Farage urged Americans to "go out
and fight" against Hillary Clinton.
"I am going to say to people in this country that the circumstances, the similarities, the
parallels between the people who voted Brexit and the people who could beat Clinton in a few weeks
time here in America are uncanny," Farage told Super Talk Mississippi. "If they want things to change
they have get up out of their chairs and go out and fight for it. It can happen. We've just proved
it."
"I am being careful," he added when asked if he supported the controversial Republican nominee.
"It's not for me as a foreign politician to say who you should vote for ... All I will say is
that if you vote for Hillary Clinton, then nothing will change. She represents the very politics
that we've just broken through the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom."
The soft neoliberalism (or The Third Way) promoted by Clinton and Blair now is replaced with a splash
of far right nationalism. the level of anger in the bottom 99% and a refusal to accept the lies and
propaganda by the top 1% created a crisis of legitimacy for neoliberal elite. Moreover, right years
of king of "bait and switch" Obama with his typical for neoliberals unconditional love for financial
elites has revealed that change can be delivered only through radical means...
Notable quotes:
"... Of course in the age of inverted reality, spin and obfuscation, the true nature of [neo]iberals is quite the reverse. Just like the fabians they seek to divert attention from their real goals by describing themselves as mirror opposites. ..."
"... The [neo]liberal elite is nothing of the sort, they seek to control, manipulate and suppress everything which doesn't fit their hidden purpose, which is to promote the flat earth globalisation of the debt pyramid on behalf of the banking cartel and the likes of the Rothschild's. ..."
"... They are despicable creatures, full to the brim with breath-taking hypocrisy, happy to claim faux indignation over widening inequality and falling living standards while they promote the pyramid scheme of debts which causes it. They may dream of a world government with socialism for the masses and largesse for the elites, but as sure as the sun rises in the east, such concentration of power, wielded by those least suitable to hold it, would create an authoritarian tyranny like seen before. ..."
"... Essentially, Third Way liberalism as practised by Clinton and Blair, but even more so by those who followed them (Clinton and Blair were, let's not forget, populists of a sort), is predicated on the belief that you can fashion a winning mandate to govern by appealing to a consensus among middle class professionals, the liberal rich, and what they saw as a new, unideological class of 21st century workers - the socially liberal, politically apathetic, precariously situated masses who hover somewhere between traditional working class and educated middle. ..."
"... They did this by appealing to issues of social identity while reinforcing the economics of the right-wing neoliberal ushered in by Thatcher and Reagan. They were, at the same time, losing working class votes - but their analysis of the economics told them that the (in a Marxist sense) working class was an endangered species. ..."
"... 2008 exploded this fiction but its architects remain wedded to the cause. They personally enriched themselves by opening-up traditionally popular parties to the donations and interests of corporate capitalism. Look beyond Blair and the Clintons and you will see hundreds of centre-left politicians growing fat on an endless stream of corporate money: Cory Booker, Chuck Schumer, DWS, Howard Dean (in the US), Ben Bradshaw, Chris Byrne, Alastair Campbell, Jack Straw (in the UK) ..."
"... Deregulated capitalism tends to monopolies and the rise of a rentier class epitomised on Wall Street and property speculators like Donald Trump. ..."
"... Global capitalism pits workers against workers in an endless spiral of wage deflation and this fosters divisions between those whose class interests are, in fact, the same. The alienation that is an intimate part of capitalist production ..."
"... Marx also made a distinctive between productive and fictitious capital - share prices, derivatives and other financial instruments, arbitrage and all the other heinous arsenal of second-order exploitation. Neoliberalism has delivered productive capital into the arms of fictitious capital and ushered us into a world governed by nobody so much as orchestrated according to the graph-lines of the global stock markets. It has turned the spectacle from social relations mediates by images into the beating heart of how, where and why wealth moves the way that it does. The unreality has seeped into every aspect of lived experience. ..."
"... I am less despondent then I was under Obama and his smooth delivery of a hope and change always deferred. ..."
"... Or Hillary Clinton and her revolution of upper-class women with their own specific class interests. There is organising taking place right now and making demands that this system will not satisfy - because it is designed to do the exact opposite. ..."
"... I would rather speak with an alt-right troll than a liberal because one is searching for answers in the wrong place where the other glibly renders apologies for the system from which they seek to profit at the expense of those to whom they offer nothing but false sympathy. ..."
"... There is a mobilisation of anger and a refusal to accept the fictions spun by the ruling class that can potentially be harnessed for permanent change - and, moreover, 8 years of Obama and his pathological love for financial elites has revealed that radical change can be delivered only through radical means. ..."
"... But as others have said really we mean neoliberalism, not liberalism. Liberalism and capitalism are not the same thing and cant be used interchangeably, liberalism is a set of beliefs and capitalism is a set of practices which are sometimes at odds with one another. On the other hand, neoliberalism as a set of beliefs explicitly accepts the hegemony of capital and the expansion of the market economy into all areas of society and life. ..."
"... the reformist and incrementalist view of a progressive social democracy that balances state and market for the betterment of all is con. ..."
"... I don't think that Trump and Brexit mark an epochal shift; I think they are signs of disintegration. The more significant (though still not epochal!) moment was the 2008 financial crisis - and the complete failure of the political elites of Europe and America to address its fallout. This, by the way, was also far from the unforeseeable calamity that it was characterised as being in many sections of the media. Many economists and political analysts had discussed deregulation and unsustainable debt in terms of future crises; it wasn't prophesy, but a basic understanding of how unrestricted market capitalism (especially when reliant on the vicissitudes of shares/bonds/derivatives) operates. ..."
"... More broadly, I agree with you - history is not some untroubled march of the working class to freedom (alas!) It is contingent, messy and unexpected. We have agency - and we have to use it (another thing I believe has been reignited in the last 8 years). One of many ironies of the present situation is that neoliberal politicians believed that the educated precariat they were helping to create would be unideological, politically apathetic consumers - and yet it is the young who are returning the repressed in the form of unrest, economic demands, and the re-introduction of class into political discourse. ..."
"... Okay though, back to reality! That, I concede, is a very American and European perspective that does not take into account the global developments in Asia, Africa or Latin America. I actually lived in China for a while as a young man, and it struck me at the time that the society offered a possible, if bleak, template for the future - a technocratic, one-party state in which people trusted them to deliver the right decisions through a central bureaucracy but with consumer freedoms sufficient to forestall unrest. This is, perhaps, an alternative to the dissent and potentially unrest I have described - and what makes the latter imperative...? ..."
"... Oh, and what you wrote about waste is very interesting. I certainly agree that it, "efficiency" (usually code for cuts and/or transfer from public to private stewardship), are over-fetishised. In fact, ridiculously so. The waste of most governments is staggering and yet they attack only certain areas. What America squanders on its military is the most obvious of examples - or its increasingly repressive police. ..."
"... The point with Trump - and Brexit too - is not so much what it means to the man himself (or Brexit-profiteers like Boris Johnson) but how his victory gets brandished to confer legitimacy and political cover for a newly emboldened syndicate of zealously right-wing politicians and the corporate interests they represent (especially in America, where the majority of Congressional Republicans are little better than local union bosses who have been installed by the Mafia to carry their water and hold their places to exclude anyone else attaining any uncorrupted power or autonomous control). ..."
"... We are seeing this happen right now as Trump fashions his administration - there are a lot of lobbyists, reactionary financiers, neoconservative mavens, embittered figures from the intelligence community, and evangelical culture warriors suddenly footloose and demob happy after 8 years of Barack Obama and his patented brand of Fidel-loving, radical Chicago organising, spectacularly lukewarm but yet (according to Fox) apocalyptically awful, anti-American, Socialist Revolution. ..."
"... Much of the above will be familiar from Bush files - a man who was seldom happier than when sunk into his Lay-Z-Boy learning how to eat pretzels safely from Barney, his Scottish Terrier. His main role was to show up when required and gurn for the cameras, narrow his peepers and regurgitate what the teleprompter feeds him, before signing the executive orders dreamt up by his dream-team of vampyric, far-right champions of such American glories as the Vietnam War, Watergate, Iran/Contra, and more Latin American coup d'etats than even Henry Kissinger could shake his razor-studded cudgel at. ..."
"... The fact is that Trump cares about victory and basking in the light of his own self-proclaimed greatness – and now he's won. I doubt he cares nearly as much about mastering the levers of government or pursuing some overarching vision as he does about preening himself in his new role as the Winner of the World's Greatest Ever Reality TV Show. He may have thrown red meat to the crowds with the gun-toting, abortion-hating campaign rhetoric, but that is the base for every contemporary Republican's bill of fare. I don't believe he gives a tinker's cuss about those issues or any of the other poisons that constitute their arsenal of cultural pesticides. ..."
"... Like all rich people, he wants to pay as little tax as possible without breaking the law (or at least breaking it outrageously enough to attract the notice of the perennially over-worked, under-resourced IRS). ..."
"... And finally, like most rich people, he refuses to accept that governments can or should regulate transactions or industries in ways that may even slightly inhibit their unbound, irrepressible pursuit of their self-interests and unquenchable desire for more, more and yet again more. ..."
"... These basic right-wing tenets, of course, all easily translate into concrete policy - that's what the Republicans do best. ..."
"... But beyond that, there is the small matter of the world's most highly evolved and comprehensive system of state surveillance and repression - a confluence of agencies, technologies, paranoia and class war that was embraced and embellished by Obama from the moment he brought his glacial approach to change to the highest office in the land – indeed, he showed that he was quite comfortable signing off on historic erosions of constitutional freedoms provided it was endorsed by his ever-responsible friends in Langley and The Pentagon. ..."
"... So while Trump and his administration may in many ways resemble the familiar class warriors of Republican presidencies past, albeit with added evangelical vim, viciousness and vapidity courtesy of Mike Pence, let's not forget that his frequently displayed authoritarianism will have ample opportunity to be both stress-tested and to revenge itself on a plethora of opponents. ..."
"... The point, really, is to move beyond the office of the President, which is always absurdly fetishised in American politics to the detriment of scrutiny that should be directed elsewhere - at his team, his cabinet, his appointments, and his place in the web of Congressional Republicans, lobbyists and corporate money – the nexus of interests that really dictates policies and determined which political battles get fought aggressively, which cast aside. ..."
"... People will not see a new dawn, but the delirious rush to expand those chaotic, inhumane, amoral, and utterly unaccountable market forces that have already seeped far too deep into the already grotty political system. Trump is only a piece of this large and ugly tapestry – a figurehead for an army of cultural and social vandals serving alongside economic thieves and assassins. These are, moreover, the experts in how to instrumentalise economic inequality to serve the very politicians responsible for fostering the inequality in the first place and those most wedded to beliefs capable only of making matters worse for all but themselves and their donor-owners. ..."
"... But let's not be lulled by the familiarity of parts of this story. Familiar from Reagan and Bush Jnr, as well as Clinton and Obama (albeit with a more fulgent presentation and the skilled performance of sympathy to sugar the pill). ..."
"... [Neo]Liberalism is an ideology, it has many variations and even definitions for people. Arrogance, superiority, disdain, refusal to engage etc. A moral certainty more in line with doctrinal religion. ..."
"... The first question to ask is why these right wing commentators are attacking liberalism . Is it because they want a better society in which everyone gets a chance of a decent life ? Do they actually care about the people they claim to speak for - they people right at the bottom of the social scale ? ..."
"... The answer , of course, is no. They see attacking liberalism as a means of defending their own privileges which they believe liberalism and the gradual progress of recent years towards a more equal society have undermined. ..."
"... Since they are basically conning the underprivileged and cannot deliver what they promise the right will find itself driven to even more extremes of bigotry and deceit to maintain its position. The prospect is terrifying. ..."
Of course in the age of inverted reality, spin and obfuscation, the true nature of [neo]iberals
is quite the reverse. Just like the fabians they seek to divert attention from their real goals
by describing themselves as mirror opposites.
The [neo]liberal elite is nothing of the sort, they seek to control, manipulate and suppress
everything which doesn't fit their hidden purpose, which is to promote the flat earth globalisation
of the debt pyramid on behalf of the banking cartel and the likes of the Rothschild's.
They are despicable creatures, full to the brim with breath-taking hypocrisy, happy to
claim faux indignation over widening inequality and falling living standards while they promote
the pyramid scheme of debts which causes it. They may dream of a world government with socialism
for the masses and largesse for the elites, but as sure as the sun rises in the east, such concentration
of power, wielded by those least suitable to hold it, would create an authoritarian tyranny like
seen before. Power in all forms should be spread into as many hands as possible, monopolies
are always bad yet, once again, the illiberal's love a monopoly because they're not what they
seem.
tempestteacup 1d ago Guardian Pick
...You certainly have a point that the experiences in the UK and the US are different for lots
of reasons - historic alignments of the major parties, political corruption, and the different
points where class, race, gender and geographical location intersect - but the latter-day form
of liberalism tried - and failed - to do the same thing in both countries.
Essentially, Third Way liberalism as practised by Clinton and Blair, but even more so by
those who followed them (Clinton and Blair were, let's not forget, populists of a sort), is predicated
on the belief that you can fashion a winning mandate to govern by appealing to a consensus among
middle class professionals, the liberal rich, and what they saw as a new, unideological class
of 21st century workers - the socially liberal, politically apathetic, precariously situated masses
who hover somewhere between traditional working class and educated middle.
They did this by appealing to issues of social identity while reinforcing the economics
of the right-wing neoliberal ushered in by Thatcher and Reagan. They were, at the same time, losing
working class votes - but their analysis of the economics told them that the (in a Marxist sense)
working class was an endangered species. The Republicans in America willingly played into
this fantastical analysis by engaging in the culture wars - politically useful but also economically
necessary as a distraction from the growing cross-party consensus on how to enshrine, extend and
improve the means of capitalist exploitation through deregulation and debt.
2008 exploded this fiction but its architects remain wedded to the cause. They personally
enriched themselves by opening-up traditionally popular parties to the donations and interests
of corporate capitalism. Look beyond Blair and the Clintons and you will see hundreds of centre-left
politicians growing fat on an endless stream of corporate money: Cory Booker, Chuck Schumer, DWS,
Howard Dean (in the US), Ben Bradshaw, Chris Byrne, Alastair Campbell, Jack Straw (in the UK)
.
Evolutions and developments require always refreshed analysis but the basic principles by which
we subject those developments to our analysis remain fundamentally the same: capitalism is a system
by which wealth is transferred from the workers to those owning the means of production. Deregulated
capitalism tends to monopolies and the rise of a rentier class epitomised on Wall Street and property
speculators like Donald Trump.
Global capitalism pits workers against workers in an endless spiral of wage deflation and
this fosters divisions between those whose class interests are, in fact, the same. The alienation
that is an intimate part of capitalist production is carried over into the social relations
between workers and can only be short-circuited by acts of radical organising - revolution begins
with a question that the system cannot answer and ends with a demand that refuses to be denied.
Marx also made a distinctive between productive and fictitious capital - share prices,
derivatives and other financial instruments, arbitrage and all the other heinous arsenal of second-order
exploitation. Neoliberalism has delivered productive capital into the arms of fictitious capital
and ushered us into a world governed by nobody so much as orchestrated according to the graph-lines
of the global stock markets. It has turned the spectacle from social relations mediates by images
into the beating heart of how, where and why wealth moves the way that it does. The unreality
has seeped into every aspect of lived experience.
And yet, strangely, I am less despondent then I was under Obama and his smooth delivery
of a hope and change always deferred.
Or Hillary Clinton and her revolution of upper-class women with their own specific class
interests. There is organising taking place right now and making demands that this system will
not satisfy - because it is designed to do the exact opposite.
I would rather speak with an alt-right troll than a liberal because one is searching for
answers in the wrong place where the other glibly renders apologies for the system from which
they seek to profit at the expense of those to whom they offer nothing but false sympathy.
There is a mobilisation of anger and a refusal to accept the fictions spun by the ruling
class that can potentially be harnessed for permanent change - and, moreover, 8 years of Obama
and his pathological love for financial elites has revealed that radical change can be delivered
only through radical means.
joropofever -> tempestteacup 2d ago
I would agree about this idea of a vacuum being created by the political class but really I
think the political turmoil is a reflection of the economic inequality, economics shaping the
political. But as others have said really we mean neoliberalism, not liberalism. Liberalism
and capitalism are not the same thing and cant be used interchangeably, liberalism is a set of
beliefs and capitalism is a set of practices which are sometimes at odds with one another. On
the other hand, neoliberalism as a set of beliefs explicitly accepts the hegemony of capital and
the expansion of the market economy into all areas of society and life.
I think what you are saying (correct me if wrong) is that the reformist and incrementalist
view of a progressive social democracy that balances state and market for the betterment of all
is con. Marxists said this view would result in the state becoming a conduit for the accumulation
of power in the hands of capital and the gradual destruction of welfare and social institutions,
and they were right.
My question is then though is how do you achieve this transformation (though I don't know what
you would think best) without running the risk of a right-wing and nationalist hijack? History
is littered with cases where well intended left-wing revolutions and social movements helped sow
the seeds for later horrors. As you say, the prognosis and world view of the radical left and
the alt-right are not miles apart.
tempestteacup -> joropofever 2d ago
More excellent and pertinent questions!
I don't think that Trump and Brexit mark an epochal shift; I think they are signs of disintegration.
The more significant (though still not epochal!) moment was the 2008 financial crisis - and the
complete failure of the political elites of Europe and America to address its fallout. This, by
the way, was also far from the unforeseeable calamity that it was characterised as being in many
sections of the media. Many economists and political analysts had discussed deregulation and unsustainable
debt in terms of future crises; it wasn't prophesy, but a basic understanding of how unrestricted
market capitalism (especially when reliant on the vicissitudes of shares/bonds/derivatives) operates.
And I don't accept that this is an anglocentric point of view. There are crises across Europe,
although none have as yet had quite the before/after drama of the Brexit and presidential votes.
In France, the Front National are basically the second party. In Italy, the chaotic 5 Star Movement
are on the verge of toppling the prime minister and making gains elsewhere. In Hungary, Fidesz
and the borderline neo-fascist Jobbik dominate political discourse, as the Law and Justice party
have come to do in Poland. Even in Scandinavia, the Danish People's Party and True Finns have
made significant, even decisive, inroads on political discourse.
Commentators are fond of saying that the left-right divide has been scrambled. Doubtless they
would cite some of these as examples - many of the European nationalist parties I have mentioned
are in favour of strong welfare protections, and use race, country of origin, religion or ethnicity
as a dividing line. To me this does not signify the same thing - the Nazis were called National
Socialists for a reason, and while the purges of the 30s and the war brought the anti-semitic
mass murderers into the ascendancy, there were many founder-members like Strasser and Rohm who
were essentially socialists with a racial or nationalist element.
But look, you're right - the events of 2016 are, as we speak, being interpreted, exploited
and spun to the benefit of the prevailing conditions. One would expect no different - it's why
I was not surprised that the Tory bloodletting post-Brexit gave way to such a painless transition,
just as it appears to be doing in America under President-elect Trump. It's what the ruling class
do - protect their interests. What I believe has happened is that there is now a rupture within
the left (in its broadest sense) and that rupture is defined by those who believe economic change
will deliver social justice on the one hand and those who believe in cosmetic changes without
challenging the economic system.
More broadly, I agree with you - history is not some untroubled march of the working class
to freedom (alas!) It is contingent, messy and unexpected. We have agency - and we have to use
it (another thing I believe has been reignited in the last 8 years). One of many ironies of the
present situation is that neoliberal politicians believed that the educated precariat they were
helping to create would be unideological, politically apathetic consumers - and yet it is the
young who are returning the repressed in the form of unrest, economic demands, and the re-introduction
of class into political discourse.
If I may be allowed to spit-ball for a moment, this is, to my mind, a pivotal moment in history.
Those of us adults but under 40 are the last vestiges of the 20th century and its traditions of
dissent, revolt and counterculture. We are, so to speak, the children of the 1960s. And those
from the 1960s are still here - there is a living link, and in revolutionary terms, such things
matter. In a period where we could potentially prevent catastrophic, irreversible climate change,
there is no more time. It is imperative that we make our stand now, with those who lived through
the last revolutionary period in the west, to keep that flame of revolt alive - or, better yet,
to stoke it into a pyre. Because without those signal historical developments, those noble challenges,
the flame dies down and is covered in ashes....
Okay though, back to reality! That, I concede, is a very American and European perspective
that does not take into account the global developments in Asia, Africa or Latin America. I actually
lived in China for a while as a young man, and it struck me at the time that the society offered
a possible, if bleak, template for the future - a technocratic, one-party state in which people
trusted them to deliver the right decisions through a central bureaucracy but with consumer freedoms
sufficient to forestall unrest. This is, perhaps, an alternative to the dissent and potentially
unrest I have described - and what makes the latter imperative...?
tempestteacup -> joropofever 2d ago
Oh, and what you wrote about waste is very interesting. I certainly agree that it, "efficiency"
(usually code for cuts and/or transfer from public to private stewardship), are over-fetishised.
In fact, ridiculously so. The waste of most governments is staggering and yet they attack only
certain areas. What America squanders on its military is the most obvious of examples - or its
increasingly repressive police.
I was more concerned, though, with the general sustainability of a system where decisions are
made by criteria other than profit/loss, demand/supply. You're right about direct democracy (it's
been ages since I've read Raymond Williams so I'm glad you reminded me to do so again!) - but
how does that work when it comes to resources that have to be shared over large areas? Is it possible
to build, step by step, a democratic structure of shared ownership that is both responsive to
individual communities and responsible in its disposition of resources on the basis of needs rather
than profits?
tempestteacup -> ForgetThePolitics 1d ago
Sorry but I can't agree with that. Popular in terms of electoral success and populist in terms
of generating fervid support through direct, emotionally charged appeals to your audience's most
passionately held interests, fears or aspirations while adopting their language and mobilising
their energy, are two very different things. Obama was popular but not, it turned out, a populist
– despite the narrative of his early presidency, inflected as it still was with the delirious,
joyous cheers the followed his rhetorically rich but studiously vague Yes We Can barnburner (of
sorts).
The point with Trump - and Brexit too - is not so much what it means to the man himself
(or Brexit-profiteers like Boris Johnson) but how his victory gets brandished to confer legitimacy
and political cover for a newly emboldened syndicate of zealously right-wing politicians and the
corporate interests they represent (especially in America, where the majority of Congressional
Republicans are little better than local union bosses who have been installed by the Mafia to
carry their water and hold their places to exclude anyone else attaining any uncorrupted power
or autonomous control).
We are seeing this happen right now as Trump fashions his administration - there are a
lot of lobbyists, reactionary financiers, neoconservative mavens, embittered figures from the
intelligence community, and evangelical culture warriors suddenly footloose and demob happy after
8 years of Barack Obama and his patented brand of Fidel-loving, radical Chicago organising, spectacularly
lukewarm but yet (according to Fox) apocalyptically awful, anti-American, Socialist Revolution.
There are legions of pissed off, fired up kingpins from the fossil fuel industry already itching
to fire up the federal shredders fired up and set loose in the EPA. There are batallions of combat-ready,
obscenely wealthy people and dynasties for whom there is no such thing as too much, and who are
salivating just as they imagine the glorious bonfire of taxes that their Republican lackeys have
a chance to build and dance around in one of their pagan rituals of money worship and rapacity
as a fetish of a heavenly future. And they can build it on the floor of a Congress they also dominate,
before embarking on a mission to extend their current gains during the 2018 mid-terms, when several
precariously held Democratic Senate seats in otherwise Trump-friendly states will be up for re-election.
Much of the above will be familiar from Bush files - a man who was seldom happier than
when sunk into his Lay-Z-Boy learning how to eat pretzels safely from Barney, his Scottish Terrier.
His main role was to show up when required and gurn for the cameras, narrow his peepers and regurgitate
what the teleprompter feeds him, before signing the executive orders dreamt up by his dream-team
of vampyric, far-right champions of such American glories as the Vietnam War, Watergate, Iran/Contra,
and more Latin American coup d'etats than even Henry Kissinger could shake his razor-studded cudgel
at. It was their interests, energies, vendettas and connections that provided the real substance
for a presidency characterised above all by the elevation of anti-intellectualism to the level
of essential and authentic patriotic performance (preparing ground now bulldozed across by a Trump-shaped
figure reveling in the sheer winningness of it all).
The fact is that Trump cares about victory and basking in the light of his own self-proclaimed
greatness – and now he's won. I doubt he cares nearly as much about mastering the levers of government
or pursuing some overarching vision as he does about preening himself in his new role as the Winner
of the World's Greatest Ever Reality TV Show. He may have thrown red meat to the crowds with the
gun-toting, abortion-hating campaign rhetoric, but that is the base for every contemporary Republican's
bill of fare. I don't believe he gives a tinker's cuss about those issues or any of the other
poisons that constitute their arsenal of cultural pesticides.
Like all rich people, he wants to pay as little tax as possible without breaking the law
(or at least breaking it outrageously enough to attract the notice of the perennially over-worked,
under-resourced IRS). Like many rich people, he believes that his wealth is objective and
irrefutable proof of his personal excellence; that this proves how America is truly a land of
opportunity, where hard work, innovation and good old moxie can transform any Joe Schlubb on Main
Street into a millionaire princeling of the Upper West Side - thus demonstrating that social investment
in education or spending to address issues like systemic discrimination is just throwing money
at life's losers.
tempestteacup -> ForgetThePolitics 1d ago
And finally, like most rich people, he refuses to accept that governments can or should
regulate transactions or industries in ways that may even slightly inhibit their unbound, irrepressible
pursuit of their self-interests and unquenchable desire for more, more and yet again more.
These basic right-wing tenets, of course, all easily translate into concrete policy - that's
what the Republicans do best. It is what should be expected.
But beyond that, there is the small matter of the world's most highly evolved and comprehensive
system of state surveillance and repression - a confluence of agencies, technologies, paranoia
and class war that was embraced and embellished by Obama from the moment he brought his glacial
approach to change to the highest office in the land – indeed, he showed that he was quite comfortable
signing off on historic erosions of constitutional freedoms provided it was endorsed by his ever-responsible
friends in Langley and The Pentagon.
If, as would be unsurprising, public unrest spreads and civil disobedience intensifies while
Trump begin work on the familiar Republican transfer of wealth, with Black Lives Matter hardening
their resistance and resolve in the face of police brutalities now able to justify themselves
in terms of sympathetic views espoused by the incoming President himself; with white working class
voters realising that their interests have been, were always going to be, betrayed; with environmental
activists mobilised in deadly earnest and in a desperate effort to push back against potentially
catastrophic energy and industrial policies that imperil everyone's future; as young people schooled
in the Bernie campaign seek to organise and resist the excesses of a Trump presidency that few
accept as legitimately representative of them or their lives, and as the despair of the country
increases under a divisive, duplicitous and avaricious administration soaked in the very corruption
it was such a winning strategy to declaim - well, then Trump has at his fingers the shiniest forms
of repression that money and 21st century technology can provide: blanket surveillance online
and in the streets, habeas corpus perilously undermined by legislation like the NDAA, hyper-militarised
police forces trained in the use of obscenely excessive force, obscenely high sentences imposed
by one of the army of judges perversely satisfied by every extreme species of punitive justice
at their fingertips, along with prosecutors who consider the multi-year deprivation of freedom
in a brutalising prison system as a badge of professional honour, all the while dreaming up criminal
indictments that are so overzealous they look for felonies to charge the felonies with. Many warned
that the step-by-step construction of this multi-layered, barely controllable system (to complement
the steady erosion of civil liberties and constitutional rights) betrayed a potentially disastrous
lack of foresight. It would not always rest in the command of people unwilling to test its full
extent, and once you have created such possibilities in law, in storage rooms of equipment, in
training drills and operating manuals, it is only a matter of time before they will be invoked
in reality (and seldom in the exact ways they were originally intended or designed).
tempestteacup -> ForgetThePolitics 1d ago
So while Trump and his administration may in many ways resemble the familiar class warriors
of Republican presidencies past, albeit with added evangelical vim, viciousness and vapidity courtesy
of Mike Pence, let's not forget that his frequently displayed authoritarianism will have ample
opportunity to be both stress-tested and to revenge itself on a plethora of opponents. Add
in the fact that the Republicans have achieved an unexpected, clean sweep of Congress, as well
as holding an unprecedented number of governorships. They can act from a position of unparalleled
strength, and as a strength that came unexpectedly one should not be surprised if they start wielding
it recklessly. They can do so, also, after 8 years of stultification and political paralysis,
placed under restraints in order the more effectively to effectively perform their new definition
of Congressional work: obstruct everything the President attempts to do. They only receive the
occasional fun day-out to the Benghazi hearings or when they could play find the gavel during
the 2013 sequester.
So I would expect a lot of pent-up resentment, plenty of lunatic ideas and plenty of hubris
that sees no problem in airing them as if they were the wisdom of Solomon. Their opposition is
disastrously enfeebled after years of poor candidates being selected on the basis of their ability
to toe the corporate line rather than define and then achieve political goals. There is a chance
here, in other words and before demographic changes make future Republican presidential victories
more remote, to pursue their most cherished, most ideological, most shameless, lunatic, idiotic,
corrupt, destructive and irresponsible policies. Trump's bulbous slab of torso-meat, congenitally
bound to seek and fill every available limelight, can provide cover as they rip up every regulation
they see lying around or pretend to have read, slash taxes for themselves, their families, friends,
and all those fine citizens who fund their political cesspool, all the while having fun with whichever
civil liberty or egalitarian policy that catches their eye or makes them feel confused, perhaps
inadequate, with their nasty, un-American regard for systemic injustice and the imperative to
address historic wrongs.
Fresh from one of their favoured think-tanks, where charmed minds devote themselves to the
rigorous and sober analysis, the scholarly investigation of such pressing national issues as:
the best way to enjoy your money is to keep it, why the poor have only themselves to blame, and
freedom is whatever we say it is, vulpine Republican advisers can sink their teeth into racial
equality, voting rights, affirmative action, abortion rights, and whatever else Mike Pence and
friends have decided does not represent their crushingly reactionary, mind-numbingly mediocre
vision of an America without charm and sunk grotesquely in self-love, with anti-intellectualism
as a core principle and, in the end, frightened of anything that diverges from a template of respectability
designed by someone who seemingly loathes the entire human race.
None of this, however, justifies the orgy of visions competing to describe the most apocalyptic
America, commentators outdoing each other in op-ed after op-ed as they spin stories from the most
terrifying speculations or possible scenarios. I'm simply pointing out that it is not that difficult
to foresee the direction Trump's presidency will travel - or to point out where and how things
could become very nasty. The point, really, is to move beyond the office of the President,
which is always absurdly fetishised in American politics to the detriment of scrutiny that should
be directed elsewhere - at his team, his cabinet, his appointments, and his place in the web of
Congressional Republicans, lobbyists and corporate money – the nexus of interests that really
dictates policies and determined which political battles get fought aggressively, which cast aside.
The truth so far is about as desolate as one would expect – made that little bit worse by the
continued (maybe permanent?) state of delusion and the feeble platitudes dribbling out of the
by-now-almost-unsalvageable Congressional Democratic Wurlitzer of Wisdom, scarcely enough to drowned
the noise of meretricious minds whirring as they look for solutions to the only question that
really matters: how to continue mainlining the corporate donor money-dope while at the same time
presenting an appearance of interest in the left-wing changes championed by progressive Democrats
like Bernie sufficient to placate the latter along with their irritatingly rambunctious supporters.
tempestteacup -> ForgetThePolitics 1d ago
Ok, crazy - this is like a nightmare of my own making. So long! But must finished now I've
started........
Blimey, this got long - apologies. Let me offer the reader's digest, abbreviated version: Trump
and his court have thus far confirmed what was fairly obvious - that he and his new Congressional
play-mates are already pawing the ground in anticipation of the approaching adventure into their
favourite land: the magical kingdom of inexhaustible tax cuts, where every regulation can be tossed
on the fire, where protections come to you to be gutted and the public finances positively cry
out to be finagled in a giant cabaret that they can dedicate, as is their wont, to their feared
yet beloved corporate masters. They can demonstrate to their heart's content their enduring fealty
to the donor-class who bestride the nation like benevolent princes, they can lavish on them a
horn of plenty overflowing with gifts, endowments, contracts, pourboires, fortunes bilked from
the taxpayer and juggled into the pockets of these stalwart champions of American values, coy
little loopholes with diagrams for how to exploit them, and above all – first, last and always
– every asset they can think of stripping from public ownership they have been taught to believe
is merely a euphemism for Marxist-Leninism.
In the meantime, public resistance or acts of dissent, the faintest hint of mass organising
will be met with state forces of repression restrained now by little more than the frayed strands
of a mostly cut-through piece of rope. Divisions revealed, exploited and entrenched during the
election will, without serious and sustained will to extend solidarity beyond immediate interest-groups
and to learn from the experiences of others, become the permanent operative language of the entire
administration of American government. People will not see a new dawn, but the delirious rush
to expand those chaotic, inhumane, amoral, and utterly unaccountable market forces that have already
seeped far too deep into the already grotty political system. Trump is only a piece of this large
and ugly tapestry – a figurehead for an army of cultural and social vandals serving alongside
economic thieves and assassins. These are, moreover, the experts in how to instrumentalise economic
inequality to serve the very politicians responsible for fostering the inequality in the first
place and those most wedded to beliefs capable only of making matters worse for all but themselves
and their donor-owners.
But let's not be lulled by the familiarity of parts of this story. Familiar from Reagan
and Bush Jnr, as well as Clinton and Obama (albeit with a more fulgent presentation and the skilled
performance of sympathy to sugar the pill). Familiar from every interview with almost every
Republican and certainly the freshly minted, post Tea Party brand of prosperity Christian bullies
worthy of far greater anger and loathing than they often receive thanks to a perhaps deliberate
act involving a quasi-folksy clownishness – however many references, though, to the Republican
clown car cannot alter the fact that even the thickest among them is capable of being herded with
the others when it comes to voting for vicious legislation, insane tax cuts and budgets in which
each new one is more limited, more nihilistic than the one before in every respect but the military
and the ever-growing number of enormous flags that will soon follow Republican politicians around
the country to provide an immediately appropriate backdrop in case they feel the sudden need to
share their wisdom with the world or the nearest news anchor.
But while some parts are familiar, enough should be new or unknown to keep all of us looking
forward anxiously, preparing carefully, and planning intelligently for the potentially vicious
challenges ahead.
Danny Sheahan 3d ago
[Neo]Liberalism is an ideology, it has many variations and even definitions for people.
Arrogance, superiority, disdain, refusal to engage etc. A moral certainty more in line with doctrinal
religion.
These are big problems on the left/liberal platform.
Certainly not all but enough to damage it is a position.
Many, like me, who vote left are hoping that the penny will drop. It has to at some stage,
why not now?
It may not though, it would not surprise me.
tehanomander -> Danny Sheahan 3d ago
What Danny said
Supported Labour all my life probably will with reservations still ....but the disconnect is
palpable now (think Owen Smith to understand my meaning)
I voted Leave though .....so obviously now in here I'm a Trump supporter and racist xenophobe
(which always amuses my Jamaican wife when I tell her)
Keith Macdonald 3d ago \
The first question to ask is why these right wing commentators are attacking liberalism
. Is it because they want a better society in which everyone gets a chance of a decent life ?
Do they actually care about the people they claim to speak for - they people right at the bottom
of the social scale ?
Do they really want their own children to compete on equal terms with the rest of the population
for the inevitably limited number of top jobs ?
The answer , of course, is no. They see attacking liberalism as a means of defending their
own privileges which they believe liberalism and the gradual progress of recent years towards
a more equal society have undermined.
Since they are basically conning the underprivileged and cannot deliver what they promise
the right will find itself driven to even more extremes of bigotry and deceit to maintain its
position. The prospect is terrifying.
The next question is how liberals and progressives deal with this powerful onslaught. So far
we have done badly. For example Hillary Clinton clearly did not have a clue how Trump used the
constructed "reality" of shows like The Apprentice to mount a presidential campaign based on fiction
(although of course the underlying discontents are real). There is a massive amount of work to
do here.
Yes - there has been a failure to make globalisation work. I think Thomas Piketty began to
give some answers to this at
"... he changed American politics forever by demonstrating that style was more important than substance. In fact, he showed that style was everything and substance utterly unimportant. ..."
"... Conservatives used "bracket creep" to convince the middle class that reducing marginal rates on the top tax brackets along with their own would be a good idea, then with the assistance of Democrats replaced the revenue with a huge increase in FICA so that the Social Security Trust Fund could finance the deficit in the rest of the budget. The result was a huge boon to the richest, little difference for the middle class, and a far greater burden for the working poor. ..."
"... Any conversation about who the fantasy-projection "Reagan" was, misses an important reality: He was a hologram, fabricated by a kaleidoscope of various sorts of so-called "conservative" handlers and puppeteers. It was those "puppeteers" who ranged from heartlessly, stunningly "conservative" (destroya-tive), all the way further right to the kind of militaristic, macho, crackpots who have finally emerged from under their rocks at this year's "candidates." ..."
Do not contradict the memories of all the old teabaggers who desperately need the myth of Saint
Ronnie to justify their Greed is Good declining mentality and years.
When Reagan cut-and-ran on Lebanon he showed rare discretion. A lot of the puffery stuff was
B-Movie grade, but there was a lot of cross-the-aisle ventures, too.
He was a politician. The current GOP is just a bunch of white Fundie bullies, actually and
metaphorically (e.g., Carson).
Zepp -> thedono 19 Sep 2015 11:37
Well, compared to Cruz, or Santorum, or Huckabee, he's a moderate. Of course, compared to the
right people, you can describe Mussolini or Khruschev as moderates...
mastermisanthrope 19 Sep 2015 11:37
Lifelong shill
LostintheUS -> William J Rood 19 Sep 2015 11:36
Reagan underwent a political conversion when Nancy broke up his marriage with Jane Wyman and
married him.
The cold war ended while Reagan was president, but he did not win the cold war. His rhetoric
and strategy was wishful thinking - there's no way he could have had the definitive intelligence
about the entire military-political-economic that would have justified the confidence he projected.
He merely lucked out, significantly damaging the US economy by trying (and luckily succeeding)
to out-militarize the soviets.
pretzelattack -> kattw 19 Sep 2015 11:31
both clinton and obama have showed a willingness to "reform social security". try naked capitalism,
there are probably a number of articles in the archives.
LostintheUS -> piethein 19 Sep 2015 11:29
And that the emergency room federally funded program that saved his life was soon after defunded...by
him.
LostintheUS -> pretzelattack 19 Sep 2015 11:28
Many of us saw through him...I noted the senility during his speeches during his first campaign...as
did many people I knew.
Dementia masquerading as politics.
But you can't say anything negative about Saint Ronald!
Peter Davis -> Peter Davis 19 Sep 2015 11:22
I believe Reagan also is responsible for creating the Hollywood notion in American politics
and political thinking that life works just like a movie--with good guys and bad guys. And all
one needs is a gun and you can save the world. That sort of delusional thinking has been at the
heart of the modern GOP ever since.
loljahlol -> ID3732233 19 Sep 2015 11:21
Reagan did not end the Cold War. Brezhnev rule solidified the Soviet death. Their corrupt,
inefficient form of capitalism could not compete with the globalization of Western capitalism.
John78745 19 Sep 2015 11:21
There's not much nuance to Reagan. He was a coward, a bully and a loser. He got hundreds of
U.S. Marines killed then he ran from the terrorists in Beirut and on the Archille Lauro personally
creating the seeds of the morass of terrorists we now live with. He fostered the republican traditions
of sending U.S. jobs overseas at the expense of U.S. taxpayers and of invading helpless, hapless
nations, a tradition so adeptly followed by Bush I & II. He also promised that there would never
be a need for another amnesty.
I guess it's true that he talked mean to the Russians, broke unions, and helped make the military
industrial complex into the insatiable war machine that it is today. Remember murderous Iran-Contra
(a real) scandal where he and his minions worked in secret without congressional authorization
to overthrow a democratically elected government while conspiring to supply arms to the dastardly
Iranians!
We could also say that he bravely fought to save the U.S. from socialized medicine and to expunge
the tradition of free tuition for California students. Whatta hero!
thankgodimanatheist 19 Sep 2015 11:19
Reagan, the acting President, was the worst President since WWII until the Cheney/Bush debacle.
Most of the problems we face today can be directly traced to his voodoo economics, huge deficit
spending, deregulation, and in retrospect disastrous foreign policies.
LostintheUS 19 Sep 2015 11:17
"these days everyone seems to love Ronald."
Absolutely, not true. The farther along we go in time, the more Americans realize the damage
this man and his backers did to America and the world. The inversion of the tax tables, the undoing
of union laws, the polarization of Americans against each other so the plutocrats had no real
opposition and on and on. His camp stole the election in 1980 through making a back door deal
with the Iranian government to hold onto the American hostages until the election when Jimmy Carter
had negotiated an end to the hostage crisis, which was the undoing of Jimmy Carter's administration.
"Behind Carter's back, the Reagan campaign worked out a deal with the leader of Iran's radical
faction - Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini - to keep the hostages in captivity until after the
1980 Presidential election." This is, unquestionably, treason. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/20287-without-reagans-treason-iran-would-not-be-a-problem
No, Reagan marks the downward turn for our country and has resulted in the economic and social
mess we still have not clawed our way back out of. No, Reagan is no hero, he is an American nemesis
and a traitor. Reagan raised taxes three times while slashing the tax rate of the super rich...starting
the downward spiral of the middle-class and the funneling of money toward the 1%. Thus his reputation
as a "tax cutter", yeah, if you were a multi-millionaire.
Never thought of Reagan as the first Shrub but it fits. I wonder if future pundits will sing
the Dub's praises as well. I think I'm gonna be sick for a bit.
kattw -> namora 19 Sep 2015 11:10
Pretzel is maybe talking about the 'strengthen SS' bandwagon? Perhaps? Not entirely sure myself,
but yeah - one of the major democrat platform planks is that SS should NOT be privatized, and
that if people want to invest in stocks, they can do that on their own. The whole point of SS
is to be a mattress full of cash that is NOT vulnerable to the vagaries of the market, and will
always have some cash in it to be used as needed.
SS would be totally secure, too, if congress would stop robbing it for other projects, or pay
back all they've borrowed. As it is, I wish *I* was as broke as republicans claim SS is - I wouldn't
mind having a few billion in the bank.
William J Rood 19 Sep 2015 11:08
Reagan was former president of the Screen Actors' Guild. Obviously, he thought unions for highly
educated workers were great. Meatpackers? Not so much.
RealSoothsayer 19 Sep 2015 11:04
This article does not mention the fact that in his last couple of years as President at least,
his mental state had seriously deteriorated. He could not remember his own policies, names, etc.
CBS' Leslie Stahl should be prosecuted for not being honest with her everyone when she found out.
Peter Davis 19 Sep 2015 11:04
Reagan was a failed president who nonetheless managed to convince people that he was great.
He was a professional actor, after all. And he acted his way into the White House. Most importantly,
he changed American politics forever by demonstrating that style was more important than substance.
In fact, he showed that style was everything and substance utterly unimportant. He was the
figurehead while his handlers did the dirty work of Iran-Contra, ballooning deficits, and tanking
unemployment.
nishville 19 Sep 2015 11:03
For me, he was a pioneer. He was the first sock-puppet president, starting a noble tradition
that reached its climax with W.
mbidding -> hackerkat 19 Sep 2015 11:03
In addition to:
Treasonous traitor when, as a presidential candidate, he negotiated with Khomeini to hold the
hostages till after the election.
Subverter of the Constitution via the Iran-Contra scandal.
Destroyer of social cohesion by turning JFK's famous admonishment of "ask not what your country
can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" on its head with his meme that all evil
emanates from the government and taxation represents stealing rather than a social obligation
for any civilized society that wishes to continue to develop in a sound fashion that lifts all
boats.
Incarcerator in Chief through his tough on crime and war on drugs policies, not to mention
defunding mental health care.
Pisser in Chief through his successful efforts to imbed trickle down economics as the economic
thought du jour which even its original architects, notably Stockman, now confirm is a failed
theory that we nonetheless cling to to this day.
Ignoramus in Chief by gutting real federal financial aid for higher education leading to the
obscene amounts of student debt our college students now incur.
Terrorist creator extraordinaire not only with the creation of the Latin American death squads
you note, but the creation, support, trading, and funding of the mujahedin and Bin Laden himself,
now known as the Taliban, Al Qa'ida, and ISIS, only the most notable among others.
namora -> trholland1 19 Sep 2015 10:59
That is not taking into account his greatest role for which he was ignored for a much deserved
Oscar, Golden Globe or any of the other awards passed out by the entertainment industry, President
of The United States of America. He absolutely nailed that one.
William J Rood 19 Sep 2015 10:58
Conservatives used "bracket creep" to convince the middle class that reducing marginal
rates on the top tax brackets along with their own would be a good idea, then with the assistance
of Democrats replaced the revenue with a huge increase in FICA so that the Social Security Trust
Fund could finance the deficit in the rest of the budget. The result was a huge boon to the richest,
little difference for the middle class, and a far greater burden for the working poor.
Tax brackets could have been indexed to inflation, but that wouldn't have been so great for
Reagans real supporters.
Doueman 19 Sep 2015 10:55
What sad comments by these armchair experts.
They don't gel with my experiences in North America during this period at all. When Reagan
ran for the presidency he was generally ridiculed by much of the press in the US and just about
all of the press in the UK for being a right wing fanatic, a lightweight, too old, uninformed
and even worse an actor. I found this rather curious and watched him specifically on TV in unscripted
scenarios to form my own impression as to how such a person, with supposedly limited abilities,
could possibly run for President of the US. I get a bit suspicious when organisations and individuals
protest and ridicule too much.
My reaction was that he handled himself well and gradually concluded that the mainly Eastern
liberal press in the US couldn't really stomach a California actor since they themselves were
meant to know everything. He actually was pretty well read ( visitors were later astonished to
read his multiple annotations in heavy weight books in his library). He was a clever and astute
union negotiator dealing with some of the toughest Hollywood moguls who would eat most negotiators
for dinner. He had become Governor of California and had done a fine job. I thought it was unlikely
he was the simpleton many portrayed. He couldn't be easily categorised as he embraced many good
aspects of the Democrats and the Republicans. Life wasn't so polarised then.
The US had left leaning Republicans and right wing Democrats. A political party as Churchill
noted was simply a charger to ride into action.
In my view, his presidential record was pretty remarkable. A charming, fair minded charismatic
man without the advantage of a wealthy background or influential family. The world was lucky to
have him.
raffine -> particle 19 Sep 2015 10:50
Reagan's second term was a disaster. But as someone below mentioned, conservative pundits and
their financers engaged in a campaign to make Reagan into a right-wing FDR. The most effective,
albeit bogus, claim on Reagan's behalf was that he had ended the Cold War.
jpsartreny 19 Sep 2015 14:22
Reagan is the shadow governments greatest triumph. After the adolescent Kennedy, egomaniacs
Johnson and Nixon , they needed front guys who followed orders instead .
The experiment with the peanut farmer from Georgia provided disastrous to Zebrew Brzezinski
and the liberals. The conservatives had better luck with a B- movie actor with an great talent
to read of the teleprompter.
RealSoothsayer -> semper12 19 Sep 2015 14:19
How? By talking? Gobachev brought down the USSR with his 'Glasnost' and 'Perestroika' policies.
His vision was what communist China later on achieved: mixed economy that flies a red flag. Reagan
was just an observer, absolutely nothing more. Tito of Yugoslavia was even more instrumental.
Marc Herlands 19 Sep 2015 14:17
IMHO Reagan was the second most successful president, behind FDR and ahead of LBJ. Not that
I liked anything about him, but he moved this country to the right and set the play book. He lowered
taxes on the wealthy, the corporations, capital gains, and estate taxes. He reduced growth in
programs for the poor, and made it impossible to increase their funding after his presidency because
of he left huge federal deficits caused by lowering taxes and increasing outlays on the military.
This Republican playbook still is their way of making sure that the Democrats can't give the poor
more money after they lose power. Also, he enlarged the program for deregulating industries, doing
away with antitrust laws, hindering labor laws, encouraged anti-union behavior, and did nothing
for AIDS research. He was a scoundrel who did a deal with Iran to prevent Carter from being re-elected.
He directly disobeyed Congressional laws not to intervene in Nicaragua. He set the tone for US
interventions after him.
bloggod 19 Sep 2015 14:17
Obama, Clinton, and the Bushes all hope to be forgiven for their unpardonable crimes.
Popularity is created. It is not populism, or informed consent of the pubic as approval for
more of the same collusion.
It is a One Party hoe down.
bloggod -> SigmetSue 19 Sep 2015 14:12
"they"
the indicted Sec of Defense Weinberger; the indicted head of the CIA Casey who "died" as he
was due to testify: Mcfarlane, Abrams, Clair George, Oilyver North, Richard Secord, Albert Hakim
Reagan had no genius, he had Bush-CIA and the Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, and the "immoral
majority" of anti-abortion war profiteers.
Marios Antoniou Lattimore 19 Sep 2015 13:52
I agree with everything you mentioned, and I intensely dislike Reagan YET the point of the
article wasn't that Reagan was good, it rather points to the fact that Republicans have shifted
so far to the right that Reagan would appear moderate compared to the current batch.
Rainer Jansohn pretzelattack 19 Sep 2015 13:52
Interesting had been his speeches during the Cold War.Scientists have subsumed it under "Social
Religion",a special form of political theology.Simple dialectical:UDSSR the incarnation of the
evil/hell on the other side USA :the country of God himself.A tradition in USA working until now.There
is no separation between government and church as in good old centuries sincetwo centuries resulting
from enlightening per Philosophie/Voltaire/Kant/Hume/Descartes and so on.Look at Obamas speeches/God
is always mixed in!
talenttruth 19 Sep 2015 13:49
Any conversation about who the fantasy-projection "Reagan" was, misses an important reality:
He was a hologram, fabricated by a kaleidoscope of various sorts of so-called "conservative" handlers
and puppeteers. It was those "puppeteers" who ranged from heartlessly, stunningly "conservative"
(destroya-tive), all the way further right to the kind of militaristic, macho, crackpots who have
finally emerged from under their rocks at this year's "candidates."
The fact that Reagan was going ga-ga – definitely in his second term, and likely for part of
the first – was entirely convenient for his Non-Human-Based-Crackpot-Right-Holographers, since
he had was not actually "driven" to vacuousness by a tragic mental condition (dementia) – THAT
change was merely a "short putt" – from his entire previous life.
Regarding his Great Achievement, the collapse of the Soviet Union? After decades of monstrous
over-spending by the USA's Military-Industrial-Complex, the bogus and equally insane USSR finally
bankrupted itself trying to "compete" and fell. Reagan (and his puppeteer handlers), always excellent
at Taking Credit for anything, showed up with exquisite cynical timing, and indeed Took Credit.
Lest anyone forget, Reagan got elected in 1980, via a totally illegal and stunningly immoral
"side deal" with the Iranians, in which they agreed to not release our hostages to make Carter
look like a feeble old man. Then we got Reagan who WAS a "feeble old man" (ESPECIALLY intellectually
and morally). Reagan "won," the hostages were "released" and he of course took credit for that
too.
So all these so-called "candidates" ARE the heirs of all the very worst of Ronald Reagan: they
are all simpleminded, they are totally beholden to Hidden Sociopathic Billionaires hiding behind
various curtains, and they all have NO CLUE what the word "ethics" means. Vacuous, anti-intellectual,
scheming, appealing only to morons, and puppets all. Perfect "Reaganites."
Bill Ehrhorn -> semper12 19 Sep 2015 13:32
It seems that the teabaggers and their ilk give only Reagan credit.
SigmetSue 19 Sep 2015 13:16
They called him the Teflon President because nothing ever stuck. It still doesn't. That was
his genius -- and I'm no fan.
Lattimore 19 Sep 2015 13:13
The article seems to present Reagan as an theatrical figure. I disagree. Reagan, President
of the United States, was a criminal; as such, he was among the most corrupt and anti democratic
person to hold the office POTUS. The fact that he tripled the national debt, raised taxes and
skewed the tax schedules to benifit the wealthy, are comparitively minor.
,,,
Reagan's crimes and anti democratic acts:
1. POTUS: CIA smuggling cocaine into the U.S., passing the drug to wholesalers, who then processed
the drug and distributed crack to Black communities. At the same time Reagan's "War on Crime"
insured that the Black youth who bought "Central Intelligenc Agencie's" cocaine were criminalized
and handed lengthy prison sentences.
2. POTUS supported SOUTH AMERICAN terrorist, and the genocidal atrocities commited by terrorist
in Chili, Guatamala, El Mazote, etc.
3. POTUS supported SOUTH AFRICAN apartheid, and the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela as well. Vetoing
a bill that would express condemnation of South Africa.
4. POTUS sold Arms to Iran.
5. POTUS used taxpayer dollars to influence election outcomes.
6. POTUS rigged government grants to enrich his cronies.
7. POTUS thew mental patients onto the streets.
8. POTUS supported McCarthyism, witch hunts, etc.
9. POTUS created and supported Islamic terrorist--fore runners of al Queada, ISIS, etc.
Niko2 LostintheUS 19 Sep 2015 13:12
I don't have much love for Nancy, but she did not break up this marriage, to be fair. And she
actually got rid off the extreme right wingers in Reagan's administration, like Haig and Regan,
whom she called "extra chromosome republicans". Surely she was a vain and greedy flotus with no
empathy whatsoever for people not in her Bel Air circles (I can easily imagine her, "Do I really
have to go and see these Aids-Babies, I'd rather shop at Rodeo Drive, lose the scheduler") but
she realized at an early stage that hubbies shtick-it-to-the-commies policies would do him no
favour. Maybe she's the unsung heroine of his presidency.
tommydog -> MtnClimber 19 Sep 2015 13:04
The principle subsidies to big oil are probably the strategic oil reserve and subsidies to
low income people for winter heating oil. You can choose which of those you'd like to cut. After
that you're arguing about whether exploration costs should be expensed in the year incurred or
capitalized and amortized over time.
WilliamK 19 Sep 2015 13:03
He was one of J Edgar Hoover's red baiting fascist admiring boys along with Richard Nixon and
Walt Disney used to destroy the labor unions, control the propaganda machine of Hollywood and
used to knuckle under the television networks and undermine as much as possible the New Deal polices
of Franklin Roosevelt. An actor groomed by the General Electric Corporation and their fellow travelers.
"Living better through electricity" was his mantra and he played the role of President to push
forward their right wing agenda. Now we are in new stage in our "political development" in America.
The era of the "reality television star" with Hollywood in bed with the military industrial complex,
selling guns, violence and sex to the fool hardy and their children and prime time television
ads push pharmaceutical drugs, children hear warnings of four hour erections, pop-stars flash
their tits and asses and a billionaire takes center stage as the media cashes in and goes along
for the ride. Yeah Ronnie was a second tier film star and with his little starlet Nancy by his
side become one of America's greatest salesman.
Backbutton 19 Sep 2015 12:57
LOL! Reagan was a walking script renderer, with lines written by others, and a phony because
he was just acting the part of POTUS. His speeches were all crafted, and he had good writers.
He was no Abraham Lincoln.
And now these morons running for office all want to rub off his "great communicator" fix.
Good help America!
Milwaukee Broad 19 Sep 2015 12:49
Ronald Reagan was an actor whom the depressingly overwhelming majority of American voters thought
was a messiah. They so believed in him that they re-elected him to a second term. Nothing positive
whatsoever became of his administration, yet he is still worshiped by millions of lost souls (conservatives).
Have a nice day.
Michael Williams 19 Sep 2015 12:48
The US was the world's leading creditor when Reagan took office. The US was the world's leading
debtor by the time Bush 1 was tossed out of office.
This is what Republicans cannot seem to remember.
All of the other scandals pale in comparison, even as we deal with the blowback from most of
these original, idiotic policies.
Reagan was an actor, mouthing words he barely understood, especially as his dementia progressed.
This is the exact reason the history is so poorly taught in the US.
People might make connections....
Jessica Roth 19 Sep 2015 12:46
Oh, he had holes in his brain long before the dementia. "Facts are stupid things", trees cause
pollution, and so on.
A pathetic turncoat who sold out his original party (the one that kept his dad in work throughout
the Great Depression via a series of WPA jobs) because Nancy allegedly "gave the best head in
Hollywood" and who believed that only 144,000 people were going to Heaven, presumably accounting
for his uncaring treatment of the less-well-off.
His administration was full of corruption, from Richard Allen's $1000 in an envelope (and three
wristwatches) that he claimed was an inappropriate gift for Mrs. Reagan he had "intercepted" and
then "forgotten" to report to William Casey trading over $3,000,000 worth of stocks while CIA
director. (Knowing about changes in the oil market ahead of time sure came in handy.) You had
an attorney general who took a $50,000 "severance payment" (never done before) from the board
of a corporation he resigned from to avoid conflict of interest charges and this was William French
Smith; his successor, Edwin Meese, was the one with real scandals (about the sale of his home).
Hell, Reagan himself put his ranch hand (Dennis LeBlanc) on the federal payroll as an "advisor"
to the Commerce Department. I didn't know the Commerce Dept needed "advice" on clearing wood from
St. Ronnie's ranch, but LeBlanc got a $58,500 salary out of the deal. (Roughly £98,000 at today's
prices.) Nice work if you can get it.
Meanwhile, RR "talked tough" at the Soviets (resulting in the world nearly ending in 1983 due
to a false alarm about a US nuclear attack) while propping up any rightwing dictator they could
find, from the South African racists to Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos (after they had Aquino assassinated
at the airport) to Roberto "Death Squad" D'Aubuisson in El Salvador (the man who masterminded
the assassination of Archbishop Romero while he was performing Mass).
Oh, and while Carter did a nice job of shooting himself in the foot, Reagan benefited in the
election not only from his treasonous dealings with the Iranian hostage-takers (shades of Nixon
making a deal with North Viet Nam to stall the peace talks until after the 1968 elections, promising
them better terms) but through more pedestrian means such as his campaign's stealing of Carter's
briefing book for the campaign's only debate, Reagan being coached for the debate by a supposedly
neutral journalist (George Will, of ABC and The Washington Post), who then went on television
afterwards (in the days when there were only three commercial channels) and "analysed" how successful
Reagan had been in executing his "game plan" and seeming "Presidential" without either Will or
ABC bothering to mention that Will had coached Reagan and designed the "game plan" in question.
The "liberal bias" in the media, no doubt.
Always a joke, only looking slightly better by the dross that has followed him. (Including
Bill "Third Way" Clinton and his over-£50,000,000 in post-Presidential "speaking fees" graft,
and Barack Obama, drone-murderer of children in over a dozen countries and serial-summary-executioner
of U.S. citizens. When Gordon-effing-Brown is the best that's held office on either side of the
Atlantic since 1979, you can see how this planet is in the state it's in.)
pretzelattack DukeofMelbourne 19 Sep 2015 12:45
his stand on russia was inconsistent, and he didn't cause it to collapse. his economic programs
were a failure. his foreign policy generally a disaster. he set the blueprint for the current
mess.
pretzelattack semper12 19 Sep 2015 12:38
a total crock. reagan let murdering thugs run rampant as long as they paid lip service to democracy,
the world over from africa to central america. the ussr watched this coward put 240 marines to
die in lebanon, and then cut and run, exactly the pattern he was so ready to condemn as treason
in others, and was so ready to portray as showing weakness, and you think the ussr was terrified
of him. he was a hollywood actor playing a role, and you bought it.
Tycho1961 19 Sep 2015 12:13
No President exists in a political vacuum. While he was in office, Reagan had a large Democrat
majority in the House of Representatives and a small Republican majority in the Senate. The Supreme
Court was firmly liberal. Whatever his political agenda Reagan knew he had to constructively engage
with people of both parties that were in opposition to him. If he didn't he would suffer the same
fate as Carter, marginalized by even his own party. His greatest strength was as a negotiator.
Reagan's greatest failures were when he tried to be clever and he and his advisors were found
to be rather ham handed about it.
RichardNYC 19 Sep 2015 11:57
The principal legacy of Ronald Reagan is the still prevalent view that corporate interests
supersede individual interests.
Harry Haff 19 Sep 2015 11:45
Reagan did many horrible things while in office, committed felonies and supported murderous
regimes in Central America that murdered tens of thousands of people with the blessing of the
US chief executive. he sold arms to Iran and despoiled the natural environment whenever possible.
But given those horrendous accomplishments, he could not now get a seat at the table with the
current GOP. He would be considered a RINO, that most stupid and inaccurate term, at best, and
a closet liberal somewhere down the line. The current GOP is more to the right than the politicians
in the South after the Civil War.
SergeyL
1h ago
1
2
The problem is not a populism but western democracy which is
a new religion, and as any religion it's intolerant to any
opposite opinion. I can bet what if you will kill all
Russians and all who are not western you will split and
start fight between yourselves like Christianity or Islam
did before.
Reply
Share
Share on
Facebook
Facebook
Share on
Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
Tongariro1
2h ago
1
2
We have not had an election to put a populist government
into power in the UK. We had a referendum on the specific
issue of EU membership. Even in the USA, they have elected a
populist president, but Congress had much the same political
complexion as it has had in times past. There is no campaign
of any note in the UK to reduce aid.
The vulnerability of
aid programmes to the whims of just two countries reveals a
greater weakness - too few other countries contribute too
little.
If the UN were to act more effectively to meet its core
objective - "to maintain international peace and security" -
then there would be less need for aid. Increasingly, the
role of the UN seems to be to lament the failings of the
west and other developed nations in preventing carnage,
whilst doing little to tackle the perpetrators or bring
about peace. Syria is a prime example of catastrophic
failure.
Reply
Share
Share on
Facebook
Facebook
Share on
Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
PrinceVlad
2h ago
2
3
If western populism leads to more isolationist foreign
policies, there will be fewer refugees. Wouldn't this be a
good thing?
Reply
Share
Share on
Facebook
Facebook
Share on
Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
John Chaloner
3h ago
10
11
According to the linked table in the article, the UK
provides significantly more aid than France, Italy and
Germany combined.
Drain that swamp and then come back with the begging bowl
Reply
Share
Share on
Facebook
Facebook
Share on
Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
Laurence Johnson
4h ago
6
7
Humanitarian aid became political a long time ago and
nothing to do with populists. What is incredible is whilst
the West was creating the tragedy with one hand, the
taxpayers were left to pick up the tab of attempting to fix
it all up.
Refugees are on the whole the result of Western
intervention, subversive and open in other nations
democratic systems, or indeed other nations despotic
systems.
The world has changed in 2016, people have become far
wiser to what has been going on and the costs of intervening
in projecting what we perceive to be democracy in our eyes
has cost many lives, and many trillions of dollars.
Oh and stop the financial oppression of your workers, who
are being squeezed in the pocket like never before in this
globalist world!
What's this Crown Agents.....so transparent!
Reply
Share
Share on
Facebook
Facebook
Share on
Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
Tsugunder
5h ago
6
7
"even if the US and UK do not decrease aid contributions,
there is still a risk that they would allow humanitarian
action to fall prey to politics."
Is this a sick joke? From the Marshall Plan on, Western
governmental aid (with the possible exception of
Scandinavian donors) has been consistently and unashamedly
political, with disastrous results.
Sub-Saharan Africa, where the number of aid workers is
higher than the complement of colonial administrators in the
bygone era, is a case in point: "Since 1960, western
governments have pumped more than $1 trillion in aid into
the region, with the remarkable result that GDP per capita
has declined."
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/07/imperialism-is-back-and-this-time-its-politically-correct
/
It's not 'Western populism' that threatens humanitarian
action globally but its instrumentalisation by the likes of
the US and the UK.
Reply
Share
Share on
Facebook
Facebook
Share on
Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
radsatser
5h ago
2
3
" they will jeopardise not only their jobs,"
Neoliberalism is the ideology of children who didn't get their needs met or suffered abuse or
neglect. The more adverse child experiences one suffers, the greater the danger they pose to
everyone else, and they seem to gravitate to warped belief systems where compassion or relying
on others is deemed deeply shameful
I am no psychologist, but it must be evident to most that, at the micro level, childhood
trauma and mental, physical and sexual abuse experienced at a young age within the family unit
can lead to the child intending to rebalance and repay the power imbalance in adult life, with
invariably adverse consequences for their environment and those around them.
Looking at the world today it is not hard to see the culmination of the sins of the father
over the centuries in the form of decent, hard-working people with no power struggles to
redress being subjected to endless and downright cruel, even vindictive actions and policies
enshrined into law and played out across the world stage by those who have abused power to
make it to the top.
And it is the socially disadvantaged and most vulnerable in society who have invariably
suffered the most, hence the vast inequality in wealth distribution which has gathered
momentum in recent years.
Brexit and Trump are a symptom, a reaction and a backlash to the traumatised child
reclaiming and abusing their power on a macro level.
"... If Trump hadn't settled on Make America Great Again for a slogan, he could have easily run on "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any more!" ..."
"... Nobody wants news any more, says Christensen, as she ruthlessly lays out a template for the coming age of "disinfotainment" and canned news-porn. ..."
Network at 40: the flawed satire that predicted Trump and cable 'news porn'. Prescient and powerful,
the film foreshadowed the likes of Bill O'Reilly with its 'mad as hell' protagonists and the climate
of American anger that birthed Trump
Does this sound familiar? "The American people are turning us off. They've been clobbered by Vietnam,
Watergate, the inflation, the depression. They've turned off, shot up the American people want
someone to articulate their rage." And how about this? "There is no America. There is no democracy.
There is only IBM and ITT, and ATT and DuPont, Dow, Union-Carbide and Exxon. The world is a business
it has been ever since man crawled up out of the slime."
Change the historical events, change the names of the conglomerates, and these speeches could
have been written yesterday morning about, or by, President-elect Donald J Trump. He is Network screenwriter
Paddy Chayefsky's nightmare made real, his blistering satire come completely true just in time for
the film's 40th anniversary this week. If Trump hadn't settled on Make America Great Again for
a slogan, he could have easily run on "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any more!"
Network is like a time machine: when it was released four decades ago this week it more or less
accurately predicted the state of media as it is 40 years later. It mourns the original golden age
of television – the 1950s – of which Paddy Chayefsky was a major and emblematic figure, but it partakes
of all that era's shortcomings, too: overstatement, speechifying, ranting, self-indulgent writing,
sledgehammer subtlety.
Trump could have easily run on a slogan of 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any
more!'
It also, nonetheless, looks startlingly like a work that would fit snugly into the current golden
age of television alongside shows like The Newsroom and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. The creator
of those shows, Aaron Sorkin, even went so far as to invoke Chayefsky when he received his screenwriting
Oscar for The Social Network.
Network's most famous virtue is its extreme and eerie prescience about where the news media
would go in the next decades. Howard Beale, "the mad prophet of the airwaves", lurks behind
any number of real-life media ranters and screamers of our own time, from Bill O'Reilly to Sean Hannity,
Glenn Beck to Alex Jones.
Faye Dunaway's carnivorous network suit Diana Christensen – Sammy Glick via Tracy Flick – is derived
from young TV execs of the 1970s who were accused of infantilizing the medium. People like NBC daytime
programmer Lin Bolen and Fred Silverman, who serially headed all three networks, in particular. Network
takes the side of the old against the young, seeing youth as a destructive, insatiable, Darwinian
force that will ultimately usurp William Holden's ageing newsroom chief Max Schumacher.
Nobody wants news any more, says Christensen, as she ruthlessly lays out a template for the
coming age of "disinfotainment" and canned news-porn. The first step of which is to bring the
independent news division under the heel of network entertainment programming. What Shumacher dreams
up in a drunken haze as a joke, she makes reality – or reality television, as it had yet to be known.
'It is a pre-digital realm of rotary phones, filing cabinets, steno pads and typewriters; the
newsroom is an exact match for the newsroom in All the President's Men '
Another of Network's accidental byproducts is the nostalgia one feels right from its opening shot
of four TV network news anchors – three real, one fictional. In those pre-Fox years, of course, there
were only three networks, and they underpinned what was left of the American consensus after Goldwater
and Nixon, Vietnam and Watergate. It is a pre-digital realm of rotary phones, filing cabinets, steno
pads and typewriters; the newsroom is an exact match for the newsroom in All the President's Men,
also released during the bicentennial, and the idealistic yin to Network's pessimistic yang.
And the mid-1970s was almost insane enough to obviate satire entirely. Network is embedded in
the very real world of 1975, satire notwithstanding. We hear of "the Lennon deportation", the two
recent assassination attempts on President Gerald Ford, the Opec price hike, and the Patty Hearst
kidnapping. Indeed, the movie mentions multiple heiress-terrorists and offers us one of its own,
played by Kathy Cronkite, daughter of Walter, America's most trusted anchorman.
Forty years later, Network is half a masterpiece. At more or less the one-hour mark, right after
the mad-as-hell speech and 60 minutes of very sure-footed satire, it loses all steam and caves in
on itself. Chayefsky falls prey to all the spell-it-out vices of the golden age of television, and
one can imagine it all in black-and-white, being broadcast in 1956. Character names aren't exactly
subtle: Robert Duvall's shark-like executive, prone to budget-slashing, is named Hackett, while the
affair between Dunaway and Holden plays like bad Philco Playhouse dross.
Everybody gets a chance to yell at great length, and with the exception of Duvall (who is here
turned up to maximum Charlie-Don't-Surf!), few of them carry it off well. Even Mr Jensen's apocalyptic
bollocking of Peter Finch ("Valhalla, Mr Beale, Please sit down ") seems faintly risible now. And
the dialogue betrays a working-class autodidact's over-fondness for Big Words: "multivariant", "auspicatory",
"eraculate", "intractable and adamantine"!
Chayefsky, a creature of postwar television, despises what it has become (he'd quit TV in disgust
in 1960). The young are all vacant, amoral gargoyles. The black characters are near-racist caricatures
puking up demented Marxist-Leninist verbiage while eating fried chicken and cradling machine guns.
Satire repeatedly merges with spite and contempt – for characters and audience – putting Network
up there with A Face in the Crowd in the never-ending war between Hollywood and upstart television.
But still, there is that breathtaking, unnerving prescience, which makes one sorry that three
of Network's principal architects – Chayefsky, Finch and Holden – were dead long before it became
apparent. And there is this, from Finch-Beale, a line that reaches straight across 40 years of time
and grabs us by the throat: " This tube is the most awesome goddamn force in the whole godless
world, and woe is us if it ever falls into the hands of the wrong people! " Perhaps it's
too late.
From a bonanza of free airtime to an overt media campaign against him, Donald Trump was a candidate
covered like no other. But were journalists unwitting accomplices in his election? And where does
the industry go from here?
"... The fundamental problem seems to be that the left / liberals are playing the game of the right for them and not being intelligent enough to realise it. ..."
"... Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers. ..."
"... Mass low-skilled immigration (legal/illegal) is bad for working class people who are citizens of the US/UK. The "liberal" left are the ones who'd in the past naturally come to their defense. ..."
"... Multinational businesses love this mentality, because it allows them to indirectly harm billions of people, and get away with it. They push free trade (a very liberal concept) which cuts their taxes and makes them stronger than most national governments, so they wield vast, unaccountable power, and get away with massive levels of pollution. ..."
"... Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers. ..."
The fundamental problem seems to be that the left / liberals are playing the game of the right
for them and not being intelligent enough to realise it.
Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are
the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers.
The liberal left are confusing the cries of alarm from those losing out with racism and bigotry,
which have been ingrained in their psyche due to identity politics.
Well put. Mass low-skilled immigration (legal/illegal) is bad for working class people
who are citizens of the US/UK. The "liberal" left are the ones who'd in the past naturally come
to their defense.
Instead, they've labelled them racists and islamphobes etc. because they are
not driven by (classical) liberalism but rather divisive identity politics focused on minority
groups (e.g. transgender issues, which is not going to win many votes.)
I think the liberals' horror at Jeremy Corbyn demonstrates this, as did the way liberals torpedoed
Bernie Sanders in favour of Hillary Clinton.
To be liberal is to let people do whatever they want, so long as they don't directly
harm other people.
Multinational businesses love this mentality, because it allows them to indirectly harm billions
of people, and get away with it. They push free trade (a very liberal concept) which cuts their
taxes and makes them stronger than most national governments, so they wield vast, unaccountable
power, and get away with massive levels of pollution.
Mass immigration is the case in point. The main beneficiaries from the movement of labour are
the corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the incumbent population and the local workers.
you might be putting the cart before the horse a little bit there. the problem isn't freedom of
movement (let's try not to use emotive terms like mass migration) is employers seeking cheap labour.
better wages would attract more local labour, instead employers actively seek cheap labour from abroad.
and that's a result of economic liberalism, which is very different to classical liberalism. classical
liberals built houses for their workers to live in, rather than not paying them enough to live in
their own house.
"... For one thing, many vested interests don't want the Democratic party to change. Most of the money it raises ends up in the pockets of political consultants, pollsters, strategists, lawyers, advertising consultants and advertisers themselves, many of whom have become rich off the current arrangement. They naturally want to keep it. ..."
"... For another, the Democratic party apparatus is ingrown and entrenched. Like any old bureaucracy, it only knows how to do what it has done for years. Its state and quadrennial national conventions are opportunities for insiders to meet old friends and for aspiring politicians to make contacts among the rich and powerful. Insiders and the rich aren't going to happily relinquish their power and perquisites, and hand them to outsiders and the non-rich. ..."
"... I have been a Democrat for 50 years – I have even served in two Democratic administrations in Washington, including a stint in the cabinet and have run for the Democratic nomination for governor in one state – yet I have never voted for the chair or vice-chair of my state Democratic party. That means I, too, have had absolutely no say over who the chair of the Democratic National Committee will be. To tell you the truth, I haven't cared. And that's part of the problem. ..."
"... Finally, the party chairmanship has become a part-time sinecure for politicians on their way up or down, not a full-time position for a professional organizer. In 2011, Tim Kaine (who subsequently became Hillary Clinton's running mate in the 2016 election) left the chairmanship to run, successfully, for the Senate from Virginia. ..."
"... The chair then went to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Florida congresswoman who had co-chaired Clinton's bid for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. This generated allegations in the 2016 race that the Democratic National Committee was siding with Clinton against Bernie Sanders – allegations substantiated by leaks of emails from the DNC. ..."
"... So what we now have is a Democratic party that has been repudiated at the polls, headed by a Democratic National Committee that has become irrelevant at best, run part-time by a series of insider politicians. It has no deep or broad-based grass-roots, no capacity for mobilizing vast numbers of people to take any action other than donate money, no visibility between elections, no ongoing activism. ..."
For one thing, many vested interests don't want the Democratic party to change. Most of the
money it raises ends up in the pockets of political consultants, pollsters, strategists, lawyers,
advertising consultants and advertisers themselves, many of whom have become rich off the current
arrangement. They naturally want to keep it.
For another, the Democratic party apparatus is ingrown and entrenched. Like any old bureaucracy,
it only knows how to do what it has done for years. Its state and quadrennial national conventions
are opportunities for insiders to meet old friends and for aspiring politicians to make contacts
among the rich and powerful. Insiders and the rich aren't going to happily relinquish their power
and perquisites, and hand them to outsiders and the non-rich.
Most Americans who call themselves Democrats never hear from the Democratic party except when
it asks for money, typically through mass mailings and recorded telephone calls in the months leading
up to an election. The vast majority of Democrats don't know the name of the chair of the Democratic
National Committee or of their state committee. Almost no registered
Democrats have any idea
how to go about electing their state Democratic chair or vice-chair, and, hence, almost none have
any influence over whom the next chair of the Democratic National Committee may be.
I have been a Democrat for 50 years – I have even served in two Democratic administrations
in Washington, including a stint in the cabinet and have run for the Democratic nomination for governor
in one state – yet I have never voted for the chair or vice-chair of my state Democratic party. That
means I, too, have had absolutely no say over who the chair of the Democratic National Committee
will be. To tell you the truth, I haven't cared. And that's part of the problem.
Nor, for that matter, has Barack Obama cared. He basically ignored the Democratic National Committee
during his presidency, starting his own organization called Organizing for America. It was originally
intended to marshal grass-roots support for the major initiatives he sought to achieve during his
presidency, but morphed into a fund-raising machine of its own.
Finally, the party chairmanship has become a part-time sinecure for politicians on their way
up or down, not a full-time position for a professional organizer. In 2011, Tim Kaine (who subsequently
became Hillary Clinton's running mate in the 2016 election) left the chairmanship to run, successfully,
for the Senate from Virginia.
The chair then went to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Florida congresswoman who had co-chaired
Clinton's bid for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. This generated allegations in
the 2016 race that the Democratic National Committee was siding with Clinton against Bernie Sanders
– allegations substantiated by leaks of emails from the DNC.
So what we now have is a Democratic party that has been repudiated at the polls, headed by
a Democratic National Committee that has become irrelevant at best, run part-time by a series of
insider politicians. It has no deep or broad-based grass-roots, no capacity for mobilizing vast numbers
of people to take any action other than donate money, no visibility between elections, no ongoing
activism.
"... The economic point is that globalisation has boosted trade and overall wealth, but it has also created a dog eat dog world where western workers compete with, and lose jobs to, people far away who will do the work for much less. ..."
"... But neither Trump nor Farage have shown any evidence of how realistically they can recreate those jobs in the west. And realistically god knows how you keep the wealth free trade and globalisation brings but avoid losing the good jobs? At least the current mess has focused attention on the question and has said that patience has run out. ..."
"... Compared to the real economic problems, the identity politics is minor, but it is still an irritant that explains why this revolution is coming from the right not from the left. ..."
"... And what "age" has that been Roy? The "age" of: climate change, gangster bankers, tax heavens, illegal wars, nuclear proliferation, grotesque inequality, the prison industrial complex to cite just a few. That "age"? ..."
"... the right wing press detest one kind of liberalism, social liberalism, they hate that, but they love economic liberalism, which has done much harm to the working class. ..."
"... Most of the right wing press support austerity measures, slashing of taxes and, smaller and smaller governments. Yet apparently, its being socially liberal that is the problem ..."
A crucial point "WWC men aren't interested in working at McDonald's for $15 per hour instead
of $9.50. What they want is... steady, stable, full-time jobs that deliver a solid middle-class
life."
The economic point is that globalisation has boosted trade and overall wealth, but it has
also created a dog eat dog world where western workers compete with, and lose jobs to, people
far away who will do the work for much less.
But neither Trump nor Farage have shown any evidence of how realistically they can recreate
those jobs in the west. And realistically god knows how you keep the wealth free trade and globalisation
brings but avoid losing the good jobs? At least the current mess has focused attention on the
question and has said that patience has run out.
Compared to the real economic problems, the identity politics is minor, but it is still
an irritant that explains why this revolution is coming from the right not from the left.
If you're white and male it's bad enough losing your hope of economic security, but then to
be repeatedly told by the left that you're misogynist, racist, sexist, Islamophobic, transgenderphobic
etc etc is just the icing on the cake. If the author wants to see just how crazy identity politics
has become go to the Suzanne Moore piece from yesterday accusing American women of being misogynist
for refusing to vote for Hillary. That kind of maniac 'agree with me on everything or you're a
racist, sexist, homophobe' identity politics has to be ditched.
Reply
Funny, I've been a white male my whole life and not once have I been accused of being a misogynist,
racist, sexist, Islamophobic, or transgenderphobic. I didn't think being a white male was so difficult
for some people...
Reply
"Are we turning our backs on the age of enlightenment?".
And what "age" has that been Roy? The "age" of: climate change, gangster bankers, tax heavens,
illegal wars, nuclear proliferation, grotesque inequality, the prison industrial complex to cite
just a few. That "age"?
I agree hardly an age of enlightenment. My opinion... the so called Liberal Elite are responsible
for many of the issues in the list. The poor and the old in this country are not being helped
by the benefits system. Yet the rich get richer beyond the dreams of the ordinary man.
I would
pay more tax if I thought it might be spent more wisely...but can you trust politicians who are
happy to spend 50 billion on a railway line that 98% of the population will never use.
No solutions from me ...an old hippy from the 60s "Love and peace man " ...didn't work did
it :)
I have come under the impression that the right wing press detest one kind of liberalism,
social liberalism, they hate that, but they love economic liberalism, which has done much harm
to the working class.
Most of the right wing press support austerity measures, slashing of taxes and, smaller
and smaller governments. Yet apparently, its being socially liberal that is the problem.
Stillgrizzly
3d ago
85
86
The fundamental problem seems to be that the left /
liberals are playing the game of the right for them and
not being intelligent enough to realise it.
Mass immigration is the case in point. The main
beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the
corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the
incumbent population and the local workers.
The liberal left are confusing the cries of alarm from
those losing out with racism and bigotry, which have been
ingrained in their psyche due to identity politics.
Reply
Share
Share on
Facebook
Facebook
Share on
Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
RJB73
Stillgrizzly
3d ago
48
49
Well put. Mass low-skilled immigration (legal/illegal)
is bad for working class people who are citizens of the
US/UK. The "liberal" left are the ones who'd in the
past naturally come to their defense. Instead, they've
labelled them racists and islamphobes etc. because they
are not driven by (classical) liberalism but rather
divisive identity politics focused on minority groups
(e.g. transgender issues, which is not going to win
many votes.)
Reply
Share
Share
on Facebook
Facebook
Share
on Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
greenwichite
Stillgrizzly
3d ago
22
23
Liberals and the Left are not the same thing, though.
I think the liberals' horror at Jeremy Corbyn
demonstrates this, as did the way liberals torpedoed
Bernie Sanders in favour of Hillary Clinton.
To be liberal is to let people do whatever they
want, so long as they don't
directly
harm other
people.
Multinational businesses love this mentality,
because it allows them to indirectly harm billions of
people, and get away with it. They push free trade (a
very liberal concept) which cuts their taxes and makes
them stronger than most national governments, so they
wield vast, unaccountable power, and get away with
massive levels of pollution.
Reply
Share
Share
on Facebook
Facebook
Share
on Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
Stillgrizzly
greenwichite
3d ago
9
10
The liberals "horror" at Corbyn is because he is
bringing out reactionary "hard" left elements amongst
other things, which are destroying what was a kind of
consensus.
This is fracturing the opposition and driving people
towards the right or "protest" parties. Corbyn is the
best recruiting tool UKIP never had.
Reply
Share
Share
on Facebook
Facebook
Share
on Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
icansee
Stillgrizzly
3d ago
6
7
If you think that this was a universal backlash to the
effects of immigration on jobs , then you are missing
the point .
My advise is for you to check the archives of mother
jones and other blogs to find out how this faux rage
developed .
Trump's primary voters have an average income of
$70,000. They are not affected by mass migration .
This is a rage against Marriage equality ,Seperation of
the church and state ,continuation of the war against
affirmative action ,environmental protection ,union etc
.
The faux rage was engineered by l
1 Remnants of Koch brothers tea party
2 Fox news
3 Alt right
4 Evangelicals
5 Gun manufacturers
They created an hurricane and carried other
unwilling groups like blue collar democrats with them .
However , they wouldn't have stand any chance if
progressives had turned up .
Reply
Share
Share
on Facebook
Facebook
Share
on Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
Jaisans
Stillgrizzly
3d ago
0
1
Mass immigration is the case in point. The main
beneficiaries from the movement of labour are the
corporations and the capitalists. The losers are the
incumbent population and the local workers.
you might
be putting the cart before the horse a little bit
there. the problem isn't freedom of movement (let's try
not to use emotive terms like mass migration) is
employers seeking cheap labour. better wages would
attract more local labour, instead employers actively
seek cheap labour from abroad. and that's a result of
economic liberalism, which is very different to
classical liberalism. classical liberals built houses
for their workers to live in, rather than not paying
them enough to live in their own house.
Reply
Share
Share
on Facebook
Facebook
Share
on Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
Stillgrizzly
icansee
3d ago
2
3
Trump is allied with the Republican party, people seem
to have overlooked that. Therefore, shock horror, a lot
of Republican voters voted for him.
Also in the US, the level of non voting is huge,
suggesting a level of ignorance / disillusionment with
either of the choices.
Reply
Share
Share
on Facebook
Facebook
Share
on Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
Stillgrizzly
Jaisans
3d ago
3
4
You're arguing for protectionism, just like Trump,
effectively state subsidy of the incumbent population
via tarriffs / subsidies / buy British / American
campaigns / increased welfare etc, the net effect is
the same.
isn't controlled
immigration also protectionism? employers exploiting
foreign workers at the expense of local labour is just
plain wrong, it's not market forces. and it's not the
fault of freedom of movement. and it causes
trouble...even keir hardie saw that
better welfare would be a good idea. a better one
would universal credit.
Reply
Share
Share
on Facebook
Facebook
Share
on Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
Its_me
Stillgrizzly
2d ago
3
4
Yep, they hate Corbyn because he's rocking their cosy
boat where they could wear Red while having Blue
policies. The people who hate Corbyn are the same ones
who were vociferous against UKIP, for the same reasons
- they threatened to disrupt their LibLabCon club and
the opportunities they think they deserve.
Lost control of the Senate
Lost control of the House of Representatives
Lost control of dozens of state legislatures and Governorships.
The Republicans control 36 States of America - One more and they could in theory amend the Constitution.
In Wisconsin (notionally Democrat) the Legislature and Governor are both Republican controlled.
And Clinton didn't even campaign there when it was pretty obvious the State was not trending towards
her.
Most commenters do not realise that it is neoliberalism that caused the current suffering of
working people in the USA and elsewhere...
Notable quotes:
"... Working class wages destroyed. The wages of the low paid lowered. Ordinary people robbed of holiday and sickness pay. Working people priced out of ever owning their own home. Our city centers socially cleansed of the working class. Poor people forced to fight like rats in sacks with even poorer foreigners for jobs, housing, school places and social and health services. ..."
"... Keep going mate. Continue to pump out that snobbish attitude because every time you do you've bagged Mr Trump, Mr Farage and Ms LePen another few votes. ..."
"... I recall a time when any suggestion that immigration may be too high was silenced by cries of racism, eventually that label was misused so often that it lost its potency, one gets the sense that this trend for dubbing those who hold certain opinions as somehow unintelligent will go the same way. People are beginning to see through this most hateful tactic of the Modern Left. ..."
"... Which is why I think Mr D'Ancona and many others are wrong to say that Farage and Trump will face the whirlwind when voters realise that their promises were all unachievable. The promises were much less important than the chance to slap the political world in the face. Given another chance, a lot of voters will do the same again. ..."
"... I think the author completely misses the most salient point from the two events he cites: simply that the *vast* majority of people have become completely disenfranchised with the utter corruption that is mainstream politics today. ..."
"... It doesn't matter who is voted in, the status quo [big business and the super-rich get wealthier whilst the middle is squeezed and the poorest are destroyed] remains. ..."
"... The votes for Brexit and Trump are as much a rejection of "establishment" as anything else. Politicians in both countries heed these warnings at their peril... ..."
"... The majority of the people are sick and tired of PC ism and the zero hour, minimum wage economy that both Britain and America have suffered under "globalisation". And of the misguided "[neo]liberal" agenda of much of the media which simply does not speak to or for society. ..."
"... People in western democracies are rising up through the ballot box to defeat PC [neo]liberalism and globalisation that has done so much to impoverish Europe and America morally and economically. To the benefit of the tax haven corporates. ..."
"... Globalisation disembowelled American manufacturing so the likes of Blair and the Clintons could print money. The illimitable lives they destroyed never entered their calculus. ..."
"... I have stood in the blue lane in Atlanta waiting for my passport to be processed; in the adjoining lane was a young British female student (so she said to the official). The computer revealed she had overstayed her visa by 48 hours the last time she visited. She was marched out by two armed tunics to the next plane home. That's how Europeans get treated if they try to enter America illegally. Why the demented furor over returning illegal Hispanics or anyone else? ..."
Surely the people who voted for Trump and Farage are too stupid to realise the sheer,
criminal folly of their decision...
thoughtcatcher -> IanPitch 12h ago
Working class wages destroyed. The wages of the low paid lowered. Ordinary people
robbed of holiday and sickness pay. Working people priced out of ever owning their own home.
Our city centers socially cleansed of the working class. Poor people forced to fight like rats
in sacks with even poorer foreigners for jobs, housing, school places and social and health
services.
But yeah, they voted against the elite because they are "stupid".
attila9000 -> IanPitch 11h ago
I think at some point a lot of them will realize they have been had, but then they will
probably just blame immigrants, or the EU. Anything that means they don't have to take
responsibility for their own actions. It would appear there is a huge pool of people who can
be conned into acting against their own self interest.
jonnyoyster -> IanPitch 11h ago
Keep going mate. Continue to pump out that snobbish attitude because every time you do
you've bagged Mr Trump, Mr Farage and Ms LePen another few votes. Most people don't
appreciate being talked down to and this arrogant habit of calling those who hold views
contrary to your own 'stupid' is encouraging more and more voters to ditch the established
parties in favour of the new.
I recall a time when any suggestion that immigration may be too high was silenced by
cries of racism, eventually that label was misused so often that it lost its potency, one gets
the sense that this trend for dubbing those who hold certain opinions as somehow unintelligent
will go the same way. People are beginning to see through this most hateful tactic of the
Modern Left.
DilemmataDocta -> IanPitch 11h ago
A lot of the people who put their cross against Brexit or Trump weren't actually voting for
anything. They were just voting against this, that or the other thing about the world that
they disliked. It was voting as a gesture.
Which is why I think Mr D'Ancona and many others are wrong to say that Farage and Trump
will face the whirlwind when voters realise that their promises were all unachievable. The
promises were much less important than the chance to slap the political world in the face.
Given another chance, a lot of voters will do the same again.
Sproggit 12h ago
I think the author completely misses the most salient point from the two events he
cites: simply that the *vast* majority of people have become completely disenfranchised with
the utter corruption that is mainstream politics today.
It doesn't matter who is voted in, the status quo [big business and the super-rich get
wealthier whilst the middle is squeezed and the poorest are destroyed] remains.
The votes for Brexit and Trump are as much a rejection of "establishment" as anything
else. Politicians in both countries heed these warnings at their peril...
NotoBlair 11h ago
OMG, the lib left don't Geddit do they?
The majority of the people are sick and tired of PC ism and the zero hour, minimum wage
economy that both Britain and America have suffered under "globalisation". And of the
misguided "[neo]liberal" agenda of much of the media which simply does not speak to or for
society.
People in western democracies are rising up through the ballot box to defeat PC [neo]liberalism
and globalisation that has done so much to impoverish Europe and America morally and
economically. To the benefit of the tax haven corporates.
The sour grapes bleating of the lib left who refuse to accept the democratic will of the
people is a movement doomed failure.
Frankincensedabit 11h ago
Malign to whom? Wall Street and people who want us all dead?
Globalisation disembowelled American manufacturing so the likes of Blair and the Clintons
could print money. The illimitable lives they destroyed never entered their calculus.
I have stood in the blue lane in Atlanta waiting for my passport to be processed; in the
adjoining lane was a young British female student (so she said to the official). The computer
revealed she had overstayed her visa by 48 hours the last time she visited. She was marched
out by two armed tunics to the next plane home. That's how Europeans get treated if they try
to enter America illegally. Why the demented furor over returning illegal Hispanics or anyone
else?
I likely wouldn't have voted at all. But all my life the occupants of the White House
represented the interests of those nobody could ever identify. The owners of the media and the
numbered accounts who took away the life-chances of U.S. citizens by the million and called
any of them who objected a thick white-trash bigot. Whatever Trump is, he will be different.
Sulphurman
4d ago
18
19
As any macro economist will demonstrate, working
lower/blue-collar men, predominantly white, born from the
1960s to 1980s have experienced virtually no prosperity,
no 'American dream'. Their incomes have not kept up with
the cost of living, their job sectors have crumbled in the
face of outsourcing and technology efficiencies, they are
usually debt laden and increasingly angry. Trump captured
all of that vote. His team actively targeted that
demographic in their state visits.
These voters have been labelled 'off the grid' by the
idiotic pollsters, because they dont engage in social
media particularly.
The most useful statistic about this victory comes
from the Federal Reserve survey in 2013 that found an
astonishing 47% of respondents would struggle to pay for a
$400 emergency car or heating repair. That breeds
disillusion, and gave Trump his majority.
The sexism, racism, misogyny and dark behaviour of
Trump made no difference to the fact his winning votes
came from people on the wrong end of the distribution of
wealth, millions and millions of them. They'll let him
continue that behaviour if theres a financial improvement
in their lives.
"... The party elites--the superdelegates--committed to Clinton from the beginning. They decided it was her turn. And despite all the evidence showing they were supporting a weak, vulnerable, and heavily disliked candidate, they stuck with it anyway. This Trump presidency, and the Republican sweep in the House and Senate, is entirely on the shoulders of 300 insider Democrats. ..."
"... Clinton's supporters among the media didn't help much, either. It always struck me as strange that such an unpopular candidate enjoyed such robust and unanimous endorsements from the editorial and opinion pages of the nation's papers, but it was the quality of the media's enthusiasm that really harmed her. With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station. ..."
"... But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine. ..."
No shit, Sherlock. Sanders would have beaten Trump. We are living in extreme times, and in
extreme times centrism and political 'triangulation' doesn't work.
This result will be repeated next year in France with the National Front. Mark my words. And when
it does, France will vote to leave the EU and the house of cards will come crashing down.
You can thank the Democrats, a party that used to represent working people, for at least part
of that. Their billionaire backers picked Clinton because she'd ensure their wealth would remain
untouched. I wonder what they're feeling now?
Aaron Jackson -> NathAldridge 4d ago
How do you figure? Clinton won the Democratic primary by less than the margin of superdelegates.
She had a MASSIVE lead in funding, institutional support, and (at the least) insider bias--though
it was likely more than that, given that nearly every single election anomaly in that primary
bounced her way.
The DNC intentionally limited the debates and scheduled those they did have for off times to try
to limit the damage Sanders could do to Clinton, and big media refused to cover Bernie Sanders
except in the context of Clinton.
And even with all of that, Sanders pulled within 300 delegates of winning the Democratic Nomination
by working through a grassroots, positive campaign. The momentum was entirely on his side, too!
And national polls showed him performing MUCH better against Trump than Clinton. And, of course,
he had no scandals (real or imagined) to leverage.
The party elites--the superdelegates--committed to Clinton from the beginning. They decided
it was her turn. And despite all the evidence showing they were supporting a weak, vulnerable,
and heavily disliked candidate, they stuck with it anyway. This Trump presidency, and the Republican
sweep in the House and Senate, is entirely on the shoulders of 300 insider Democrats.
NathAldridge 4d ago
The Guardian in a nutshell!
Clinton's supporters among the media didn't help much, either. It always struck me as
strange that such an unpopular candidate enjoyed such robust and unanimous endorsements from
the editorial and opinion pages of the nation's papers, but it was the quality of the media's
enthusiasm that really harmed her. With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three
times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started
to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station. Here's what it consisted of:
Hillary was virtually without flaws. She was a peerless leader clad in saintly white,
a super-lawyer, a caring benefactor of women and children, a warrior for social justice.
Her scandals weren't real.
The economy was doing well / America was already great.
Working-class people weren't supporting Trump. And if they were, it was only because
they were botched humans. Racism was the only conceivable reason for lining up with the
Republican candidate.
dynamic22 4d ago
"But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider when
the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country
wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine."
You said everything really.
Watchman80 -> dynamic22 4d ago
Yup.
Also, see this. Note the date (and the imagined Trump speech)
Maybe it's time to consider whether there's something about shrill self-righteousness,
shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away.
I couldn't have put it better. I could have put it with more swear words in though.
BigBlue80 4d ago
Maybe there is a bright side to a Trump victory. After all, there was a reason that tens
of millions of good people voted for him yesterday, and maybe he will live up to their high
regard for him.
If you assume that election victory (not even a majority as apparently Clinton will win the
popular vote) legitmises everything, you are right. But if you believe that there are western
values that should not be sacrificed than you are wrong. Eventually, this will be the end of democracy
- it will kill itself by electing a fascist. I happened before and it looks ever more likely.
The you US with ist overbearing nationalism, its leader-orientation and glorification of the military
was always close to fascism, but now it might have taken the final leap into the abyss.
atuocool 4d ago
"[Neo]Liberals" are a type of conservative who never convince me of the sincerity of their
"progressive" values. What was progressive about Hillary? What would she have actually done for
the poor? How would she have moved America away from being a corporate plutocracy? We all know
the answer is nothing. Trump is a nightmare, but he represents a bizarre, retrograde change while
Clinton represented a vacuous status quo.
with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to
feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station
Correct, it is censorship and suppression of contrary opinion and enormously biased towards "The
Chosen One"
Once again it proves that the Guardian is against the tide of History.
It is not bad to be contrarian or representing an alternative opinion or "voice" however provided
you still maintain some sense of integrity and journalistic professionalism, providing content,
news and information that is fair, balanced without indulging in gratuitous character assassination,
presenting controversial issues of public importance in a manner that is honest, equitable, and
balanced.
The Guardian during the American election as with Brexit and many other controversial issues
has consistently aligned itself with policies and opinion that many would consider left-wing or
liberal yet is neither as the viewpoints they support betrays the liberty and freedom of the ordinary
citizen.
As I said before the election regardless who win or lose the media has already lost by showing
its hand and exposed itself as not a true independent source of news and information, but pursuing
definite agendas and siding with corporate news media's opinions and politics.
According to the Guardian's own view liberalism will have to be remade in a post-liberal age.
It is their own peculiar set of values they believe that is important and not the very principles
the left originally defended. Pursuing a certain "metropolitan liberal creed".
An metropolitan liberal elite who believe they are more educated, more intelligent and talented,
more enlightened, more able to comprehend what society needs than the slow, slobs, the wasters
and good for nothings with their prejudices, that do not know what is good for them.
Their brand of Liberalism has been the complete antithesis of allowing people to take control
of their lives. It has been a dictatorial imposition of the beliefs of the least liberal nature.
Equating the tendencies of so-called "social justice warriors" and so-called "identity politics"
and equating them somehow with liberalism you're a long way from the truth have little to do with
liberalism and no, that's not "left" either.
The establishment in the mainstream media believe they are economically liberals - though privately
they look more kindly on monopolies than old school liberals would have. Yet these "liberals"
want to happily embrace Brussels' legalistic regime of rules that range from the petty and impractical
to a punitive and autocratic dictatorship.
Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil
liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes
economic freedom.
It is no secret what the problem is, lack of jobs, lack of opportunities, people who feel they
have no future or rights in their own country anymore.
Ask yourself is what you identify with or support contributing towards a more peaceful, harmonious
society where all have a sense of having a place and a future in their own country where they
feel they fit in and contribute towards a more safe, secure and prosperous society?
An metropolitan liberal elite who believe they are more educated, more intelligent and talented,
more enlightened, more able to comprehend what society needs than the slow, slobs, the wasters
and good for nothings with their prejudices, that do not know what is good for them.
This is not a new problem. The social elites (self-appointed) of all political persuasions are
always bemoaning the stupidity of the plebs in not bowing to their superior understanding of all
things. That this unfounded hubris is an amazing exemplar of denial of reality (who just won this
election, for example) doesn't seem able to take root in the bubble of acceptable thought in their
minds. How could they possibly be talking out of their bottom when it comes to damn near everything?
(All evidence aside.)
We need the voice of the 'common people' to be heard, without being filtered by the elites. Fake
democracy is not going to work -- we'll end up with a bigger fiasco, such as Jamie Dimon vs Kim Kardashian
in the next US Presidential contest. Way past time for those in power to wake up to the fact that
they're not in control, and real change that involves the great unwashed in the process is necessary.
Trump is one dumb guy, but he has managed to figure out how to use this frustration to get his misogynist,
racist, backside into the chair in the Oval Office.
- Election of Trump is not just another routine changing of the guards in the US two-party
system (although it is that too). This is a significant deviation in the business-as-usual model
of politics, and there will be substantial repercussions that will explicitly manifest themselves
somewhere down the line.
- The Founding Dudes and the Framers of the US Constitution had set up the system so as to
preclude the possibility of ascendance of someone like Trump.
- The Founding Dudes and the Framers of the US Constitution had set up the system so as to
eventually make possible the ascendance of someone like Trump.
- Sanders was right. That having had had been said, he would have still lost to Drumpf if he
were the D's nominee instead of HRC.
- That is because RealAmerica_a spoke more vocally this time around, overwhelming the voice
of RealAmerica_b.
- Judging by geographical size alone, RealAmerica_a is Real America.
- It is simply unimaginable that the enlightened citizenry will elect someone as destructive
and unqualified as Reagan in 1980. Such a possibility is not conceivable in any logical space,
and even fiction writers are wary to contemplate such an impossibility.
- Election of Reagan is not just another routine changing of the guards in the US two-party
system (although it is that too). This is a significant deviation in the business-as-usual model
of politics, and there will be substantial repercussions that will explicitly manifest themselves
somewhere down the line.
- Trump's victory is a repeat of the interplay of the socioeconomic forces that made Dubya's
presidency possible in 2000. Eight more years of this worldview and we will have another Obama-type
candidacy afterwards to clean up the mess and make the world safe again for the staggering-but-still-dominant
neoliberal order.
- People will be just too exhausted after eight years of Trump's presidency, and they will
be so relieved after the election of the next Obama-type president as to retreat to their homes
and let the new savior continue cuddling the big economic players and attempting to reach a Grand
Bargain with the Republicans to further erode the threadbare social safety net holding up the
people, of course for the good of the people themselves and in the name of Serious Politics.
-The dominant position in our society will continue to be the generalization of Alan Grayson's
observation: Don't fall down, if you do disappear quickly.
- Setting aside the status quo status of Clinton's policy prescriptions (she a competent steward
of the Washington Consensus), Trump's victory also signals the provisional victory of the manly
men of RealAmerica_a (and the women who love them) over women (and minorities, and the LGBT, and
immigrants, and etc).
- The same way that most people don't know or care about the wavelengths associated with colors,
they don't know or care about the underlying forces affecting their lives as long as the politicians
put on a good Reality TV show and pull effectively at their heartstrings.
- In other words, F science, F reality.
- In other words, long live Realty TV, the rule of Kardashians, the Apprentice,
WWE/WWF , etc. Constant exposure
to these things matter.
- Constant exposure to these things don't matter.
- Tomorrow the Sun will come up as before, and the Earth will go around it at a steady pace
as before, and the already enfeebled welfare state will continue to fray as before, and millions
of US citizens will continue their steady fall into precariousness as before (especially Trump
supporters in RealAmerica_a), and millions will continue to lose steady jobs and be pushed into
the the gig economy, and the 1% will continue raking in the loot as before under the benevolent
gaze of their new leader.
- If HRC had won, all above would still occur, but probably at a lower rate (except for the
Sun and Earth thing).
I feel lots of parallels can be drawn with brexit, particularly the points made at the end. amazingly
people dont like being insulted and talked down to by party elites, the gop base has been totally
transformed by trumps campaign.
that said has anyone else noticed that trump supporters only ever say 'hes going to do so much
for us' and trump says we are going to reopen the mines/factories/get a better deal but never
said how. he has promised unicorns and rainbows to people dealt a shit hand by the economic changes
of the last 30 years.
The political class amongst US liberals are neo-liberals
Neoliberalism from Reagan to [Bill] Clinton .
written in 1998 the review of this book ends with
" Michael Meeropol's damning indictment of the economic direction of the Clinton presidency demonstrates
that nowhere is the need for a new movement more pressing than in the United States".
Well Bush & Obama & Hillary, had she been elected, were continuations of that economic direction.
If America has needed a new movement to win since 1999 then I guess they got really desperate
which is why they voted for something as bad as Trump. Yes , the liberals or more specifically
neo-liberals an be held responsible
Frank has been making exactly this point since 1997. Others worth reading on this issue include
Walter Benn Michaels and Adolph L. Reed, Jr.
Unfortunately, in a lot of fora where this message sorely needs to be heard right now, this
article would be summarily dismissed on the basis that Frank used the word "shrill," which is
out of bounds in liberal discourse. Which of course just illustrates Frank's point.
The DNC put President Trump into the White House. The DNC, fixated on the anointed, untouchable
HRC, lost its moral compass and the good work of Bernie and Warren, now amounts to a big fat ZERO.
Laughable, how out of touch - meaningless motherhood cliches cannot pay the bills.
It is a case in point that the MSM have completely lost touch with a population that often relies
on the internet for its news. In the old days, the newspaper that was closest to your political
viewpoint was delivered to your door as your primary source of information, now every news outlet,
blog and forum in the world is delivered directly to your tablet.
The media, like the Government has considerably less influence than a decade or two ago.
Good article and, as one poster put it, encapsulates the Guardian's editorial line in a nutshell.
The FT seems to be to the left of this paper these days, forced to be more hard nosed about
the world. This from its columnist Wolfgang Munchenau some days ago:
"What led the centre-left on to such a self-destructive path? The answer is a combination
of the following: a false belief that elections are won from the centre; the lure of ministerial
limousines; an inferiority complex about not being able to run "responsible fiscal policies";
and a belief that voters of the left have nowhere else to go. .. The main issue is not
whether a Keynesian policy response would be economically correct. The more important point
is that if the centre-left does not offer it, the populists will. Unless the centre-left returns
to its Keynesian roots, I think there is a good chance that the politics of insurrection will
succeed."
You live here in Ohio, you know what I'm talking about. Whether Trump means it or not, is
kind of irrelevant because he's saying the things to people who are hurting, and that's why
every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called
the middle class loves Trump. He is the human molotov cocktail that they've been waiting for.
The human hand grande that they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from
them.
the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda
station.
That's a very accurate summary. The first step to winning next time is to understand why you
lost this time. The establishment view was that people were going to get Hillary Clinton whether
they liked it or not. Next time try listening to people who are angry that their pay has fallen
in real terms for 10 years. Try listening to people whose views you disagree with rather than
'no platform' them lest your delicate sensibilities be offended.
The list of celebrities and pundits and surrogates taking his side on the campaign trail was extremely
short.
I often wonder is having a celebrity endourse you counter productive. I saw many celebs appear
on TV and social media telling people they shouldn't vote for Trump. Some went as far as to call
people who might vote for Trump idiots. How many people got fed up with rich, famous people telling
them how they should vote? If you're someone sitting in America's rust belt, no job or low paid
crap job, being told by someone you think probably owns a Hollywood mansion and does very little
work, would you not feel a little resentful being told by them how to vote? Wouldn't you take
a dislike to a candidate who appears on stage with these celebs and yet you feel ignores you?
Just a thought.
If you have the right to vote, the responsibility is to think through the implications of using
that vote for X or Y candidate, to work out for yourself what will happen to you, your family,
your community and your country if you vote for X or Y.
If you vote for Y because you feel "resentful" that someone is using their freedom of speech
to urge voting for X rather than Y - perhaps you shouldn't really be voting at all. Just a thought.
More than just an odd thought my friend. The sight of a procession of wealthy, smug and self entitled
celebs, often utter hypocrites, expecting to deliver their Facebook followers to a politician
is nauseating and angers more than a few. Few of these celebs are famous for their brains so being
called an idiot by a halfwit with money hardly endears them. But still society is in thrall to
the concept of celebrity following. It begs the question of what all these followers are actually
following. Perhaps Lady Gaga et al have confused the pathological need for an entertainment fix
with an adoration of their thoughts and outlook.
Killing off the neo-liberal virus in the Democratic Party would be a start, but won't be enough,
if the Democrats simply put the American equivalents of Jeremy Corbyn in its place. What's desperately
needed here are fresh ideas--something analogous to the Keynesian ideas that gave intellectual
underpinning to the New Deal.
The American white-collar class just spent the year rallying around a super-competent
professional (who really wasn't all that competent) and either insulting or silencing everyone
who didn't accept their assessment. And then they lost. Maybe it's time to consider whether
there's something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status,
that turns people away.
I think this is a very succinct assessment and goes most of the way to explaining this result,
and the Brexit result too. People don't want to be lectured, they want to be listened to (yes,
even if you think they're wrong).
You see, their sneering attitude to the British working class, their name-calling, their bogus
judgements about the working class for not wanting any more of their rights and opportunities
taken away from them.
The 'liberals' are hated as much as the toffs. Brexit was a great example of the bile and hatred
the 'liberals' spew out at the disadvantaged working class.
It wasn't the 'liberals' housing and schools, communities and healthcare, employment rights
and opportunities that was being eroded though was it? No. But that didn't stop the 'liberals'
branding the working class as 'racists' and 'stupid' and 'blind' did it.
Maybe you now can see yourself, on this poxy 'liberal' website and see how YOU have created
a situation where the working class want ANYTHING other than more of your poison.
Look at the people bleating about Brexit: the 'liberals', the politicians, the bankers, big
business, the judges...my goodness, doesn't that tell a story of the haves and have nots. All
the bleaters are the scum that have never had the working class' best interests in mind and yet
you think we, the working class, should take heed of their fatuous, aquisitive, vile, whimpers?
Really?
Multi-Billionaire Media Barons controlling the news on both sides of the Atlantic (the same
Baron in the case of Murdoch) and they in turn backed by the Trillionaire old and true establishment
who are the exact same families as a hundred years ago and hundreds of years before that in many
cases.
Very well written and I agree to a large extent - the problem is.. are people like Trump and blood
Boris Johnson going to be any more cognisant of the lives and problems of the working class than
the liberals? And are they likely to do anything about those problems unless they simultaneously
line their own pockets? If, and it's a very big if, the interests of the working class and the
interests of Trump et al align somehow then there is a silver lining. If not, then the best we
can hope for is that liberals start to reconnect with the people they purport to represent.
the problem is.. are people like Trump and blood Boris Johnson going to be any more cognisant
of the lives and problems of the working class than the liberals?
No. But maybe, just maybe, the 'left-wing' parties will wake and remember what they are supposed
to be for.
Here's the other thing. Clinton and her mates at the New York Times and the Guardian are always
lecturing us on the need to be compassionate and welcoming towards refugees from faraway places
who would like to come and live among us, but there's never a moment of compassion for the people
who are already here and suffering miserably on the margins of our already unequal societies -
the unemployed and badly employed, the badly housed and homeless, those working sixty hours a
week on the minimum wage for some crappy agency. So, guess what. That's why people are voting
for stuff like Brexit and Trump.
If you lot in the metropolitan elite can't see this then you are doomed to keep repeating the
same mistakes.
Just like Silvio Berlusconi, Trumps opponents were incapable to escape the trap of trying to sling
shit at a candidate made out of teflon.
The Clinton camp tried to fight a war in the trenches...but Trump feeds of negativity, they
should have learnt early that nothing was too outrageous or controversial to tarnish him.
The closest they got was the misogyny accusations and even they didn't stick. Just like Berlusconi,
Trump the lover of pageantry and beautiful women was being portrayed as a woman hater but he cleverly
made it sound like he was hater of feminists instead of women.
The problem with Clinton is that she tried to play the integrity card but that was easily debunked
by Trump with email gate.
The voice of sanity. Thank you, Mr. Frank.
The Democratic Establishment didn't give a hoot about what Bernie had to say, because his presidency
would not have served their ambitions. They're more interested in getting nice jobs at Goldman
Sachs than controlling the finance industry. And their sons and daughters will not fight in all
the wars Clinton&Co see as great business opportunity.
The Dem establishment has failed the people, and now we all reep the whirlwind.
I agree with Frank's analysis though not his use of the word 'liberal' which has confusingly different
meanings. I think the same analysis could be used to explain Brexit.
The problem is a political class which wishes to maintain the status quo of a neo-liberal,
globalised economy. For 35 years this economy has redistributed wealth from the poor to the rich
and massively damaged the environment. It has thus disadvantaged the great majority of the people
in the USA, the UK and indeed people across the world. People are quite reasonably fed up with
the lies behind this 'trickle-down' economics. They are angry and want something different. The
vacuum created by the failure of the left to recognise this, and come up with a new solution,
has resulted in Trump, UKIP, Marine LePen etc.
No. I really think liberals have been their own worst enemies during this election.
They have treated ordinary white Americans as if they are shit, spoken about them in ways that
should make them hang their heads in shame and behaved as if they are living in a oligarchy where
they can call the shots instead of a democracy and now they are paying the price.
You can only kick a dog so many times before it turns around and bites you.
I would also question the term"liberals" to describe people who are happy seeing jobs moved
offshore, causing unemployment at home and slave labour conditions abroad; encouraging mass immigration
to bring wages down and create a powerless and easily exploitable servant class and globalisation
that provides them with a luxury lifestyle on the cheap while making it harder for just about
everyone else.
The only "liberal" thing about these people is their attitudes towards trivial personal issues
like sexuality and lifestyle choices.
Wise words from Frank - I hope the Guardian opinionators are made to read it
Clinton's supporters among the media didn't help much, either. It always struck me as strange
that such an unpopular candidate enjoyed such robust and unanimous endorsements from the editorial
and opinion pages of the nation's papers, but it was the quality of the media's enthusiasm
that really harmed her. With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times
a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started
to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station. Here's what it consisted of:
Hillary was virtually without flaws. She was a peerless leader clad in saintly white, a
super-lawyer, a caring benefactor of women and children, a warrior for social justice.
Her scandals weren't real.
The economy was doing well / America was already great.
Working-class people weren't supporting Trump.
And if they were, it was only because they were botched humans. Racism was the only conceivable
reason for lining up with the Republican candidate.
Absolutely right. And I'm willing to wager the liberal response to this will be to double
down on the identity politics, double down on the victimhood narratives, double down on the march
toward globalism, and double down on the cries for open borders and ever-increasing levels of
immigration. They simply never learn.
It's very clear what happened this morning. Trump won because he picked up the white working
class vote in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ohio, all of which had previously voted for Obama in
both 2008 and 2012. The people in these states didn't magically become racist over the past four
years. They saw a candidate (Clinton) who represented "business as usual", and they rejected her.
Excellent article. Summarises both Brexit as well as Trump's victory.
The stats are showing that Trump polled higher amongst African and Hispanic Americans. I am
not surprised. The Democrats, like the UK Labour party, like to think they OWN ethnic voters and
they are merely another 'special interest' group alongside women, gays, etc. They don't and us
ethnic voters have the same concerns as any other working or middle class voters. And NO ONE appreciates
being told they are wrong, racist and unintelligent.
This shows Social liberialism is dead and rotten. Well past its used by date, time to chuck
it out. It went off when supposed social justice warriors got into business with big business
and fickle finance.
The elites may be well educated but that they couldn't even bare to bring themselves to understand
the perspectives of another reveals how broadminded they really are - the journalists, academics
etc. They believed in democracy where only one way of thinking and the status quo could be permitted
to flourish. This is the most intelligent article to capture the social change that far too many
liberals are denying. How are they going deal with reality, ie. Are the majority of Americans
and British really racists? The greatest irony is this article is published within the vanguard
of what ordinary people are democratically retaliating against.
When you reach rock bottom the only way is to look up. The problem for the Liberalism of the Democratic
Party of the last three decades is that it has become a social scientific morality of the well
connected and completely unable to deal with the naked populism of Trump let alone the half baked
morass of crony capitalism of George Bush.
Lets be opportunistic. This gives it a chance to wipe the slate clean and at the very least rid
themselves of the influence of the Clintons who from the removal of Glass-Steagal Act demonstrated
their only concerns were with the needs of the Super Rich rather than the majority of the population.
Unfortunately you have that feeling that they are not even capable of doing that.
"Trump... a folly so bewildering, an incompetence so profound ..."
Har, har, har, the foolish and incompetent Trump is now president elect and you are a wise
and competent journalist who foresaw the future clearly.
Maybe you're the foolish incompetent, not Trump. Maybe you should examine the foolish certainty
which made you write your Guardian article headlined "With Trump certain to lose, you can forget
about a progressive Clinton" and many others based on foolish and incompetent assumptions, reasoning
and conclusions
Maybe you and all the rest of the useful idiots on the left should examine all of your convictions
about the world. You might discover how often you have been hoodwinked by your own folly into
believing trash like Trump will lose to Hillary, AGW is a real problem which can be corrected
by funneling trillions to crony capitalist alternative energy companies, fracking is dangerous
and the unlimited immigration of millions of young, able bodied, violent, low IQ men is a good
thing.
Trump will achieve nothing of what he's said he wants to do. Reversing the 'reverse colonisation'
of the white western world will fail, especially in the USA where, after all, the Afro-black population
didn't ask to move to in the first place (though I'll bet tend dollars dollars not a single Afro-black
American would opt for emigrating back to Africa, however much they complain about racial prejudice
in the USA - the financial advantages of living in the developed world are FAR too valuable for
that!).
As for the Hispanics, I doubt even a wall would stop them. The mass population of Central and
South America is far, far greater than that of 'white western America' and their third world economics
keep the USA and the developed world a desperate magnet for them (and I can't blame them - I'd
fight tooth and nail to get in to the rich west as well!)
Nope, the Trump victory is a sad, hopeless rearguard action against the triumph of twenty-first
century 'reverse colonisation' and that is that. The white western world is finished - the only
question is, can it 'westernise' the immigrant population in time to save the developed world,
or are we doomed to another Dark Ages of Global Third Worldism? (Maybe China will take over as
Islam did post Roman Empire, while Europe went savage...)
When you separate identity politics - race and gender - from inequality and class, which is what
Obama and Clinton both did, you end up with Donald Trump moving into the White House ......
The liberal argument has always been about the equality to exploit not an end to exploitation.
It was at the heart of New Labour as well as Obama/Clinton Democrats ...
For the last 30 odd years the liberal left have claimed class no longer mattered. Now the "white"
working class have twice given them a kicking in 2016. When you're at the bottom class really
matters!
And so Democratic leaders made Hillary their candidate even though they knew about her closeness
to the banks, her fondness for war, and her unique vulnerability on the trade issue – each
of which Trump exploited to the fullest.
I really like Thomas Frank, but I wish in this diatribe that he wouldn't cheapen the countless
(because the Americans don't count them) who have paid the price for Hillary's 'fondness for war'
by referring to it like that, in passing, as if it was a fondness for muffins.
I wish that he had a bit more righteous fury about how the crazed neocon warmongers who effectively
rule America and for whom Hillary was the latest acceptable face, with her almost total sense
of entitlement, based on the fact that she was a woman, acted like she was heading for a coronation.
Yes it would be great if a woman had been elected president, I can think of at least two others
one running, and one not, but doesn't even the most basic tenet of critical thinking require us
to ask searching questions, about the specific woman ?
He has run one of the lousiest presidential campaigns ever. In saying so I am not referring
to his much-criticized business practices or his vulgar remarks about women. I mean this in a
purely technical sense: this man fractured his own party.
But did he really 'fracture' his own party? From the superficial point of view, one might have
thought so. Many Democrats hope so.
But I'll suggest this. Anybody who is holding out the faint hope that he will work badly with
the GOP in Congress is going to be very disappointed. He's going to put his signature to virtually
everything they want. They're going to have a lot of fun together.
Even stuff which directly contradicts what he ran on and which upset many in the Republican establishment.
I'm thinking foreign policy and trade agreements.
And those in movement conservatism who didn't like him, like Glenn Beck and Erick Erickson?
Watch them do a 180 over the next six months.
Excellent article, about six months late, but hopefully not too late for liberals everywhere to
wake up to the idea that if you claim to want to help improve the lives of the working class you
better listen to them first, and connect with them second. I always thought laughing and sneering
at Trump and particularly his supporters was never going to work. And sure enough it didn't. Nobody
likes being patronised.
Sometimes you've got to have the courage to move beyond a rotting status quo and into a brave
new world. If you don't you leave the door open for something potentially much much worse to take
that opportunity.
How about doing a piece on how the press keep getting it wrong all the time, how you keep misjudging
the mood of the people, the zeitgeist, how afraid you are of change and how as a result you keep
siding with the establishment when the vast majority of people are fed up with its incessant inaction
and bullshit?
Youre letting the fascists in through the open door because youre too afraid to give up your priviledges
and go towards healthy change. You deserve what youre going to get because you spent too much
time on here waffling bullshit and not enough time on the streets listening to what people want.
Total cognitive dissonance. Social media is no good for assessing the mood of the people, its
for pussy cat photos and selfies.
The republicans feared change, but winning was more important to them. As incongruous as it may
seem, a billionaire businessman reached out to voters disenfranchised by some 30 years of partisan
parlour games. Maybe it'll dawn on the Democrats who they should be reaching out to and maybe
it'll dawn on the Republicans that there's more to being a politician than banging on about God
and being against abortion.
I don't like the guy and find some of his views abhorrent and would even have preferred HC,
but... but... this may be a wake up call for politics in America. Not sure it will be because
after Brexit, the finger was pointed at the London middle classes and older voters whereas the
strength of the vote came from the post-industrial heartland destroyed by Thatcher and virtually
ignored by both parties ever since. Still, we'll see.
"With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary
views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War
propaganda station. "
Spot on analysis.
Let the soul-searching amongst the mainstream journalistic elites begin.
People have rspecially started to notice the "with nuance and all contrary views deleted" part.
That is part of the problem and part of the reason Trump got elected as a sort of collective middle
finger to the establishment by ordinary people who are sick of being told what to think and how
to think by unelected elites whose job it is supposed to be to report the FACTS, and not to dictate
what people are allowed to say or think. Because as a great person once said "Facts are sacred."
And as JS Mill said in his famous essay 'On Liberty' - we should not censor unpopular views because
even though the unpopular view may be incorrect we may come to a better understanding of why our
own view is correct by seeing its collision with error. (Quite apart from the fact that the unpopular
view is not always correct and by suppressing it we may never know the truth.)
I hope the mainstream media learn from this disaster and start living up to the ideals of the
intellectual founders of our liberal democracies such as JS Mill who would no doubt be appalled
at the lerhaps well intentioned but counterproductive censorsgip of views which run counter to
that of the prevailing orthodoxy.
It's because they believe we are stupid. The intellectual snobbery of the oxbridge set, think
they are better than us. Little suspecting that most of us can't be arsed with that shite.
The thing that keeps coming back to me with this election, as with Brexit, was the established
candidates ignoring what people were saying. In Brexit, the remain side utterly ignored immigration,
whilst the leave side focused on it. I don't think the remain side realised that immigration wasn't
just conjured up by Daily Mail headlines but was a genuine issue for many people.
In the US, Trump spoke openly about jobs; bringing them back and preventing outsourcing. Looking
again at trade deals to make sure American jobs were protected. Clinton's team ignored this.
Take heed for the future, politicians. Listen to what people actually say, not just the bits
they say that you agree with.
Indeed, that's the problem, a narrow political elite expecting the population to vote as they
think, rather than as the population think. The disconnect between the consensus and the politicians
is wide, the left in particular withdraws to the safety of it's narrow agenda when threatened
leaving the centre wide open.
"Cold War propaganda station. Here's what it consisted of:
- Hillary was virtually without flaws.
- She was a peerless leader clad in saintly white, a super-lawyer, a caring benefactor of women
and children, a warrior for social justice.
- Her scandals weren't real.
- The economy was doing well / America was already great.
- Working-class people weren't supporting Trump.
- If they were, it was only because they were botched humans. Racism was the only
conceivable reason for lining up with the Republican candidate."
Funny how all of these points were constantly touted in the Guardian... oh the ironny
The neoliberals weren't listening and probably still aren't listening. They will be blaming the
white working class rednecks but there isn't enough of white working class rednecks to cause this
upset. Professional neoliberal policians have neither the insight nor the intelligence to figure
out they are the problem, they alienated the people they ignored while looking after the rich.
We see the same problem in the Labour Party here. The neoliberal Blairites spent 13 years using
identity politics as a way to pretend to be radical while showing utter contempt for the white
(and black) working class. When they lost two elections and Scotland, they blamed the left, as
though no one could reject neoliberalism. Sorry professional neoliberal politicians, your days
of your front trotters in the trough are almost up, you are being rejected and anyone but you
seems to be the preference.
You, Sir or Madam, are a genius. Your analysis - like the analysis of the article - is spot on
and your prose is punchy, concise and grammatically correct. You should be pick of the day.
The neoliberals weren't listening and probably still aren't listening. They will be blaming the
white working class rednecks but there isn't enough of white working class rednecks to cause this
upset. Professional neoliberal policians have neither the insight nor the intelligence to figure
out they are the problem, they alienated the people they ignored while looking after the rich.
We see the same problem in the Labour Party here. The neoliberal Blairites spent 13 years using
identity politics as a way to pretend to be radical while showing utter contempt for the white
(and black) working class. When they lost two elections and Scotland, they blamed the left, as
though no one could reject neoliberalism. Sorry professional neoliberal politicians, your days
of your front trotters in the trough are almost up, you are being rejected and anyone but you
seems to be the preference.
You, Sir or Madam, are a genius. Your analysis - like the analysis of the article - is spot on
and your prose is punchy, concise and grammatically correct. You should be pick of the day.
Very interesting, and striking, parallels with Brexit. A disaffected majority, who don't believe
they are listened to, rally round people who speak their language, engage with their fears and
concerns and give them easy solutions to difficult problems.
Both decisions are tragically wrong, in my view, but its clear there is a huge disconnect between
those on the left (notional or otherwise) and their usual target voters.
Absolutely spot on. And broadly applicable right across the western world. It wasn't Hillary the
personality, or Hillary the crook, or Hillary the incompetent who lost the election.
It was the Hillary the archetypal representative of the smug 'n' shabby liberal stitch-up that's
done us all over, basking in its meritocratic delusions, and raising all the ladders (and greasing
the sides) to the lifeboats in which those delusions were acted out to delusional acclaim...
...even as it was busy handing the world over first (greedily) to transnational capitalism
and now (stupidly) to the marauding squads of pinhead fascists that'll be everywhere in the US
within weeks, maybe days. A couple of million George fucking pinhead Zimmermans.
"Socialism or Barbarism" (rings truer and truer!) is a choice that excludes liberalism only
because liberalism is too morally and aesthetically insubstantial to make the cut. Imagine the
choice in the form of a movie, and liberalism would be the twitching little grass who betrays
the hero for the price of a bottle of White Lighting.
(In real life it's not a bottle of cider, of course: it's more likely a nice old house in a
gentrified area that still holds on to the charming character of the people it displaced,
some of whom spend 5 hours a day on the bus to come back and work in the charming shops
and eateries, or as nannies and cleaners....).
This is a very good piece (as you'd expect from a cultural critic as smart as Frank is), but it
really needs to be read alongside Adolph L. Reed's
excoriating
article in Harper's from 2014, "Nothing Left: The Slow Surrender of American Liberals":
The left has no particular place it wants to go. And, to rehash an old quip, if you have
no destination, any direction can seem as good as any other. The left careens from this oppressed
group or crisis moment to that one, from one magical or morally pristine constituency or source
of political agency (youth/students; undocumented immigrants; the Iraqi labor movement; the
Zapatistas; the urban "precariat"; green whatever; the black/Latino/LGBT "community"; the grassroots,
the netroots, and the blogosphere; this season's worthless Democrat; Occupy; a "Trotskyist"
software engineer elected to the Seattle City Council) to another. It lacks focus and stability;
its métier is bearing witness, demonstrating solidarity, and the event or the gesture. Its
reflex is to "send messages" to those in power, to make statements, and to stand with or for
the oppressed.
We are in a very bad place right now, in terms of ideas and arguments. The opposition, in pretty
much every western hemisphere country, has been colonised by the same people: professional politicians,
upper-middle-class in social background, educated at the same small group of elite universities,
reflexively committed to meritocratic ideology. They're very good at expressing sympathy for the
marginalised, at saying the right words, at, as Reed says, "sending messages" and engaging in
representational politics. But all those gestures do nothing for the constituencies they supposedly
represent. They're ultimately selfish -- focussed on their own career advancement and the narrow
class interests of the meritocratic-professional elite itself. The opposition, as Frank himself
once said, "has ceased to oppose" in any economically meaningful sense. (Although they're very
good at symbolic forms of opposition on cultural and historical issues.)
And now their constituencies have noticed and have withdrawn their votes.
according to exit polls every section of white America, old, young, affluent, low-income, educated/not
voted Trump, all bar 'young college educated white females', older college educated white females
also voted Trump.
Same here with Brexit, voting patterns show the all white groups voted out, nothing to do with
education levels, income or age.
The pundits write about 'the crisis of liberalism',, hhmmm, I think it should more be 'the rejection
of illiberal openess'. When we say 'immigration needs to be reduced' the 'elites' reach for the
favourite fall back 'you're a white that's racist/fascist/backward/uneducated' etc etc etc response.
Well, turns out, the white part is right, the rest is just class based ignorance. Clinton was
the absolute embodiment of this type of ignorance and arrogance. That basket of deplorables thing
was disgusting, I felt personally insulted by it myself (i'm in the UK). Absolute standard 'elite'
arrogance and hatred of those that don't agree with you. She's just paid for that hate by alienating
absolutely EVERY SINGLE section of white America.
Trump's politics is a rejection of a globalism that has damaged the interests of so many, we're
all far far too open to the forces of the world coming in at us from all directions, Catholics
in Eastern Europe are not allowed their Christian values, are smeared as backward and ordered
by foreign 'elites' in Brussels to drop all that they hold dear or face fines. We've all watched
as the Remoaners showed to the world just exactly how 'tolerant' and 'accepting' they are of those
they don't agree with, erupting into a torrent of class based ignorance and venomous hatred.
Well, they've all been at all this for far too long, and we're all pushing back against it. Spew
race based hate at those that don't agree with you, BBC journalists shouting 'Nazi, fascist, racist'
at any slight tightening up of immigration, Hilary Clinton labelling most white working-class
a basket of fascist deployarables and hey presto, you lose to a repulsive cartoon like Trump.
They need to start thinking on about just exactly who it is in reality that's the race haters.
Most are on the Left.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
Given that Republicans have been opposed to intervention by Big Government at least since the
Great Depression if Trump gets the go ahead for some of his ideas it will be a case of 4 legs
good 2 legs better.
With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and
contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in
to a Cold War propaganda station.
Quite so. And now the elitist corporate media which got everything wrong, including their highly
confident predictions about the result, will now tell you in a highly confident manner all the
things that are going to happen as a result of the thing they said wouldn't happen. First to dash
off a thousand words of hyperventilating predictions?
Jonathan Freedland , so top marks to him for speed, if nothing else.
Interesting article, and in a way I sensed it coming unfortunately, at least in the meaning that
I have always felt that certain liberal and "progressive" thoughts are just too alien from basic
human nature, and are being forced to enter the mainstream a bit too fast, and that this is a
huge risk in the sense that when people decide they are not ready for these and it's time to reject
them properly, then all the valuable, truly liberating and forward-thinking ideas will be drained
along with them and that means dark times ahead indeed.
I am from Eastern-Europe, and, while I don't have a lot of personal memories of the communist
times myself, most of the liberal bits of my cultural heritage comes from the counter-culture,
a lot of the things we value today in my country were, albeit not necessarily all illegal as such,
certainly more of the taboo sort, than they would have been in the West. Now it looks like that
with all this Brexit and America, the West will have to learn to use the liberal thinking to serve
as meaningful criticism of the system that will be built in the future by these new people. It's
the Westerner's turn now, to learn to read between the lines and produce culture with purpose
other than entertainment (if there is any positive side to this, then it should be the rise of
new, creative movies and the end of the high-budget superhero era, and the birth of music with
lyrics worth listening to lol, that's what I keep telling myself as my silver lining for now at
least.)
It's obviously difficult to compare, nothing, in the entire world at the time was this commercialised
and business and technology and life and everything was obviously very different. And, crucially,
whilst the commies declared themselves to be ruling in the name of the common working people,
they had their own breed of intellectuals, at least in my country, there was an approved bunch
of scientists, artists etc, who could stretch it and provide some sense. So, worryingly enough,
from this point of view I wouldn't say they were comparable to the type of anti-intellectualist
mob rule seemingly putting these people into power, and that is my real fear, that these new rulers
will not even have their own bunch of approved scientists who might not approve the views of atheists
or feminists or whatever, but would at least be ready to provide these new governments with sound
advice on the environment, education, health, etc.
I'm not sure how avoidable this could have been in reality, but it should have been, because
we have no time for such ideological bullsh*t games (excuse my words), the damage we are doing
to our own, living planet is becoming irreparable, and we really, absolutely, from all backgrounds
and cultures must work together to basically stay alive.
The arrogance and snotty mindedness of the progressive liberal establishment has be dealt a righteous
slap in the face which they have been asking for, for decades. The Revolt of the Deplorables.
This was the winter of our discontent. Now it is our turn.
Time will tell whether this upset is the beginning of a much better era in the U.S.
I voted for Trump not because I like him (personally I find him repulsive) but because he was
a wrecking ball and a sledge hammer to be used against the liberal progressives that have been
running the U.S. into the ground for decades.
This the Moment of the Ticked Off Deplorables.
This is also a surprise. This is the most exciting time since Truman defeated Dewey.
Except it was the Republicans (not the "white collar liberals") who deregulated the Wall Street
banks. It was the Republicans who gave tax breaks to the wealthy 1% and it was the Republicans
who got rid of welfare. The biggest con of all? That the majority of uneducated Americans who
just voted Republican, think that the GOP represent thier interests and it's all the fault of
the "liberals". We are without doubt witnessing the beginning of the end of the American empire...
We are without doubt witnessing the beginning of the end of the American empire...
And about time, too! That said, you are right about the GOP being the party of deregulation,
tax-breaks for the rich etc. but since in the 35 years since Reagan, when bank deregulation began
in earnest (I know, Nixon repealed the Gold Standard), we have had 16 years of Democratic rule,
and NOTHING has been done to reverse it; in fact, quite the opposite. Most of the damage was done
between Clinton (who repealed Glass-Steigel) and his chairman of the Fed, Alan Greenspan.
We are without doubt witnessing the beginning of the end of the American empire...
And about time, too! That said, you are right about the GOP being the party of deregulation,
tax-breaks for the rich etc. but since in the 35 years since Reagan, when bank deregulation began
in earnest (I know, Nixon repealed the Gold Standard), we have had 16 years of Democratic rule,
and NOTHING has been done to reverse it; in fact, quite the opposite. Most of the damage was done
between Clinton (who repealed Glass-Steigel) and his chairman of the Fed, Alan Greenspan.
Thomas Frank is right on the money. People voted for Trump precisely because both parties represent
business as usual and people are sick of it. Same with Brexit.
ank is right on the money. People voted for Trump precisely because both parties represent
business as usual and people are sick of it. Same with Brexit.
The silent majority,the ones who go to work pay their taxes and quietly get on with life have
spoken. Don't underestimate us. We're intelligent, humble and caring. We're entitled to a view.
We've had enough, we don't have to bully scream and shout to get our way, we go down to the polling
station and we put a cross in the box we feel passionately about and we go home back to our quiet
lives-job done.Well done the people of America,you have had the equivalent to our Brexit and now
let's get the world back to how it should be. One of the most satisfying parts is listening to
the Lefties,Luvvies and BBC crying their eyes out. The times they are a changing.
It is a liberalism of the rich, it has failed the middle class, and now it has failed on its
own terms of electability. Enough with these comfortable Democrats and their cozy Washington system.
Enough with Clintonism and its prideful air of professional-class virtue. Enough!
Amen to that. Thank you, Thomas Frank, for articles such as this one. A lone voice of progressive
reason at the Guardian (neo)liberal circus.
We need to overhaul the DNC, as well as the Guardian and NYT editorial boards.
She was the Democratic candidate because it was her turn and because a Clinton victory would
have moved every Democrat in Washington up a notch.
Spot on. And this is exactly the misery that infects both wings of the Labour Party.
People in politics jostling for power and status, like it's a hobby for them, a kind of shoot-em
up where the consequences of policy affect only other people.
Cameron and Johnson and all the slime of the Tory party suffer from the same disease.
Why do you want to be prime minister, you spam faced Tefal foreheaded dilettante?
"Well, I think I'd be rather good at it."
Well, you weren't. You were awful at it, because you had no basic guiding principles, just
like all the other dilettantes from Eton and all the other posh boy Petri dishes where hubris
is cultivated.
Anya2358
4d ago
17
18
More about Clinton and the Washington establishment than
Trump. Just as Brexit was about Wasteminster's Elitists
and not the EU. I saw wonderfully funny cartoons sent to
me by my American friends, the best one said:
Voting for an independent is like eating a salad,
it's the right thing to do, but will it really make
much difference. Voting for Trump is like eating a
spicy, greasy Burrito, fun at first, but then you have
to digest it. Voting for Clinton is like eating the
fork, and only a complete moron would do that.
I've been reading the Grauniad , as it used to be affectionately known because of its frequent misprints, for nearly
fifty years, and I don't think I've ever found it as unreadable (not to mention smug and self-righteous) as it is today. Its earnest
and hectoring tone was always easy to parody ("Guardian Woman" had become a standing joke by the 1980s) but over the last few
years of reading it on the internet from abroad I am no longer sure what I actually read and what my subconscious invented in
the form of parody (was there really a headline like "Why is the Football Association Failing Transexual Goalkeepers?" or did
I just dream it?") If you want a classic example of a once distinguished publication ruined by identity politics, that would be
my nomination. (To be fair, the Independent 's coverage has been an order of magnitude worse.)
The real French equivalent of the Guardian by the way is Libération which has followed a similar, but even worse
trajectory, and specialises these days in front-page vilification of anyone who transgresses correct identity group thinking –
most recently the philosopher Michel Onfray who dared to make a few critical remarks about radical islam. Le Monde is a
neoliberal and neoconservative rag these days, but less unreadable than Libé.
Oh tempora, oh mores!
I now feel the same about The Economist, I used to read it for education, starting at Uni in 1967. It appears to me now to
be a Neo Liberal mouthpiece.
The Economist Group is owned by the Cadbury, Rothschild, Schroder, Agnelli and other family interests as well as a number of
staff and former staff shareholders.
I'll take your word about the French newspapers. I fled from the Lib after about 2 minutes perusal recently – it had been years
(many, many) since I read it.
And I just don't see that much difference between the guardian's neoliberalism and Le Monde's but, then again, I only dip into
Le Monde about once a week. Science articles are the only thing I read in any depth.
"... The Democrats don't represent the blue collar class anymore, but neither do the Republicans. Republicans supported NAFTA, CAFTA and China joining the WTO. They were the architects of the modern economy. The forerunners that the Clinton Democrats emulated. They were major advocates of deregulation of the financial sector, weakening of anti-trust laws, the destruction of the social safety net, and the crippling of labor unions. They created the wealth gap under Ronald Reagan. TPP might be considered Obama's project, but a Republican Congress fast-tracked it. ..."
The Democrats don't represent the blue collar class anymore, but neither do the Republicans.
Republicans supported NAFTA, CAFTA and China joining the WTO. They were the architects of the
modern economy. The forerunners that the Clinton Democrats emulated. They were major advocates
of deregulation of the financial sector, weakening of anti-trust laws, the destruction of the
social safety net, and the crippling of labor unions. They created the wealth gap under Ronald
Reagan. TPP might be considered Obama's project, but a Republican Congress fast-tracked it.
This was less about which party better represents the working class than it was about which
personality and rhetoric the working class preferred. Trump was talking about illegal immigration,
trade policy, manufacturing jobs, rigged politics and sycophantic media, while Clinton was talking
about incremental changes to subsidize childcare. If it had been Sanders and Jeb! it would've
gone the other way, for much the same reasons.
The analysis is correct more of less , the issue here is class , the Republicans and Democrats
are the two wings of the same party. The party of property and money and the powerful , the
vote for Trump is one of those events that happens much like Obama being elected twice after
the Republicans stole the two previous elections via the supreme court and election fraud. It
can happen but the system remains the same , there is no serious challenge to the supremacy of
the ruling class.
The one analysis you will not hear in the media is a class one and if it
is then it will be howled down lest it gain currency and the wage slaves realise they have
been conned yet again , Trump is not unusual in his attitudes or views , it's just that the
campaign gave them wide publicity.
In the UK the same kind of thing has happened to Labour , they lost Scotland and the 2010
election and the remain vote because ordinary working people are tired just as they are in the
US of seeing the rich get every richer and their own living standards fall and nothing in the
future but more pain and misery. They vote UKIP/SNP here as a cry in the wilderness and they
voted for Trump for the same reason because they aren't what they've had before , the real
problem will come when the right wing populists have been in power for a while and nothing has
really improved.
"... At the start of the 2016 election cycle, this power structure proclaimed Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush shoo-ins for the nominations of the Democratic and Republican parties. After all, both of these individuals had deep bases of funders, well-established networks of political insiders, experienced political advisers and all the political name recognition any candidate could possibly want. ..."
"... Recent economic indicators may be up, but those indicators don't reflect the insecurity most Americans continue to feel, nor the seeming arbitrariness and unfairness they experience. Nor do the major indicators show the linkages many Americans see between wealth and power, stagnant or declining real wages, soaring CEO pay, and the undermining of democracy by big money. ..."
"... Median family income is lower now than it was 16 years ago, adjusted for inflation. ..."
"... Wealth, power and crony capitalism fit together. Americans know a takeover has occurred, and they blame the establishment for it. ..."
"... Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify – with the result that large corporations have grown far larger, and major industries more concentrated. The unsurprising result of this combination – more trade, declining unionization and more industry concentration – has been to shift political and economic power to big corporations and the wealthy, and to shaft the working class. This created an opening for Donald Trump's authoritarian demagoguery, and his presidency. ..."
"... The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn't wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump. ..."
What has happened in America should not be seen as a victory for hatefulness over decency. It
is more accurately understood as a repudiation of the American power structure.
At the core of that structure are the political leaders of both parties, their political operatives,
and fundraisers; the major media, centered in New York and Washington DC; the country's biggest corporations,
their top executives, and Washington lobbyists and trade associations; the biggest Wall Street banks,
their top officers, traders, hedge-fund and private-equity managers, and their lackeys in Washington;
and the wealthy individuals who invest directly in politics.
At the start of the 2016 election cycle, this power structure proclaimed Hillary Clinton and
Jeb Bush shoo-ins for the nominations of the Democratic and Republican parties. After all, both of
these individuals had deep bases of funders, well-established networks of political insiders, experienced
political advisers and all the political name recognition any candidate could possibly want.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the White House. The presidency was won by Donald Trump,
who made his fortune marketing office towers and casinos, and, more recently, starring in a popular
reality-television program, and who has never held elective office or had anything to do with the
Republican party. Hillary Clinton narrowly won the popular vote, but not enough of the states and
their electors secure a victory.
Hillary Clinton's defeat is all the more remarkable in that her campaign vastly outspent the Trump
campaign on television and radio advertisements, and get-out-the-vote efforts. Moreover, her campaign
had the support in the general election not of only the kingpins of the Democratic party but also
many leading Republicans, including most of the politically active denizens of Wall Street and the
top executives of America's largest corporations, and even former Republican president George HW
Bush. Her campaign team was run by seasoned professionals who knew the ropes. She had the visible
and forceful backing of Barack Obama, whose popularity has soared in recent months, and his popular
wife. And, of course, she had her husband.
Trump, by contrast, was shunned by the power structure. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential
candidate in 2012, actively worked against Trump's nomination. Many senior Republicans refused to
endorse him, or even give him their support. The Republican National Committee did not raise money
for Trump to the extent it had for other Republican candidates for president.
What happened?
There had been hints of the political earthquake to come. Trump had won the Republican primaries,
after all. More tellingly, Clinton had been challenged in the Democratic primaries by the unlikeliest
of candidates – a 74-year-old Jewish senator from Vermont who described himself as a democratic socialist
and who was not even a Democrat. Bernie Sanders went on to win 22 states and 47% of the vote in those
primaries. Sanders' major theme was that the country's political and economic system was rigged in
favor of big corporations, Wall Street and the very wealthy.
... ... ...
The power structure of America wrote off Sanders as an aberration, and, until recently, didn't
take Trump seriously. A respected political insider recently told me most Americans were largely
content with the status quo. "The economy is in good shape," he said. "Most Americans are better
off than they've been in years."
Recent economic indicators may be up, but those indicators don't reflect the insecurity most
Americans continue to feel, nor the seeming arbitrariness and unfairness they experience. Nor do
the major indicators show the linkages many Americans see between wealth and power, stagnant or declining
real wages, soaring CEO pay, and the undermining of democracy by big money.
Median family income is lower now than it was 16 years ago, adjusted for inflation. Workers
without college degrees – the old working class – have fallen furthest. Most economic gains, meanwhile,
have gone to top. These gains have translated into political power to elicit bank bailouts, corporate
subsidies, special tax loopholes, favorable trade deals and increasing market power without interference
by anti-monopoly enforcement – all of which have further reduced wages and pulled up profits.
Wealth, power and crony capitalism fit together. Americans know a takeover has occurred, and
they blame the establishment for it.
The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party
has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused
instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from
upper middle-class households in "swing" suburbs.
Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for four of those years
had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time they failed to reverse the decline in working-class
wages and economic security. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements
without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new
ones that paid at least as well.
They stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the white working class –
failing to reform labor laws to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violate them, or help
workers form unions with simple up-or-down votes. Partly as a result, union membership sank from
22% of all workers when Bill Clinton was elected president to less than 12% today, and the working
class lost bargaining leverage to get a share of the economy's gains.
Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify – with the result that
large corporations have grown far larger, and major industries more concentrated. The unsurprising
result of this combination – more trade, declining unionization and more industry concentration –
has been to shift political and economic power to big corporations and the wealthy, and to shaft
the working class. This created an opening for Donald Trump's authoritarian demagoguery, and his
presidency.
Now Americans have rebelled by supporting someone who wants to fortify America against foreigners
as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Trump's isolationism
will stymie economic growth. But most Americans couldn't care less about growth because for years
they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost
jobs and lower wages.
The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself
off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn't wish to understand, because that would
mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump.
I'm in agreement with RR, as far as he goes. He could have gone further, but it's probably not
the time or place for that, anyway, that road is depressing.
Trump's an opportunist, certainly, but a very, very, successful one indeed. He has, after all,
made an awful lot of money that way, so he's not that lacking in intelligence and ruthlessness.
If only Sanders had been more ruthless and willing to stick the knife into the Democratic Party
when he had the chance.
Trump, essentially ran as an independent. First he needed to defeat the Republican Party's
establishment, which he did, take over the party and only then was he ready to challenge the Democrats
and beat them down. He succeeded in his strategy, beating both of them, which is an astonishing
feat, historic in character.
It actually gets worse for liberals. Trump also took on the liberal media and despite their
best efforts to destroy him, brazenly supporting Clinton and ridiculing Trump and his supporters...
Trump didn't just survive the onslaught, but crushed the media as well. Vast swathes of the population
hate and despise the media as much as they loathe the political elite. People simply don't believe
the media anymore, so most of their attacks on Trump were useless and ineffective when they came.
And it really isn't Trump that's important here. It's the character of the wave he surfed
on and lifted him into the White House. But the media ignored the wave and have done for years
and years. Now, the fascist chickens have really come home to roost and much of the responsibility
lies with the incredible ignorance, arrogance and mind-numbing stupidity that characterizes so
much of the media.
"Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more."
And they haven't since Bill Clinton had his way with the party in the 90s.
As much as the right enjoys calling the Clintons liberals, they're not.
They're neo-liberals, which is a whole different philosophy.
The Dems abandoned those who supported them for generations and we are all living in the ever-worsening
result of that betrayal.
So Robert Reich spent the past year enthusiastically encouraging us to vote for a candidate who
embodied every last bit of the formula that he now tells us was a sure loser. Should he perhaps
have warned his long-time good friend Hillary that she was on the wrong road? That being the servant
of Wall Street and promising the status quo with incremental progress was a recipe for failure?
As you say, sir:
"The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself
off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn't wish to understand, because that
would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump."
This includes Obama's role as enabler.
Ironic, that Obama was a charismatic campaigner who failed entirely to become a charismatic president.
And he lost to a candidate who had another sort of charisma: That of a lying, sneering, insulting,
self-important clown.
Shows how bad things have become for a once hard-working & productive middle class now set adrift.
The same power structure that has for decades ignored the plight of millions in favour of it's
own elitist wealth building, little wonder this election result. The neo liberals by their arrogance
and lack of empathy have brought us to this setting us back decades. Clinton was definately does
not hold any sympathy for the downtrodden, she cannot, she's in another class, the billionaire
type. That is why we must never trust them or ever look again to people with this background to
help us. They are responsible for the descent towards fascism and the people are responsible for
their utter gullability in believing them in the first place.
Obama is the worst president and most divisive. he is the master race baiter as well.
Nov 11, 2016 | Pinterest
How the 2016 US election night unfolded
The power structure of America wrote off Sanders as an aberration, and, until recently, didn't
take Trump seriously. A respected political insider recently told me most Americans were largely
content with the status quo. "The economy is in good shape," he said. "Most Americans are better
off than they've been in years."
Recent economic indicators may be up, but those indicators don't reflect the insecurity most
Americans continue to feel, nor the seeming arbitrariness and unfairness they experience. Nor
do the major indicators show the linkages many Americans see between wealth and power, stagnant
or declining real wages, soaring CEO pay, and the undermining of democracy by big money.
Median family income is lower now than it was 16 years ago, adjusted for inflation. Workers
without college degrees – the old working class – have fallen furthest. Most economic gains, meanwhile,
have gone to top. These gains have translated into political power to elicit bank bailouts, corporate
subsidies, special tax loopholes, favorable trade deals and increasing market power without interference
by anti-monopoly enforcement – all of which have further reduced wages and pulled up profits.
Wealth, power and crony capitalism fit together. Americans know a takeover has occurred, and
they blame the establishment for it.
The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the
party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who
have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting
votes from upper middle-class households in "swing" suburbs.
Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for four of those
years had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time they failed to reverse the decline
in working-class wages and economic security. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed
for free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their
jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.
They stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the white working class
– failing to reform labor laws to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violate them,
or help workers form unions with simple up-or-down votes. Partly as a result, union membership
sank from 22% of all workers when Bill Clinton was elected president to less than 12% today, and
the working class lost bargaining leverage to get a share of the economy's gains.
Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify – with the result that
large corporations have grown far larger, and major industries more concentrated. The unsurprising
result of this combination – more trade, declining unionization and more industry concentration
– has been to shift political and economic power to big corporations and the wealthy, and to shaft
the working class. This created an opening for Donald Trump's authoritarian demagoguery, and his
presidency.
Now Americans have rebelled by supporting someone who wants to fortify America against foreigners
as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Trump's isolationism
will stymie economic growth. But most Americans couldn't care less about growth because for years
they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost
jobs and lower wages.
The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself
off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn't wish to understand, because that
would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump.
I've known Hillary Clinton since she was 19 years old, and have nothing but respect for
her. In my view, she's the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now
have.
But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should
have, because he's leading a political movement for change.
The upcoming election isn't about detailed policy proposals. It's about power – whether
those who have it will keep it, or whether average Americans will get some as well. [...]
Which explains a paradox I found a few months ago when I was on book tour in the nation's
heartland: I kept bumping into people who told me they were trying to make up their minds in
the upcoming election between Sanders and Trump.
At first I was dumbfounded. The two are at opposite ends of the political divide. But as
I talked with these people, I kept hearing the same refrains. They wanted to end "crony capitalism."
They detested "corporate welfare," such as the Wall Street bailout.
They wanted to prevent the big banks from extorting us ever again. Close tax loopholes for
hedge-fund partners. Stop the drug companies and health insurers from ripping off American consumers.
End trade treaties that sell out American workers. Get big money out of politics. [...]
You don't care about the details of proposed policies and programs.
You just want a system that works for you.
If you click his name at the byline you'll see how many articles published in 2016. Now think
about the number of pieces published that pushed the pro-Clinton argument of more of the same.
"Third-Way" Democrats made an art form of triangulating a position between the old-line liberal
Democrats the positions made by the mainstream corporate Republican party. By tacking as far right
as possible, these corporate Democrats could scrape off enough of the business friendly, socially
progressive Independents and Republicans to stymie any sort of Republican Presidential bid. Corporate
America gave to both parties, but loves first and foremost to be on the side of the winner, where
its influence can manifest itself in business friendly legislation, politically friendly appointments,
no prosecutions for criminal behavior. no enforcement of labor or business legislation and no
break-ups of monopolies using the still existent anti-trust legislation.
One of the things that made Republicans furious during Bill Clinton's term was that he was skilled
in the extreme at taking issues the Republicans were pushing and getting out in front of them
and making the issue his own, making the result at least somewhat palpable to the old liberals
of the world.
The Democrats became the other war party, the other big business party, the other big banking
party, the other big agriculture party, the other big oil party, the other big communications
party, the other international exploitation party, the other anti-union party the other big medical
party, the other big pharmaceutical party, the other international trade deal party.
Bill Clinton sat down with Alan Greenspan and agreed to be the other austerity party. He supported
low tax rates on the billionaires and corporations and low tariffs. That led to lower services
for the public and small businesses and the tax burden being borne by the long suffering middle
class and working poor. The non-working poor suffered as well with no welfare, more stringent
unemployment benefits, and a stagnant job market for meaningful jobs. At the same time, law enforcement
was focusing on them, putting them in prison for extreme amounts of time for often trivial matters.
But Bill had an overall good economy because of the Computer Generation, so the economy grew and
he was able to deliver to George W. Bush a budget surplus, which, if maintained, would have entirely
paid off the national debt by now.
Unfortunately all those economic gains were being funneled to the top. Overall wages of working
people actually declined since Ronald Reagan came in to begin the austerity measures while the
wealth of the top 1% quadrupled. Working people were losing good paying jobs and having to have
both wage earners in a family work lesser jobs to make up for hemorrhaging income. These lesser
jobs not only had less wages, they had less benefits. Against an out of control health care industry,
banking industry, communications industry and investment industry they were being sucked dry well
before retirement. No amount of savings could stand up to catastrophic illness. People's 401K
plans were repeatedly slaughtered while the big guys who precipitated the mess ended up owning
more and more of the means of generating wealth in our country. Remember the absolutely sinful
Republican law that made student debt unforgivable at the same time that school costs were skyrocketing?
It was so unpopular, Republicans needed help from Joe Biden and other corporate Democrats to get
it passed.
Never mind the corporate media and Republican lies about Barack Obama being a "Liberal", he was,
in fact, another version of corporate Democrat. Since he was black, the racist Republicans could
do the unprecedented in America politics: they decided to block everything. For no good reason.
Other than he was black and no one would hold them accountable. He went along with the austerity
plan because he had no other option. Able enough manager, he was able to drastically reduce the
national deficit virtually on his own. But he kept up the wars. Hell, he and Hillary Clinton started
wars for oil and natural gas. Just like the Republicans. Along with the very expensive war and
secret intelligence budget and police state budget. He has restarted the nuclear weapons program,
never mind that we already have enough nukes to destroy the world 100 times over. He also longed
for hanging his hat on another record-breaking Trans Pacific Partnership international trade deal
encompassing 40% of the world's Gross Domestic Product. Like Bill Clinton/George HW Bush's NAFTA
on steroids. Jobs would be flowing out to low wage countries and waves of filthy international
profits would come flowing back in to: the top 1%, where presumably the fraud of trickle down
economics would waged on the American worker once again.
Yup the elites got hammered Tuesday. Even though they say they are for democracy, they aren't.
The elites want open borders and the people at the bottom of the wage scale are having to compete
against these low wage border jumpers.
How can the elites say they are for open borders and for raising wages. It isn't possible.
It is the law of supply and demand. Sure the government could pass minimum wage increases but
that will drive businesses to automate as much as possible. That ain't going to help these people
either!
Wikileaks proved that the Democrat party is the party of the ruling class elites, no question.
Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders? Give me a break, These two phonies are owned lock stock and
barrel by Wall Street and the Big Banks. Warren's Consumer Protection racket is like Dodd-Frank
- a Potemkin village of fake reforms designed to kill off any competition to the ruling class
oligarchs.
A better analysis than the hysterical white/kkk/racist/woman hater etc pieces that have been flooding
the pages lately.
Its "dont piss on my back and tell me its raining" stuff, Obamacare has stung those in work,
in some cases badly, and those out of work see no hope or change either.
No-one went to jail for screwing the world economy.
Even the government agencies who had oversight, and failed to see one single indicator of trouble
saw no-one demoted, just a call for more power.
And lastly importing more people to compete for low skilled jobs from overseas does keep downward
pressure on wages, and make jobs harder to find for the native born. Pretending otherwise in some
misguided sense of international "solidarity" is punishing your own people for outsiders advantage.
The roles of the two parties have been interchanged over the years, but they both ended up the
same way -- serving the Davos community.
Some have suggested the formation of a third party as a possible remedy. I don't think that
is the solution. As long as campaigns are financed through private contributions, the politicians
elected would be beholden to the rich, regardless of the number of parties involved. The voice
of the less privileged voters will not be heard. To have a truly representative body of elected
officials, private (including corporate) campaign contributions should be eliminated from politics.
Candidates should disseminate their message and platform in publicly funded campaigns. So I would
say don't worry about the number of parties. Just get rid of Citizens United and limit spending
for political campaigns to public funding.
The present Republican-controlled government will not do that. HRC had promised to get rid
of Citizens United. The only remedy now is to organize and try to give the House in 2 years to
whoever will do so.
If was the duffus you worked for Mr. Reich who repealed the Glass-Steagall Act ushering in the
tech bubble, the housing bubble and now the 'everything' bubble. A financialization of our economy
that has benefited only the top 10 to 15 percent of the population.
I don't usually agree w Sex Reich but he mostly right here. The Democratic Party has been corrupted
& a tool of Goldman Sachs, Wall Street, Big Banks, & Corrupt Democrat billionaires ...
Wall Street does care if the kill growth & jobs as long as they keep interest rates at Zero
& Print trillions to fuel the market & fill their pockets. Same w the banks.
The Democrats have Total comtempt for working Americans out here in what they call flyover land.
You know... IW WI MI OH. So Reich is right there but more Gov, more socialism is not the answers.
Economic growth & free Enterprise w sound monetary policy to crest jobs & raise incomes is what
we need & what Trump will provide.
There's definitely a failure of government to do its job: to ensure that the market economy works
to improve the lives of all people (they instead ensure that they get a job at a Goldman Sachs
or a Morgan Stanley once they leave government). Robert Reich points out in the article that the
government never steps in to prevent anti-monopoly practices. To his point, one has only to look
at the over-valued market capitalizations of the financial and pharmaceutical sectors to see that
these guys are getting a free ride. Since not everyone can be a Paul Volcker, one may have to
raise the pay grade of civil servants to attract the best talents.
Whether he's a Democrat or a Republican, the white voter is a bit lost, unable to find his
way in a world where the white man no longer dominates. This doesn't apply to the working or middle
class.
This said, it's not because we want change that we're going to cast our vote for a monster
like Trump. We know what happened in 1933 in Germany, in 1917 in Russia. Whether it's gas chambers
or the Goulag, these psychopaths (Hitler, Stalin) can go very far. The worst ones are the toned-down
versions: a Hitler Light. I sure won't vote for Marine Le Pen.
It's truly a worrying time for the intelligent citizen. Democrats fail the middle class, yet for
all my life there's only been one party who would throw their own mother on hot coals and walk
over her body to give a rich man a tax cut: the Republican Party. I hope it's true that Trump
represents their defeat just as much as the Democrats. They've sold out their base for decades
now, peddling condescending lies and culture war excuses for their greed and cronyism. Not a single
Republican used to be an expert scientist until reducing pollution was going to cost their donors
a few dollars, then all of sudden they all knew better than a PhD how the climate worked. Their
last President started a war and gave no-bid government contracts to his friends, and even tried
to privatize Social Security so business associates could skim off the top of that too, consequences
be damned. When neither side is either willing or able to save you, what can you do?
Mr. Reich, you can't see the forest for the trees. Hillary promised that AFTER you lost your job
to bad trade deals, she'd help you to retrain to become a 7-11 night clerk. In essence, she was
offering to bury your job in a fine casket. Donald offered to fight for your job and shake up
America's trade deals if he had to in order to level the playing field and keep our manufacturing
here. And oh yea, bring some jobs back home too. He also said he would protect them from cheap
labor pouring across the border legally and illegally. Illegal Latinos don't all work picking
lettuce - some drive trucks, do construction, are plumbers, carpenters, electricians, shipyard
workers, you know - jobs our own citizens want. It's not about whether you can strangle another
company with union demands, it's about the lack of jobs period. So in essence, Hillary wanted
open borders and all of our jobs going to Latinos. Donald wants the opposite.
Wonder what makes you Einsteins think the republicans are now suddenly for the working man? Republicans
have always been on the side of big money interests, and nothing has changed. Trump is just there
to placate the mid western rubes. 'Mericuns are so naive. (no tolerance for propaganda like the
Euros or Russians seem to have.) Trump is just a head fake. Its business as usual. He's just gonna
pick up where Obama and Shrub left off. Seen this trick before.
The Guardian needs to publish an editorial apologizing for being part of this problem. During
the Sanders-Clinton race, the Guardian was nothing but derisive towards Sanders, and elevated
Clinton as the responsible and adult choice to stop Donald Trump. They even compared Sanders to
Nader as a spoiler from 2000, not realizing that all the warning signs were there that Clinton
would play the role of John Kerry in 2004.
There were comments in the comment section with people saying "I still don't fully understand
the difference between Clinton and Sanders, can someone please explain it to me?" That was the
Guardian's job. For the record, here is the correct explanation.
For decades the Democratic Party has abandoned working people and embraced globalization at
their expense. Clinton was the candidate of continuity with that policy, Sanders was the candidate
of "Hey, that was actually a bad idea, our mistake, we'll start caring about your issues as well."
It was obvious that Clinton would be vulnerable in a general election against anyone who ran a
populist platform, which Trump was doing.
This train wreck was obvious from a mile away. The DNC and the media need to own this blunder.
You are correct. I would add that electing trump has ended the dlc Democratic party. Of course
my conjecture remains to be proved by events going forward. Still this rightwing shift has a real
chance now to remain in power like the collapsed dlc Clinton Obama clique for a considerable period
ahead. And besides that a restive U.S. working class is in motion with little obvious direction
to the left right now. I would expect though a left opposition is coming rather soon.
The US is a country with a lot of very angry and unhappy people. The nation is in decline and
the people are fearful; they know something is terribly wrong but they do not have the political
acumen to deal with the situation. The two political parties, co-opted if not largely owned by
the plutocracy-, offer no respite from the oppression of which, in fact, they are the instruments
being vassals of their plutocratic masters.
Unfortunately, the plutocracy and their subservient mass media have convinced about half of
the population to vote, to their own destruction, for continual transfer of wealth and power to
the corporations and plutocrats-. The Trumpers, arguably less educated, politically ignorant and
naive, easily manipulated, and riddled with fear fueled with bigotry, are the leading edge of
the discontent and fright. However, their blindness to reality is a severe obstacle to any possibility
of getting that nation back on the track. The plutocrats-, like all parasites, will drain the
nation of its lifeblood and then move on to another country to exploit.
As long as the Trumpeters and those of their ilk can be so easily duped and manipulated, it
is unlikely that there will be any common ground. In fact, common ground is not what is needed.
Rather, what is needed is an aggressively progressive agenda to restore democracy, economic recovery
and re-establishment of a rapidly disappearing middle class.
Politicians like Clinton and Obama give paid speeches behind closed doors on Wall St, whom they
bailed out at the expense of the people. They throw $10k-a-plate fundraisers with celebrities,
and cozy up to the profit-over-people industries like big pharmaceutical and big oil. They are
for hedge fund managers, payday lenders, defense contractors, and credit card companies. Then
they have the gall to send out "tweets" saying we must overturn Citizens United.
I realize the Republicans are no better, in fact, they're even worse, but everyone knows who
and what they are. They make no bones about it, they don't dress up in wolf's clothing and pretend
they are for the working man.
Democrats do. Democrats are like the Republicans from 30 years ago. Over the last 3 decades,
the left has moved to the right and the right has moved into an insane asylum. So now it's the
Democrats who do the red-baiting (see their treatment of Sanders) and the RNC are accusing neoliberal
centre-right politicians like Obama of being a socialist. Socialist? He's not even a liberal.
You are forgetting to add in the "for profit' colleges. How much did Debbie Dearest get from *that*
lobby? How many millions did Bill get to sit on their boards? These political grifters got paid
big money by the very entities which were foreclosing on homes, suffocating kids with student
loan debt, and tanking the economy via Wall Street schemes. The Dems thought we weren't paying
attention?
Trump is offering a solution, that's all. Can he implement it, probably not, but no one else is
even talking about re negotiating NAFTA, penalizing China or anything else to bring back millions
of good paying factory jobs.
Our politicians are out of touch, and corrupted by the oceans of money thrown at them. The 58
million people who voted for Trump want anyone to talk to them about what has happened to their
lives and opportunities and address their problems.
Hillary may in fact be the most competent politician, but that is the problem. She never came
across as a leader who would lead us out of our problems. So we elected a lying misogynist who
is, at least, not a politician!
Reich debated Chris Hedges on democracynow before the election, Hedges pointed out
to him that under Ronald Ray-Gun the levers of power were given over to all the
corp's of the world, there isn't a DNC or a RNC, it's a less than one percent secure hold
on all power, Trump is just another puppet --
The last two paragraphs are absolutely dead on with what happened. You can't cater to minorities
and expect the majority to stick with you forever as they suffer. The Democrats are so blind they
didn't understand why Bernie surged or why Trump won but this writer has real clarity and speaks
the truth absolutely on it. If you ignore the majority, which is mostly working class or rural
citizens, you lose election after election with never ever holding total power for long. Trump
truly needs to be a Teddy Roosevelt up there and set the barn on fire to chase all of the rats
out and rebuild it.
That's what we need and at least there is the tiniest sliver of hope he will, whereas with
Hillary we would have received more establishment politics which always include purposeful half-truths
and omissions at the working class's expense. Seriously, Schumer and Pelosi need to be investigated
with Hillary Clinton because the way they act up there is exactly what made America a stagnant
decaying landscape.
I think it's time we get to the real issues the majority and minority citizens face together
and stop beating to death your four issues that are inconsequential to the other 90 % of us in
one way or another. That goes for both parties too. It makes me wonder if they ever talk to anyone
but the people who have money. It would seem so and it needs to change now because them people
live in a bubble and bubbles always burst. Drag the swamp Donald on both sides of the isle and
you will be my hero forever. Fail and you will be my most hated president yet.
And on a final note, thank god the Guardian has pulled back from the left some now and is being
a good news source again. Thank you for this article and a big thank you to this writer for telling
it like it
Once the Democratic Party was the party of the working man. The union member. Blue collar.
Trying to get higher wages for the working man.
The Republican Party was the party of capital. Bankers. Corporate types. Millionaires.
The Democrats abandoned the working man for the underclass.
Now it seems to becoming that the Republicans are the party of people who work for a living
at a private job, along with the business owners.
The Democrats represent those who either don't work, or those who work for the State: welfare
recipients, students, public union members, most every staffer in DC. Hollywood types. Millionaires,
especially dot com ones.
Despite calling it racist over and over, unfettered immigration holds wages down. Free trade
with China and Mexico guts unions and makes the proposed $15/hr minimum wage a joke when factories
have all moved to Mexico or China. It's a fine thing with Britain, Germany or Canada, but a big
loser with low wage countries. Especially with China who puts barriers in place for OUR exports.
It also didn't help when Katy Perry, Madonna and J.Lo endorsed Hillary. It sent more people
towards the Republicans looking for people who looked like them. Who got up in the morning to
go to work.
If U.S. Democrats have any sense, they'll kick the DNC leadership losers out and let Bernie and
Elizabeth Warren lead the Party. Then we'll have at least one party that represents the interests
of Workers.
Trump has two years to make the lives of his supporters substantially better. Looking
at the people around him, that's not likely to happen. I can't wait to see him make the case that
more tax cuts for Huuge corporations will somehow help Working People! If they try more of the
same, then the market crash will happen on their watch.
Good luck in 2018 then. Dems re-take House & Senate, with Bernie & Elizabeth Warren leading
the way...
We are living through the death of "growth", the death of capitalism. The 1% are using the 99%
as human shields to buffer themselves from the collapse of their religion and their Gawd, horded
wealth. Trump will sellout his Chumps worse than Obama... And the idea that the TwoParty will
ever move to meet the social needs of humanity is a pipe dream. The only way we will get this
is by Direct Democracy. The 99% votes policy. The government are employees who implement those
policies... or they are fired.
Nearly every single elected politician currently in office on both sides is bought and paid for
and works in the best interest of large corporations, not in the best interest of we the people.
A complete purge, a system flush is required if we are to take our country back.
It seams like a monumental task, it looks like an impossible mission when you look at the sheer
amount of money and power in play but it is actually simple and it's all on us, all we need to
do is stop voting for Repocrats and start voting for people of integrity outside of these two
establishment parties.
That is the only way to quickly affect real change and if everyone did that we'd have our country
back in no time. So stop bashing the people who are voting third party and independent, stop telling
them that their vote is wasted or a vote for the "other side", realize that there are no two sides
really and join them in voting the Repocrats out of everything and voting in the people who will
overturn Citizens United, outlaw lobbying and pass a new campaign finance law that will take the
money complete out of politics and allow us to elect the congress and the president that will
work for us, not the Wall Street or MIC.
Is Trump's election really a rejection of the "power structure"? How could that be since that
power structure, whether Democrat or Republican, remains intact decade after decade? I don't think
Trump's victory is a rejection of the power structure. The rejection of the power structure was
embodied, if anywhere, by the Sanders campaign, but it was defied by the Clinton's and by actors
like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and by the fraud employed by those actors during the primaries.
In a system of only two parties voting for one or the other can simply be a vote based in anger
about an excluded middle, or a non-existent "left". These frustrating complaints tell you more
about the result than does "the power structure" who could care less which party wins, so long
as their interests are served.
Some sanity at last amidst the demented ragings of the identity politics crowd that STILL does
not understand that it was them who put Trump in the White House. Not white male rage. Not the
shy white female vote. Not any other race/gender/sexuaity category that you wish to dream up.
What put Trump in the White House was a deeply dysfunctional political system. The fact that
the symbol of this deeply dysfunctional political system happened to be female is neither here
nor there. Understand this. Understand this and learn.
Ditch the identity politics. Become a real progressive, not a fake progressive deriving fatally
deluded ideas from exclusio
Reich has some points, but is ignoring several key circumstances, such as the 72K$ median income
among Trump supporters, but mainly hostile legislators blocking anything more than incremental
changes as to wealth redistribution such as the ACA. Neither Obama nor Clinton have supernatural
powers to get progressive measures passed through republican congress.
The Guardian once represented the working class. Not any more.
The next president had been decided. The elites, the lobbyists, the corporate bosses, and the
media all decided the next president. Only one thing missing. The voters. They weren't playing
ball! Those pesky working class voters! Now the media get to pretend they were with us all along!
"In an article out today at The Washington Post, Freddie DeBoer makes this case. He points
out that Sanders during the Democratic primary won in key states, like Michigan and Wisconsin,
that Clinton lost in the general, and that Sanders was able to attract independent voters. He
also notes Sanders's higher favorability and popularity ratings. Of course, such arguments are
entirely speculative. We don't know how Sanders would have fared under Republican attacks. And
we can't forget that Sanders lost the primary, by a not insignificant amount.
"But one of the biggest arguments made by Clinton and her supporters was that she was pragmatic
and electable-the safe candidate. Sanders's campaign, with its proposals for a $15 minimum wage
and universal health care, was derided as pie-in-the-sky, and the candidate himself painted his
platform as an electoral disaster. I suspect that more than a few Democrats went with their heads
instead of their hearts when casting their votes for Clinton. But we found out that playing a
safe and moderate campaign (i.e., picking Tim Kaine, the most forgettable man in existence) doesn't
necessarily translate into a winning one. Clinton failed to pick up moderate Republicans and white
women. And many of her supporters skated over her extreme unfavorability ratings and her inability
to generate excitement.
"There is no concrete evidence that Sanders would have won. But we were sold a candidate who
we were told was electable, when most of the signs pointed to the fact that she wasn't."
Democratic party turned into a party of identity politics painting by the numbers. Here is how
they assemble their base by pandering to each group specifically:
*women - check
*blacks - check
*latino - check
*lgbt -check
*millenials - check
*educated white collar progressives - check
But then it turns out these groups are not one-dimensional and their voting is not based on
just a single identity. They are complex people. And this is how the Democratic voting base splintered.
There was no message unifying them.
First Brexit, now Trump ... world politics are not going the way that Guardianistas envisaged!
So where has it all gone wrong for the left?
What Rubin says about the democrats abandoning the working class in the US could equally apply
to Labour in the UK.
Serves the Washington and London elites f***ing well right, you might say.
But whereas the Washington/New York democrats will just have to lump it, the London elites don't
want to accept Brexit because they didn't get the result they wanted, and they will try to do
anything to stop it.
If they do, and they might because they will stop at nothing, it will destroy any fleeting idea
of democracy in Britain.
And for what?
To remain a member of a corrupt and bankrupt euro project that is running off the rails?
The euro elite is as bent as they come. What they did and are doing to the greeks is unforgivable.
Yanis Varoufakis was against Brexit not because he supports the Brussels autocrats, but because
he thinks that the best way to combat the world's biggest threats - i.e., climate change - is
through combined efforts (not much point in one country trying to combat climate change on its
own if no one else bothers).
The euro project is doomed. The 28 or 30 countries can agree on nothing (response to refugee crisis?),
except to punish those that dissent
Trump & the GOP don't represent the working class [either]. All the misguided "uneducated, poor
white folk" will find that out soon enough when the new regime is allowed to ride roughshod over
all the gov't support programs they've relied on.
Think he served one year and resigned. He was too much of an idealist as came from educational
system and could not enough accomplished to justify himself being in that position as per what
I saw him say many years ago.
Yes Reich was a Clinton appointee. He wrote a book about his four years as Secretary of Labor.
It is an interesting read. My take from that book was how Bill gutted labor influence inside his
admin.
The Clintos and Obama watched as their fellow blue-class and middle class workers were gobbled
up by larger and larger corporations, and now they are surprised that they refuse to vote for
them? Trumps message to African Americans was simple and so painfully true: "Vote for me, what
do you have to lose?". In the end, most voters decided "what do I have to lose?"
Because four million people voted for someone even more right wing then trump. If you think Gary
Johnson is a supporter of expanded government services, then you're entirely unfamiliar with his
career as new mexico's governor.
Thomas Ferguson granted an interview this morning. In it he said,
(in a paper from 2014 he predicted that) "Hillary Clinton would have a lot of trouble putting
together the old coalition of effectively Wall Street and if you'll allow me to speak quickly
and directly for the sake of communication, identity politics. They're really interesting to study.
You can see for example in the white college age women that Hillary only got 6% more of those
than Trump did which is sort of unbelievable. But let me come to what I think is probably the
heart of the matter. I think we really are at the end of the classical democratic formula of the
Clinton period which was Wall Street plus identity politics. I think this is it. You're never
going to be able to put that humpty dumpty back together again. If the democrats want to win they're
going to actually have to make a strong appeal to working class Americans. Now you know the problem
this is going to create. There's a ton of money in the democratic party. It is not going to sit
there and tolerate candidates like Sanders. They just really despised and hated Sanders. So we're
now going to have a very interesting situation where you've got a top heavy party with cash at
the top and no mass at the base at all, or very little."
The interesting thing about Ferguson is he doesn't speak or write that often as he dislikes
arguing, but when he does come to a conclusion he is willing to share he is seldom wrong.
I think you, Reich and Ferguson are spot on. It is very hard to argue against "identity" politics
since it is basically arguing that minorities (racial, sexual, religious, whatever) have rights.
Unfortunately these "identity" groupings somehow left out the working class. So the Democratic
Party ended up representing a coalition that involved Wall Street (at its center) and many other
small minority groups. What was left out of this coalition was any voice for the working class.
Now that is a classical example of divide and conquer. And yes this is a case of the big money
of capitalism dividing America's workers.
Fifty years ago organized labor unions had a seat at the table who could speak for American
workers (whatever small group the individual worker may have belonged to). Today that is gone.
Hopefully in the coming years the Democratic Party can restore its roots and begin to represent
that class of Americans who actually work for a living. These workers can be divided into hundreds
of different groups -- white, black, male, female, straight,gay, wonks, blue collar, hispanic,
many others. But together they can have a voice in the national dialogue. If electing Trump is
the way to educate the Democratic Party honchos on what is required then perhaps Trump's win will
serve a useful purpose.
Bill Clinton moved the Democratic Party to the right. Although rejected by the GOP (racism) Obama
continued that move. Hillary could have easily won the election by reaching out to the millions
disenfranchised for more than 30 years, but failed to do so. What and who made her stick to a
campaign of 'Not Trump' and elitism is puzzling but not an enigma.
My guess is Bill and Wall Street created the plan, and it went down in a blaze.
"Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more".
A good article which explains the route the Democrats have taken over the years. Faced with
the Republican victories of Ronald Reagan from 1981-1989 the democrats chose to move to the right,
the party having a previous lineage with ordinary workers back to FDR and further. Bill Clinton
in 1992 took onboard the third way calling itself the New Democrats. In the UK Tony Blair copied
this following on after the tories Margaret Thatcher and John Major with his New Labour transformation
of the party into a virtual copy of the tories.
Just like the 2010 election in the UK with Labour, many people who would have voted Democrat
simply did not turn out for Hilary Clinton and did not vote at all. With complete establishment
backing including Wall Street and the MSM she lost to Donald Trump. Many would have voted for
him anyway but a sizeable percentage must have used him as an anti Clinton vote. Jill Stein called
Hilary Clinton corrupt. Clinton is a war hawk she supported the Iraq war and doesn't appear to
have learnt from the disaster as she was mainly responsible for the catastrophy in Libya. She
loves to boast, we came, we saw, he died, meaning Col. Gaddafi she is more reserved about the
later deaths of the ambassador Christopher Stevens and some of his colleagues in the Libyan embassy
as a direct result of supporting the jihadis. While still secretary of state she said that she
would arm anyone fighting against President Assad thats turned out well. She supported the coup
in Honduras and was instrumental in laying the ground out for the coup in Ukraine. The recent
wikileaks indicated she knew the Saudis were financing ISIS but she said nothing as they were
contributing to the Clinton Foundation.
Hillary Clinton Lies About Attending Bilderberg While In Denver
An excellent analysis. Clinton was an awful candidate. She represents the establishment in every
possible way; the same establishment that has stood shamelessly by while the US working and middle
classes have been abandoned.
She offered precisely nothing other than not being Donald Trump. Her campaign resembled a coronation.
This sheer hubris and arrogance cost the Democrats the presidency. Forget the tiresome shrieks
of racism and fascism for a minute: Trump won because Clinton failed to get support among the
masses of underemployed and unemployed industrial working class in the Rust Belt; because she
offered nothing new, no answers other than more of the same.
They failed to address the very real concerns and fears of everyday Americans. They have no
one to blame but themselves for this disaster.
Nonsense.The article nails it. A failure to address the Economic Vampirism that Clinton champions.Sure,
there are plenty of racists and misogynists in the GOP, but willfull ignorance couched in identity
rhetoric is how the party lost so much.until establishment dems realize that, things will continue
to get bleaker for them.
This is a very good article, but it doesn't pay enough attention to the human, emotional aspect
of political leadership. The really sad thing is that the Democrats had somebody in Bernie Sanders
who could have beaten Trump, as all polls earlier this year indicated, but the determination of
Hillary to be President combined with the vast web of Clinton connections led to the result we
have. Everybody knew about her problems going into the primary campaign, but the attraction of
electing a female President combined with unease with Sanders' roots and radicalism (actually,
not such big difficulties) led to her rock-solid "super-delegate" support and sufficient voter
support in the primaries. I doubt the DNC "dirty tricks" were quite enough to cause Sanders' defeat,
but the Party establishment support no doubt swayed some voters, too. Unfortunately, Sanders will
be too old to carry the torch, as is Elizabeth Warren; they should now lead the battle in the
Senate and write the books so needed to shape American progressive thought in the coming years.
The Democrats need to completely rebuild, so that in eight years they can be ready again for executive
power, with the essential support of Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress. It's not
worth their while winning the Presidency without control of Congress. It means building a real
party, a social movement and organization, not just a label, with leaders who can connect emotionally
with citizens.
"Bill Clinton and Barack Obama helped shift power away from the people towards corporations..."?
What about the landslide shift of power to corporations, lobbyists, and the rich under the
Bush and Reagan regimes?
I always agree with you, Mr Reich, and gain insight from your writings/columns, but I think
you're really missed the boat here. A demagogue told the big lie to people, and many bought it!
For all the Democrats' (many shortcomings), the BLAME for the sad state of the middle-class,
working class, and non-1% is on the Republicans' heads!
And the war on unions is one of the right-wing's key rallying points
Clinton is at least partly responsible for Brexit.
1) She led the US into invading Libya. Persuaded Obama, who was initially against it, and now
calls it his biggest mistake as president.
2) As Gaddafi predicted, his regime was the "cork in the bottle of Africa" (Assange's words)
since Libya was patrolling the region. Removing him opened the first front of the European migrant
crisis.
3) Destabilizing Libya provided a base for ISIS and other factions, which helped destabilize
Syria, opening the second front of the European migrant crisis.
4) The European migrant crisis was one of the primary drivers of Brexit.
Well regular Joe Blow has been mocked and ignored for years. Joe Blow might not live in a trailer
park, he might have some nice house but he and Jane Blow are working double shifts to pay for
it. Joe and Jane have long given up on politics because 'it does not change a thing anyways',
they have never seen a politician outside the election phase to descend to their rather unremarkable
town in the middle of nowhere. Unions are nowhere to be seen, no one actually gives a damn about
them and no one listens to their concerns.
But they understand. They do not have a college degree so those people from NY or Detroit might
be right that they do not understand the big picture, watching the news they see that their elected
officials have much more important things to take care of. Gender neutral bathrooms, organizing
community hours to paint the safe space at the nearby college, giving debt and tax reliefs to
the same banks threatening the two of them to foreclose their house, apparently they are really
busy.
But now, after years, someone is coming around and listens. He might not really care and only
pretend to but he DOES listen. For the first time ever.
And we really wonder about the outcome of this election?!
Reich's article pretty much nails it. The Democratic bigwigs preferred the company of corporate
fat cats, facilitated their greed and lost touch with their base....
This is one of the few articles that provides any insight into the 2016 presidential election.
The reality is that Americans don't like either political party and don't trust politicians. American
voters identify with political parties far less than voters in other countries, and most Americans
assume that politicians are crooks. That's just the way it is.
Presidential candidates hire consultants to provide marketing expertise to their political
campaigns. Trump, by contrast, is himself a marketing expert. As a young man in his twenties,
he had the insight that he could increasing the value of real estate by branding it, just as luxury
automobiles are branded.
The people who have been mocking Donald Trump for being a real estate magnate and reality show
TV impresario fail to realize that those are pursuits where it is impossible to succeed without
understanding what the consuming public wants. Many people find Trump to be outrageously offensive,
but that is part of a persona he has developed over decades in his property development and TV
enterprises in order to attract large numbers of people to his golf courses and hotels, and to
attract viewers to The Apprentice.
In politics, Trump's persona translated into a vicious political style that led his opponents
to focus on his persona rather than his message. The message was that the increasing deemphasis
on national borders (in the form of globalized trade, illegal immigration, and arguably even international
terrorism) should be dialed back because it is changing America for the worse. That message resonated
with a large number of people and resulted in his election.
Throughout the 2016 election cycle, Trump's opponents failed to address his message and focused
instead on his persona. Every opponent who tried to take out Trump by attacking his outrageous
and offensive persona was destroyed in the process. During the Republican primary, candidates
were talking about Donald Trump so much that they were defining themselves in terms of Donald
Trump. Hillary Clinton made the same mistake the 16 unsuccessful Republican primary candidates
made. Her campaign was a social message that used Donald Trump as a bogeyman.
The appeal to social interest groups did not address the objective and important issues that
Trump was (arguably inarticulately) articulating, which are the issues that really attracted voters
to him attracted voters to him. Like Britain, America has a lot of towns where the local economy
has been destroyed by the closing of, for example, a steel mill. Trump knew how to address the
voters in those towns, and that's how he got elected.
The missing piece from your comment is Trumps use of media that was relatively new compared to
prior presidential elections. In Trump's case this was Twitter and Twitter bot accounts re-tweeting
messages to smartphones. Obama did well harnessing social media, just as Reagan used taped video
feeds appearing to be live (have to remember how primitive color transmissions were not that long
ago), Kennedy used television, and earlier presidents won harnessing radio.
That is true, as well. Trump's campaign was arguably the American equivalent of the Twitter revolutions
that swept North Africa and the Ukraine a few years ago. One question is whether that use of social
media is why Trump won or whether it is more narrowly why his win was not predicted by pollsters.
This may also be relevant to the unexpectedness of the results of the Brexit referendum.
It's also a reminder to those who shout "power to the people" in the expectation that empowered
people will return a particular result. With Trump, and with Brexit, the people appear to have
repudiated those who see themselves as empowerers of the people. It's worth some reflection.
This is an excellent article. In a perverse way it was those zealously anti Trump wailers who
unwittingly made him the 45th president of the USA.
Words of wisdom for those disappointed by the result: Understand why those who voted for Trump
did. Don't just write them all of as racist/xenophobic. The majority are not. They are angry because
politicians, including and especially those Democrats who were supposed to be on their side, sold
their souls to the devil - globalisation, big corporations etc.
In fact one may argue that Bill Clinton signing the NAFTA free trade agreement back in 1994
sowed the seeds for this current situation. Think about it
Exactly! These people are suffering, and instead of getting help from the Democratic Party they
were just all labeled as a bunch of racists, xenophobes. homophobes, etc. Most people who voted
for Trump didn't vote for the man. They voted for the hope that they could take their country
back from a bunch of elitist, corporatists, and rich bankers who have stolen it from them. You
aren't going to win them back by denigrating them further.
Yet the mainstream media will persist in explaining the Trump disaster in terms of race or gender
issues, never in terms of economic class.
This is how they keep us divided.
Yes. I live in rural Missouri, and I absolutely agree with this analysis. The bit that worries
me is that none of the embryonic "plans" suggested by Trump -- the wall, the deportations, the
repeal of the Affordable Care Act -- will do anything but make the less well-off less well-off
in every way. Does anyone really believe, for example, that lowering the tax on business will
induce any businessman with any sense to rebuild an old factory in a small, crumbling midwestern
town with an uneducated workforce? Let alone allow a union to form, provide decent salaries, pensions
and healthcare like their grandfathers had from companies like Ford, General Motors, Caterpillar,
John Deere etc? Of course, there's always a war as a last resort: that used to get the economy
going, using up lots of materials and lots of surplus young men, didn't it? But I'm afraid the
Chinese don't want to fight us, they want to buy us. There's still so much useable, badly-tended
space in the middle of America ...
"The bit that worries me is that none of the embryonic "plans" suggested by Trump -- the wall,
the deportations, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act -- will do anything but make the less
well-off less well-off in every way."
Actually, GETTING ELECTED was the best thing he could have done. At least it's a CHANCE for
the Democratic Party to wake the **** up and see the working class (not the WHITE working class,
the WHOLE working class) has been slipping away from them and at an accelerating rate. And they
are FURIOUS at getting the shaft while their union "leaders" ORDER them to "vote blue no matter
who" and are bullied and browbeaten if they so much as DARE to ask what happened to all those
empty promises from last campaign season that have been DOWNGRADED yet again into something even
smaller and less ambitious, only to be silenced with "the other guys will be the apocalypse so
don't you dare ask any questions you dirty racists!"
My husband and two friends and I traveled from SF to Philly to protest the DNC convention.
The protestors - most of whom were under 35 - were corralled in FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT PARK.
The delegates lounged in WELLS FARGO CENTER. They even shut down the subway station used by both
groups so that only delegates could use it. They did this even though at the end of the day a
torrential electrical storm was drenching the protesters. Nope, folks. That PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
IS FOR THE DNC ONLY.
Did Hillary really think we didn't NOTICE?? Did she think that making FIVE TIMES the average
annual income of Americans for a 45 minutes speech to Gold In Sacks would be ignored? That we
didn't care that she and Bill RENEGED on the deal with Russia that Bush One made re NATO is pushing
Europe to the brink of war? That she loves loves loves the TPP?
Just how fucking stupid did Hillary think we were NOT to notice her Wall Street/MIC worshiping
history and positions?
Trump is a domestic disaster. We'll have to deal with that. But I am at least slightly comforted
that he wants to stop this war machine (bon chance) and does not support the treasonous, sovereignty-killing
TPP - which Hillary SUPPORTED.
The only one who got Trump elected was HILLARY CLINTON and her arrogant followers.
i hope mr reich can help to clear out the faux liberal power elites from the democratic
party ... the wall street apparatchiks and senior officials that preside over the various electoral
'plantations' for the clintons: millenials, blacks, lgbt/trans and hispanics
this type of politics is regressive because it provides cover for vested interests (that
derive their wealth through ownership of capital) to colonise democracy against the vast majority
of people that depend upon wages for a living
the power structure at the top of the democratic party is corrupt and corrupting ... the way
this organisation has sought and cultivated minority votes (not in the pursuit of some higher
class goal) but to enhance the career prospects of an 'out of touch' political class on capitol
hill is the ultimate form of betrayal
in particular, the way impoverished black communities across america have been used by a 'praetorian
guard' of senior black democratic leaders to support the dynastic ambitions of the clinton family
must come to an end
it is down to enlightened thinkers like mr reich to ensure that the democratic party transitions
from being the 'last plantation owner in america' (and trader in chief of minority votes) towards
a champion of working people and their class interests
this would be a good start: i would fire most senior black leaders in the democratic party
... (you know, the likes of donna brazile!) for activities incompatible with representing the
class interests of working americans - period
One problem the left has to overcome is the sheer seductiveness of the argument that the Farages
and Trumps of this world put forward - they tell those who have not fared well under capitalism
that the fault is not their own, that the real problem is immigrants - it is a cynical but effective
lie that those who feel left behind find hard to resist.
In truth the problem is that the system they - Trump and Farage - actually favour is utterly
dependent on workers who will work for very little whether they are immigrants or not. The tragic
irony is that the right has absolutely no intention of improving the lot of the poor fools who
vote for them.
In a multi party parliamentary system the US labor unions and the US' left-leaning social justice
voters would not be represented by the same party.
Too many people make the mistake of thinking labor in the US is a left-wing movement. It hasn't
been for decades. US labor unions don't fight for workers rights, they fight for their workers
pocketbooks and nothing else.
In 1972 labor abandoned the Democrats when they chose a too-progressive candidate for president.
Since that time the relationship between progressives and the working class has been a nothing
but a marriage of convenience. That marriage seems to have broken up.
17% of American indusrtry is union. There wasn't much of a marriage to break up. Factory mechanization
was accompanied by moving out of the rust belt into anti-union Southern states. Later, they left
for China.
The value of unions to Democrats has little to do with the voters in their ranks. Unions have
long been the Democrat's counterbalance against Republican wealth - they can't buy as many ads
but they can provide nearly unlimited free labor to the Democrats canvassing and telephone campaigns.
WIthout unions the Democrats would have even fewer seats in the House and Senate and Woodrow Wilson
would probably have been their last president.
No, the democrats no longer represent the working classes in the US . As the Labour party here
no longer does. I listened to Ed Miliband this morning on the radio and when asked whether he
supported Brexit he said he was worried about coloured people, Muslims, transgender and almost
everyone else, but he didn't mention the working class at all.
This is why the Tories can get away with doing whatever they want, because Labour is finished
in most working class areas. They became a party for minorities and encouraged mass immigration.
Now they mean less than nothing to most ordinary, indigenous people in this country!
We don't need a Trump, we've got the Tories and UKIP instead!
That would be because the classical working class is an 1860s-1970s phenomenon. It's not describing
any meaningful "class" of people anymore. Some people may "feel" working class, but the truth
of the matter is that for everyone who feels that way, there's someone with similar living conditions
who doesn't.
While I find much to agree with in analyses like Reich's and Frank's, I find that they tend to
romanticize the white working class and ignore the elephants in the room, those being racism,
xenophobia, homophobia, and the rest. I feel I can say this because I come from a white working-class
background in small-town Arkansas (Bill Clinton's hometown and mine were thirty-five miles apart).
Believe me, Robert, there is a virulent strain of racism among many of those folks, and It's something
that needs to be better addressed by analyses such as yours and Tom Frank's. It's not just something
that GOP fear mongering conjured out of thin air. It has deep historical roots and cannot be brushed
easily aside by discussions based solely on economic arguments. (See, for example, Stacy Patton's
article:
http://www.damemagazine.com/2016/11/01/why-i-have-no-sympathy-angry-white-men .)
My GF comes from a similar background. I posted this earlier on this thread.
I know the "working classes" in the USA, especially the midwestern variety. Dumb, ill informed,
incurious. Obsessed with macho posturing, weapons, military exploits.
Rampant racism, misogyny, extreme religiosity. Birtherism, creationism, paranoia, you name
it. You have to read the anti-Obama and Clinton vitriol from people lke that to believe it.
From people who do not have a pot to piss in.
My GF hails from some dot in the middle of nowhere in IA. She describes being raised there
as living in a cult. She had to come to Long Island to realise that there actually were still
jews alive today. She more or less thought they were like the Hittites and the Sumerians, something
you read about in the bible. To this day she loves to watch documentaries on TV because the
education she received in school was so poor and narrow minded.
A lot of that rascism, xenophobia, homophobia etc is born out of the frustration that the working
class find themselves in. Many believe, rightly or wrongly, that foreigners, the LGBTQ community,
Arfrican Americans, Latino's, Asians and so on, are given special treatment. These groups have
jumped to the front of the cue to reach the American Dream, while the working class have been
stuck in line at the back for years and they have become frustrated and angry. It doesn't excuse
those views, but if you look at it from their perspective you can see why they hit out.
Additionally, these views are held right across the demographic makeup of the US, not just
the Working Class.
hopefully once the dust has died down this is the sort of considered writing that we will see
in the Guardian - not the ludicrous outpourings of bile we have seen in the past few days.
I listened to the live radio account from the BBC and noted the evident discomfiture as the
result differed from the script. At the end of a presidential election the assembled studio experts
should have more to say about a candidate than bewailing perceived racism, perceived misogyny
(I doubt that Trump is a true misogynist!) and Mexican walls yet listening to the BBC since then
it's as if the programme presenters are working to a script. Likewise. I'm afraid, The Guardian.
What I find truly remarkable is the analogous positions of Trump and Corbyn: both outsider
candidates who relied on votes from outside their respective Establishments to win through. Trump
had little to do with the Republicans in the past. Corbyn was best known for voting against his
party. Both have been reviled by their own party elites (and by the Guardian). Corbyn has faced
a coup rumoured to have been organised from outside the PLP. Leading Republicans wore the fact
that they had not voted for their own candidate as a badge of honour. Of course this was solely
intended to save their political necks, but in the event did no harm whatsoever to Trump or Corbyn
- indeed it may have positively assisted them. Had Corbyn been positively endorsed by say, Harriet
Harman, he would possibly never have survived.
The US and UK political elites set great store by their acceptance of other faiths and ethnicities
yet seem curiously intolerant to the outsiders in their own milieu.
Clinton, Blair and Schroeder came up with the third way. Snake oil salesmen that all profited
from sucking up to the corporations and selling their influence. Schroeder signed a deal with
the Russians supply gas to Germany before joining Nordstream the company set up to do so. As for
Clinton and Blair the list is long a sto how they have lined their pockets. The third way has
never been about the ordinary working man. Wages have not risen in Germany in real terms for years
as they havent in the US. In the UK easy credit has masked the real situation and now peple are
suffering.
What Robert Reich has written has hit the nail on the head.
Schroeder signed a deal with the Russians supply gas to Germany before joining Nordstream
the company set up to do so.
Except he merely served on the supervisory board.
The third way has never been about the ordinary working man. Wages have not risen in Germany
in real terms for years as they havent in the US.
"The working man" is waffling. Contrary to propaganda, Schroeder's reforms have contributed
massively to Germany not being hit as hard by the financial crisis as others - and contrary to
legends, it has improved the situation of the poor. It's the people peddling those legends, devoid
of any understanding how the situation was before, who contribute to the unemployed feeling outcast.
It's the 21st century. Wake up. Waffling about the "Working Man" is the same as waffling about
Cowboys and believing cattle farming is still being done like in 1850.
Guardian columnists such as Hadley Freeman, Lucia Graves, Wolff, Abramson, Freedland and company
should be forced to read this article. These columnists very rarely if ever talk about the Gilded
Age style inequality levels in the West, and the USA in particular. Instead it is all about identity
politics for them. Can these individuals start writing about the disastrous chasm between the
very rich and the rest please?
Definitely. Identity politics has been coopted by the neoliberal technocracy to divert attention
from wealth inequalities, the operation of big corporations in politics and the general lack of
democratic accountability in governance.
Thank you Mr Reich. Best article I have read for months.
The vote for Trump was a protest vote. It was a non violent revolution. A significant part
of the US electorate were angry. They saw their quality of life eroded. They saw little change
of their children having a chance of a better life. Trump was the perfect outsider. He was not
part of the "corrupt system". If you are living on your knees why not vote for someone who might
bring the whole corrupt rotting edifice crashing down?
THe usual media suspects have been trying to explain what happen in their normal closeted,
university educated, urban, smug, condesending manner. But when people are angry, when they are
protesting they want action, they want change , they don't want the status quo. During the French
revolution the mobs didn't ask "whats your policy on gender based minorities?"...they just shouted
"off with their heads"
Until the media, the politicians, the policy makers, the wealthy elite start properly listening
to the people left behind, then we will continue to see more Trumps and Brexits.
Excellent analysis . Mr Reich was Labour secretary under Clinton and so she shares the responsibility
of his policies. Of note is media complicity including so called liberal progressive media no
heavy weights. It seems that 'generating ' money / growth/ markets etc etc seem to be the all
important factors . Citizens' solidarity and the needs of the most vulnerable are at the bottom
of the checklist if it is ther at all. These progressives have fallen or perhaps fallen into the
trap of believing that talking about 'progressive' topics e.g. misogyny and gender etc is enough
to earn the badge of 'progressives and liberals '.
It is very strange indeed in the midst of all this ther is no mention of JC and McDonnel and
co and their ' old 'foolish' 'defunct' types of policies that no one wants to vote for because
.......
Finally it is curious to note that many US citizens voted for Trump because of the disillusionment
with political establishment. The odd thing is that ' those in the know ' did not know about their
anger -- To complicate matters further and using this an example does US and the West really know
what ordinary citizens in Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of ME Asia and Africa really think about
the ruinous roles of the West in making their lives and their children's lives and their countries
and their future a waste . Just because ther are strategic and national security and economic
interests of West and their local reps. Do we have to believe the stories and features of the
natives and their 'backgrward ' oppressors or just believe ( as US election showed ) what we want
to believe that the natives, want , deserve and should get --
And yes we are in 21 st century and using all the powers of Internet and modern society to
be acquainted with the outside world -- Doh --
This article and simon Jenkins article on trump are the best two articles I've read in the guardian
for a long time! Spot on .keep reminding people that gw bush supported h. Clinton ,bush whose
personal vendetta against Saddam cost thousands of lives ,Iraqi ,us ,UK ,etc! And how million
american workers were put on the dole by bill clinton !ill
The Clintons also helped corrupt the Democratic party to deny Bernie Sanders the opportunity
to put many of these popular views to the test on Tuesday.
That also meant denying the voters the chance of having someone like Tulsi Gabbard as vice-president:
Exactly. Messrs Thatcher/Major/Blair/Cameron followed the same path here and that is why we have
decided that we , the people , want to take back control and showed it by voting to recover our
sovereignty by leaving the EU .
Remember, Trump used to be a Democrat. The fact that he has led the Republicans to peers suggests
very little difference between establishment parties, as in the U.K. Trump is a savvy enough schemer
to play to the fears and feelings of the dispossed. Let's see what he can deliver. I doubt much.
All I can hope is that he recruits right wing Us Supreme Court justices in the vein of Scalia.
Mr Justice Scalia, by his verdict in the Citizens United case, sold US politics to the highest
bidder. He and his devout followers have done more harm to their country than any other supreme
Court Justice. A man who supposedly believed in the 10 commandments, but who lacked the integrity
to hear any death penalty cases. A hypocrite.
Glass-Steagall, which was used to protect ordinary savers from high risk investment banking, was
removed by Clinton, not GWB. Sure, Congress and House were dominated by Republicans, but the Democrats
had Bill Clinton and could have filibustered (see how effective the Republicans have been since).
Instead, Gramm-Leach-Biley passed with bipartisan support. And let's not even talk about
NAFTA.
The Socialist bread van resprayed in a liberalism, neoliberalism, multiculturalism, political
correctness, globalism and liberal interventionism pretty colour by the Blairites, the Clintonites
and EU political elites, was still the same old failed product under the bonnet.
Guaranteed whenever it is taken out on the roads to breakdown and take a Nation or Federal
Superstate to the brink of bankruptcy before the passengers(electorate) see it for what it really
is - they had been sold a clapped out old banger with a new coat of paint!
UK Socialists, memorably described by Margaret Thatcher as people who when in power always
run out of other peoples money, are mostly a well meaning lot, but their bread van which crashed
spectacularly in the 1970's and got taken to the scrap yard as beyond repair, was years later
deviously bought(hijacked) as a 'damaged repairable', by a small group of liberal metropolitan
elite scam artists who had quietly infiltrated the Labour Party.
After a little tinkering under the bonnet(parachuting their own candidates into Labour heartland
seats) and a new touchy feely PR paint job, they relaunched it onto the streets as a New Model
'Green' Socialist vehicle, when in reality it just a bunch of second hand car dealers in sharp
suits operating an industrial scale 'cut and shut' job scam of Madoff proportions on hoodwinked
buyers(the electorate).
Working hand in glove with Goldman Sachs and big business, they made themselves extremely rich
but now have a lot to answer for, as they're responsible for the rise of the left and right wing
populist genie out of the bottle. Once out, like the inflation genie it is a devilishly difficult
task to put back in.
As evidenced by the latest utterances of a beaming Nigel Farage, aka Mr Brexit, following the
Trump Presidential winning campaign:
"Brexit, and now Trump, and now the wagons roll on to the rest of Europe for all the elections
next year," Farage said, smiling like a cheshire cat. "This is a really exciting time. As someone
who has now become a demolitions expert I'm thoroughly enjoying what's going on."
With bold, brash, crass, in your face characters like Trump and Farage at the forefront of
the political stage, the next few years, like a fairground ride could be rather wild and bumpy,
but never dull.
What so you're saying Trump and Farage lied? ....They're not going to protect our lifestyles and
western living standards using left wing socialist protectionism? ....who woulda thunk it?
It may be a repudiation of the American power structure, or the result of building certain perceptions
in the American public over the years by the mainstream media that Trump pounced upon and crudely
exploited to the hilt. The US media couldn't steer the beast it had created when it wanted to.
Think it's wishful thinking that we're not in for a period of great upheaval, possibly tragedy.
We saw what happened during the Bush presidency, an ugly war with a tally of tens of thousands
of lives and global financial meltdown. This time it could be much, much worse.
The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades
the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters
who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives
and getting votes from upper middle-class households in "swing" suburbs.
Change "Democratic" for "Labour", "Washington" for "Westminster", "Wall Street" for "the City",
and it still rings true. Corbyn and the swing to the left isn't the cause of the crisis, it's
a response. What happens with Sanders and his base next will be pivotal.
Compulsory reading for all who formed & remain part of what is described with forensic precision,
including many contributing journalist to this paper. To be taken seriously, not immediately denounced,
Robert Reich could only put pen to paper with confidence after Trump won so decisively, & why
we are still reeling from reality about to unfold from success of the Brexit campaign. Fundamental
change in reactionary maverick hands.
Both Trump & UKIP/Farage/ Tory right engaged willingly, without shame, in a campaign of authoritarian
demagoguery, with elevation of racist, xenophobic sentiments to being new national virtue of saying
it as it is.
Existing power structures with their intricate connections, web of back rubbing fundraising, &
legislation to enable profit accumulation to continue unhindered by challenges from 'shopfloor'
labour groups, failed to see what was under their noses. Insulated, blinkered privileged they
dismissed as unelectable what was coming down on them like a ton of bricks.
Great piece, well worth reading more than once.
It is more an indictment of the mainstream political parties than the electorates that politicians
like Trump, Farage, Le Pen and all the other hate preachers are attracting so much support. It
is equally an indictment of the leftist media that they cling to the discredited leaders of the
so called centre left parties. But then they have personally done very nicely out of the cozy
relationships they have with leaders who are held in as much contempt by the ordinary voters as
the misnamed liberal media holds them.
The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades
the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters
who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives
and getting votes from upper middle-class households in "swing" suburbs.
That is the most relevant paragraph I've seen here in recent months. exactly the same for the
UK Labour party, Nobody with any real prospect of power represents the working class. The only
shadows left are the unrealistic promises of Trump, or Brexit that we know will be ignored once
the vote is cast. But what else is there?
The "lumpenproletariat" that brought the social democratic parties in europe to power and made
the european communist political parties a force to reckon with no longer exist. The old working
classes have been superseded by an underclass who do the truly unskilled work, and a middle class,
the successful children of the former workingclass who now are nurses, administrators, middle
managers, etc.
Steel, mining, ship building, car manufacturing, etc, used to employ thousands or even tens of
thousands of people in a single plant. Those days are over. Everywhere. To exclusively focus on
the 20% of the population that are truly left behind is political suicide. And why a guy like
Corbyn will never see an electoral win.
And then one needs to keep in mind that the American working class are much more right leaning
than their european counterparts.
First past the post does have benefits e.g., stable governments that last 4-5 years, manifesto's
printed up-front rather than debated behind closed doors, prevention of extremist parties achieving
influence via balance of power.
UK, USA main two parties are actually 'large tents/broad churches' where multiple views exist
rather than narrow dogma.
Democracy is not perfect - but the peaceful transfer of power - in the UK, US is to be commended
and not taken for granted.
(ps I agree with gerrymandering in US but that's a result of the States vs Federal system. Also
one more thing - FPTP is the only way to choose a President whether by Electoral College or popular
vote).
Stable governments that don't represent voter's views or needs. Manifestos that are manifestly
ignored at the earliest convenience, policies that were never announced or publicised, pursued
in the interests of political lobbyists, donors or corporations. Politicians whose default position
is to lie if it serves them better than the truth and the electorate offered the only opportunity
to dismiss them at the next election, when they can reliably expect to be rewarded with a seat
in the Lords or any number of sinecures in the form of directorships and consultancies.
The system is not fit for purpose and that's just the way our political class likes it.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you, Secy. Reich. I cannot say enough!
Yes, Sir no one can fool all the people all the time. The Clintons were masters at this game
and believed they could get the people to believe that 2+2=5 assisted with their unlimited corporate
money, Wall St. influence, and the dissemination of misinformation aided by the media.
There would not have been any need for organizations like Wikileaks, if journalists had a modicum
of integrity.
As for the Guardian, it had to have their favorite, and the most corrupt, candidate defeated
at the elections resoundingly in order to have voices, the like that of Secy. Reich express his
views in this otherwise skewed newspaper. With the increase in corruption in public office, journalistic
integrity followed that same path.
The frustration of the people with establishment politics rose to such a level where they did
not care even if the opposing non-establishment candidate was Donald Trump or Donald Duck who
groped other ducklings.
The Guardian was one of Clinton's loudest barking dogs, following the Goldman Sachs playlist to
the letter. Adverse comments BTL about her or the Guardian's election coverage were deleted.
"Democrats once represented the working class. Not anymore "
Republicans never represented the working class but the working classes continued to vote them
into office.
The destruction of the trade union movement has always been one of the highest priorities for
Conservatives – the success they have had in large part due to the concerted efforts of Ronnie
and Maggie (who are now engaged in a torrid posthumous affair).
In the UK there is a sinister parallel between zero hour contracts and workers during the depression
standing in the streets hoping to pick up a day's work.
Apparently "job security" is a threat to the prosperity of the nation and so it goes on.
Now that the unions have been dealt with the Tories in the UK have set their sights on dismantling
the NHS (by incrementally starving it to death) and there is presently nothing to stop them.
Trump clearly tailored his message to reach the disenfranchised but unfortunately there
doesn't appear to be any evidence that (a) he really cares about them and (b) anything substantial
is about to improve their lot.
Its quite ironic that right-wing, neo-lib ideology, created what we have now, and at the same
time its the right and far right that are getting all the gains. The popularity of Trump. Farage
and this movement tells you how utterly and totally the left and liberals in general have failed
in connecting with the working classes and offer something different.
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama helped shift power away from the people towards corporations.
It was this that created an opening for Donald Trump
Sums things up succintly. If you're concentrating on stealing their clothes, they can steal
yours, especially when you only wave them about listlessly yet refuse to wear them.
That's been happening since Reagan. I get the blame on Clinton & Obama in the context of "Dems
played the same game as GOP", but not in a more open context. This has been happening for 35 years
with trickle down economy. It also happens to "coincide" with the widening of wealth gap...
It was a repudiation of President Barack Obama and his leftist [neoliberal] policies that decimated
middle class jobs, health insurance and the respect for the rule of law.
Obama just nailed the whole working class with a massive Obamacare rate hike. What did they expect
was going to happen? You cannot provide free healthcare to the poor on the backs of the working
class while the upper mids and wealthy pay nothing. The upper mids already have employer insurance,
people, and they do not get an opinion. OCare is hitting me for $400 a month for insurance with
a $13,000 deductible! That is fraud! I am a working class liberal- Obama broke every campaign
promise he ever made to us, and Clinton has done nothing to shed her 'corrupt DNC insider' image
or distance herself from Obama's treacherous policies. ALL of the reasons the Trump people are
giving for voting for Trump are VALID and we can blame this one on THE DNC. BERNIE WOULD HAVE
WON.
I find it poetic that the Guardian, which seemed this past year to be competing with the other
US majors in the grotesque sidelining and marginalizing of Bernie Sanders, is now On their hands
and knees with their contribution drive. I will never give a dime to these hacks. What's funny
is that had they stuck to their principles of fearless reporting I have no doubt a huuuge number
of readers would have jumped at the opportunity to make a worthwhile contribution. Like the DNC,
they had a clear thoroughbred in the stable and they drowned it in the backyard. i have no sympathy
for this rag. I have contempt for it.
Just as after Brexit, this paper is flooded with articles claiming how 'minority' groups, BMEs,
LGBTQ...s, and even women, are now being attacked in numbers and how vulnerable they feel.
I follow the MSM and have seen nothing of substance that backs this up.
Nor do I feel that Trump is going to mount major campaigns against such groups.
Interestingly I believe it true that 29% of the 'Hispanic' minority actually voted for Trump.
Similarly was the figure for white women not c.50% ?
Many fewer blacks did, but should Trump's economics actually bring back jobs for the 'working
class' why would blacks in this group of both (all ?) sexes not benefit also and if that is the
case watch how their voting patterns change next time.
Thankfully there are articles like this.
Media other than Guardian who don't care to give this thought the time of the day, slip into irrelevance.
I mean the MSMs here who all embody Trotzkism.
Trotzkism dictates that the livelihoods of people ought to be taken away to make them pliable.
China bought US-TBs (for US government aggrandizement) upon US shipping jobs over there. Feeding
the hungry? With the Fed going into overdrive. Banks together with govt concocted the financial
crisis to profit off bear strategies that mortals can't do. In following years, the elite coined
high-flying ideals such as globalization, which is good for them because they sit in govt, teach
in universities or are detached ueber-owners of businesses. Joe Blow was screamed at when he would
ask: How am I gonna pay for stuff that the big wigs have now manufactured overseas, when we now
make, or get as welfare, $10 instead of $25 an hour?
Hard to reverse the destruction, but worth a try.
I never thought I would be in agreement with Robert Reich but I am today. Every election cycle
the Democratic Party spouts happy talk about being the people's party and the worker's party (in
contrast to the supposedly blue blooded, monied Republican Party.) While that may once have been
a somewhat accurate portrayal, it has long since become a sham of an image.
Today's Democratic Party is the party of the corporate billionaires, the tech titans, and the
globalist elitists who don't want a simplistic notion like that of national borders to get in
the way of their profit seeking. Naturally, the entertainment and media stars gravitate toward
their corporate masters and shill for the Democrats. Throw in a fixation on divisive identity
politics and the Democratic establishment and its less loud and proud Republican counterpart thought
that the authentic voice of the American people could forever be drowned out. The success of Bernie
Sanders (done in by the rigged Democratic Party rules) and Donald Trump demonstrates that the
people will no longer be silenced.
Hey GUARDIAN, where is that 99% chance of Hillary winning???
I personally know three people that didnt vote because they thought she had a win in the bank.
Shame on the Guardian.
Those pollsters along with GUARDIAN should be summarily FIRED.
And don't let the door hit them in the a$$.
Thank you for your voice of intelligence & grounded wisdom. As I read elsewhere, the treaties
that Mr. Clinton & Obama have backed have unravelled the middle class. And let's not forget Mr.
Reagan who reversed high tax rates on the wealthy and broke the back of unions. Neither party
represents working people anymore. Certainly Mr. Trump does not. And playing to that disenfranchisement
won him the election---but I fear that he has no interest in redeeming the middle class. He was
interested in getting elected and telling people anything they want to hear.
The western first world dominance is coming to an end. People in the west like to think they are
the top of the food chain but reality is the second world of Asia and the far east is rapidly
stepping into their shoes. Capitalism dictates that maximum profits are returned for minimum outlay
so if you can make a product for minimal cost i.e. wages, and sell for the maximum price then
you have a successful business model. Protectionism has been tried before and Trump's version
trying to roll back globalisation will be no more successful. ..same applies to brexit. It'll
get even worse as robotics take over more and more, the only solution will be social control mechanisms
to ensure that suppliers have consumers to sell their products to. It's going to take a while
for this realism to sink in...but it's unavoidable.
Sense at last in a Guardian article.
But still not enough sense to say clearly what a weak campaigner and what a poor choice of candidate
Hillary Clinton was.
Oh well... maybe the Guardian will use the period between now and January 20 to reflect on
how they cheer-led for a candidate who didn't have what it takes to win an election.
Or maybe not. Maybe they will continue to print and post stories that are tinged with hurt surprise
that democracy means one -and only one- vote for every citizen who cares to cast it. How can
democracy function if all those white unemployed and immiserated vote against the candidates
that the rich have prepared for them?
As is usual Mr. Reich hits the nail squarely on the head.
The working class had long been the backbone of the Democratic Party electorate. They no longer
are because the Democratic Party is no longer the party of the working class. The banks, the upscale
suburban liberals, minorities and specific issue oriented groups are the people that matter most
to the Democratic Party. The working class support has been taken for granted for far too long
by the Dems. I can't remember how many times I have heard said, or seen written, by Democratic
insiders "where else do they have to go (for candidates to support)?"
The working class has to be a part, and an important part, of the left's coalition going forward
or risk seeing more shock election results like this. Their lots have not improved in this brand
new global economy championed by both parties. And while their numbers aren't as large as when
Reagan was elected (and before) there are more than enough of them to be an election decider.
It also will be helpful to choose candidates who will not to insult them like who, for example,
call them all a "basketful of deplorables".
the biggest factor in the Trump victory,and in the Brexit mayhem,is quite simply Globalization.
it is Globalization that has exported jobs,and skills out of the western world. it is responsible
for ghost towns in the industrial and manufacturing heartlands. western governments have had no
strategy for regeneration on anything like a great enough scale. unless the consequences of globalization
are addressed and reversed, the West faces ever falling living standards and huge unrest.
Yes, what we call "globalization" is quite simply the universalizing of a certain set of relations
between capital and labor -- it's clear that if the process is allowed to proceed without proper
safeguards, capital will be greatly favored, while labor will be reduced to the lowest possible
level. Marx pointed out a long time ago that the tendency of capitalism is to squeeze the greatest
amount of "surplus value" out of the workforce while granting them only as much money as necessary
for them to scrape by from day to day. Essentially, under capitalism, he wrote, people exist to
produce things and are less important than the things they produce. Marx may have been wrong about
the viability of "scientific socialism," but he was often spot-on as an analyst of the way capitalism
works and who it really benefits.
Trade is wonderful, but only when it doesn't proceed by reducing us all to wage slaves. Maybe
Dems who keep supporting bullshit neoliberal trade deals need to go read some of old Uncle Karl's
delightfully sarcastic works. Capital, Vol. 1 would be a fine start: see in particular
the chapter, "The Fetishism of the Commodity and the Secret Thereof." It's a masterpiece.
Can anyone turn back the tide of globalisation and power of the corporations? What is the role
of MSM? Are they all part of the problem? Interesting times. Maybe Trump will be force for good.
We certainly need stronger leadership from our politicians, on both sides of the pond.
Yes, I think of lot of that sort of stuff is misplaced. True, there are some despicable people
supporting Trump -- the Klan, neo-Nazi types, and so forth. But most people who voted for him
aren't like that. It's probably more the case that they put aside considerable disdain for Trump's
wretched behavior and voted for him based on his promise to "unforget" the working class. Personally,
I think he's a brazen demagogue who doesn't give any more of a rat's bottom about the poor and
the working class than Hitler did in Germany, what with all his "national socialist" promises
of "two chickens in every pot." But it isn't hard to understand the appeal of such populist rhetoric
when people are suffering and insecure. The American Left needs to rediscover its proper role
as a moderator of the harsher side of capitalism -- it has forgotten that role, and the bill for
that forgetfulness just came due. I don't blame Hillary personally -- Secretary Reich is right
to frame the problem in much broader terms, i.e. as having to do with the Democratic leadership
as a whole.
The business of government has morphed into the government for businesses.
Take a hint from what President Xi of China is doing, in managing the PRC. A good yardstick of
good governance comes from the analects of Confucius.
For instance, once upon a time in Germany, social democrats represented the working class.
Not anymore. People couldn't care less about Germany's wonderful economic growth either, as most
of the surplus goes to the top.*
The "social democrat" Schröder demolished the welfare state and introduced a new low wage sector,
much beloved by his corporate buddies. Thanks to his and Angela Merkel's efforts, numbers of working
poor and food banks are increasing. So is the wealth gap.* Thanks to an ongoing media hate campaign
against the meritocratic losers, most people suffered in silence. And now everyone acts shocked
and confused that a right-winged populist party is on the rise.
Well, thank you Angela Merkel, these are the fruits of your beloved austerity. The next vote
in Germany is going to be interesting. And just for the record: austerity was employed by Brüning
to boot. And that turned out so well, didn't it?
Capitalism is the best economic system we have but it becomes increasingly self destructive and
unstable if it is not managed properly. The moderate left and right would both agree on this normally
but the left would prioritise the interests of workers and the right the interests of capitalists.
However both, self interestedly, would support policies and institutions that kept the system
stable and growing.
Unfortunately hubris and market fundamentalism has turned the right's head and allowed the
rich and greedy to destructively run rampant. This is in no-one's longer term interest as the
impoverishment of the middle class and destruction of a prosperous mas market will eventually
undermine even most of the wealthy. The economic elite need to be dragged back under control.
Theodore Roosevelt broke up the trusts in the 20s and Franklin brought in the New Deal in the
Great Depression. It has been done before. It needs to be done again.
Now Americans have rebelled by supporting someone who wants to fortify America against foreigners
as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Trump's isolationism
will stymie economic growth. But most Americans couldn't care less about growth because for years
they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost
jobs and lower wages.
Exactly, and the parallels with the Brexit vote and against an EU corporate bureaucracy set
up to benefit the wealthy are stark. You could apply the same phrasing here in the UK:
Now British voters have rebelled by supporting a campaign that wants to fortify the UK against
foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Brexit's
isolationism will stymie economic growth. But most British workers couldn't care less about growth
because for years they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens
in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.
The Democrats have more or less sold out the working class to the rich and powerful. They are,
in large part, the rich and powerful as this article points out. If the left wants to counter
right wing populists such as Trump it will need to address the growing anger of the white working
class towards policies that have put them in a position where they will be a minority in their
own country where they have historically been a large majority. It will also have to look after
the unemployed, working and middle classes at the expense of Wall Street, big tech and big business
generally. Ironically the right needs to do exactly the same thing. And both need to do these
things while protecting the well-being of minorities. Will these mainstream politicians be able
to escape the orbit of the rich? It is difficult to be optimistic.
Maybe so, but the only solution offered here is more Unions... if you think that's a solution
to the stagnating earnings of the bottom half of the population then I'm afraid you are way off
the mark.
The problem, and it's one that Trump will utterly fail to address and strikes at the heart
of our beliefs, is that a modern economy has little use (and places little economic value) on
low and unskilled labour. There is not a thing that can't be done cheaper by foreign factories
and machines (computers/robots/automation). This is deeply unpalatable and I do not like it, but
without a solution to how we ensure fair treatment of people who are, day by day, becoming less
economically valuable to the modern economy, this issue will not go away. Trump is a reaction,
but he is not the solution but he will set out to blame every minority, foreign government, trade
agreement he can because he can't or won't address this issue, and that will be very bad for everyone.
Its much worse than that. The modern economy places no real value on labour at all. Over the coming
years about 1/3 of all jobs are considered at risk of automation, including doctors, lawyers (already
happening), journalists (already happening) etc. The liberal elite in some of these jobs are like
lobsters in a slowly heating pot - they are too busy congratulating themselves on how toasty warm
their situation is to realise what is going on, and so all too happy to applaud the status quo.
Certainly it's a rising tide that threatens to wash away at everyone, though the higher skilled
the safer you are likely to be, at least for now.
I think the challenges are ultimately going to affect everyone, the question is going to be
who benefits politically. The left (which is where my political sympathies lie) is currently in
a real funk and lacks meaningful answers, the right is reducing it's message to 'blame the others,
they take your job, benefit at your expense etc'. No real answers.
P.S. I think your reference to the 'liberal elite' is misplaced, I'm not sure if the local
GP or bloke who writes wills in the local high street really count as an elite, just ordinary
people doing relatively well for themselves. The risk in this kind of language is that the tendency
is to think they are some kind of other who are to blame for all this, when what's happening is
actually far more wide ranging and fundamental.
And the liberal elite are by definition to blame for this because they are the ones whose privilege
got them the managerial and leadership positions they hold yet whose ideology and political views
have meant they have carried out these roles so badly.
I agree that neither side has the answers because both sides are in effect faces of the same
coin, cut from the same metal, imbued with the same flaws. Corbyn no more has answers than Trump.
What Trump has done is prove that no politician can go forward ignoring the questions. Hillary
firmly expected to.
Mirrored exactly with the new labour. Billionaires and celebrities rubbing shoulders with the
political elite, little wonder why we became disillusioned with them. For years now, the government
neglected the working class. Industries and jobs vanished ever since replaced with ZHC jobs and
low pay, keeping the broken system going on the back of a 'trickle-down effect' lie.
The Democrats had their party, Perry turned up, endorsed by lines of celebrities, we are looking
back with perplexed bemused expressions. If we elect her, it would be more of the same. The free
market shite started off a few decades ago, heavily entrenched by corporations and billionaires,
the scandal of offshore trust funds, we are dumped and forgotten.
What struck me as a tourist to San Francisco in 2014 were the sheer numbers of very visible homeless
on the streets, begging or just looking beaten . Yet all around them there were mass preparations
for the annual Gay Pride celebration. Obviously I am not decrying Gay Pride but the sense of priorities
seemed strange and I was forced to think that America is a pretty insane place. It is going the
same way here, a lot easier to celebrate identity than to tackle systemic injustice. That used
to be Governments` job but they have largely abandoned their historic responsibilities. Time for
Labour to bring those fundamental responsibilities back --
All told, San Francisco spends close to three quarters of a Billion dollars every year on "homeless"
of which close to $200 million is a specific department and budget item. As such, many flock to
San Francisco, which is also well known for lack of enforcement of many laws. Many of the beggars
are already housed at taxpayer expense and prefer to generate additional income outdoors on a
schedule of their choice, which is where they also purchase and consume items never sold in stores.
The working classes have been stripped of their dignity, whole communities have become wastelands
and virtual ghettos. The working class don't trust the left to sort things out for them and that
is why and how a figure like Trump can come along and say 'I will save you all' and become President.
Meanwhile, the socialist left sit around scratching their heads, unable to work out what has happened
and squabble about the spirit of socialism and ideology that in all honesty, most working class
people don't give a toss about. They just want jobs that pay a decent wage, a nice house to own,
nice food on the table, two cars and nice holidays. They want to be middle class in other words.
But democrats are not left. They right wing too. If Americans think that Democrats are left, they
don´t know what left is at all. And what socialist goverment has USA had. I see Americans saying
tthat Democrats are socialists, really?.Hillary left and socialist?. Trump and Hillary are both
right wing, only that Trump is more extreme.
A respected political insider recently told me most Americans were largely content with
the status quo. "The economy is in good shape," he said. "Most Americans are better off than
they've been in years."
The political elite of *both* parties are completely out of touch with the citizenry. The economy
has been restructured over the last 20-30 years to completely de-value labor and prioritize the
rich and corporations.
Having said that, I believe people just want to be heard. Voting for Trump was seen as voting
against the status quo, and voting for Hillary was voting for the big establishment. Much like
Brexit, I don't think voters were thinking through the long-term consequences of their decision.
Monday morning quarterbacking of the worst kind. That the Democrats have lost the white working
class is obvious. But to blame the Democrats, such as Hillary, is misplaced. It is the Dems who
have attempted to help the working poor and propose improvements in health care and child care
and tax redistribution. It is not a lack of concern that is the issue. What Reich ignores is that
voters are voting an ideology and not self-interest. They have bought into the notion that getting
rid of immigrants and taking care of the rich will solve all problems.
The voters had a clear choice and they chose the demagogue peddling a non-solution. They wanted
to believe that they are wonderful people and problems can be solved by a wealthy idiot who promises
to turn the clock back. In Democracy sometimes it is the voters who get it wrong.
The analysis is correct more of less , the issue here is class , the Republicans and Democrats
are the two wings of the same party. The party of property and money and the powerful , the vote
for Trump is one of those events that happens much like Obama being elected twice after the Republicans
stole the two previous elections via the supreme court and election fraud. It can happen but the
system remains the same , there is no serious challenge to the supremacy of the ruling class.
The one analysis you will not hear in the media is a class one and if it is then it will be
howled down lest it gain currency and the wage slaves realise they have been conned yet again
, Trump is not unusual in his attitudes or views , it's just that the campaign gave them wide
publicity.
In the UK the same kind of thing has happened to Labour , they lost Scotland and the 2010 election
and the remain vote because ordinary working people are tired just as they are in the US of seeing
the rich get every richer and their own living standards fall and nothing in the future but more
pain and misery. They vote UKIP/SNP here as a cry in the wilderness and they voted for Trump for
the same reason because they aren't what they've had before , the real problem will come when
the right wing populists have been in power for a while and nothing has really improved.
For the last thirty years, there has been no left or right wing governments - not economically
or fiscally. Third way centrism (liberal progressiveness) embraced the primacy of unfettered market
capitalism and corporate globalism, and focused exclusively on using political power as a tool
to win the culture war instead. That's fine if you've done materially very well out of unfettered
market capitalism and corporate globalism, and all that therefore matters to you is social justice
issues. But if you were once in a secure job with a decent income and decent prospects for your
children, and all of that has been ripped away from you by unfettered market capitalism and corporate
globalism, and the people responsible for preventing that - or at least fixing it when it happens
- are more concerned with policing the language you use to express your fears and pain, and demonstrating
their compassion by trying to improve the life chances of people on other continents, then social
justice issues become a source of burning resentment, not enlightenment. There has been a crushing
rejection of globalism and corporate plutocracy by Western electorates. The Western progressive
left will only survive if it has the courage to recognise that, and prioritises the fight for
economic and fiscal policies that promote the interests and prospects of its own poor and middle
class, over and above the cultural issues that have defined it for a quarter of a century. We
should always remain vigilant, but the truth is that the culture war is won. It would be tragic
beyond words if that victory was reversed by an explosion of resentment caused by the left's determination
to guard old battle fields, while ignoring the reality that its thinkers and activists are needed
to right new injustices. Trump's success doesn't represent the victory of hate over hope, it just
represents the loss of hope. The left has to see that or its finished.
It's not quite as simple as that. Some things like clothes are certainly still made by people
(in horrific conditions for terrible pay) but more and more factories are automated with a bare
skeleton staff running the show. The BBC series 'Inside the Factory' was an eye opener for me.
The UK food manufacturing industry for example is heading toward almost full automation - I'd
imagine the US industry is even further down the automated road. This is why the UK and US have
moved to services and these areas are the vast bulk of unskilled jobs now.
The Democratic party once represented the working class
Now it sneers at them as a "basket of deplorables". The same has happened in the UK; only this
morning Owen Jones was asking the left to reach out to the working class, and in the very same
article labelled them as racist, misogynist homophobes.
The consequences of this disdain are entirely predictable
Re: "basket of deplorables" -- if you care about accuracy, she didn't sneer at them as a basket
of deplorables; she sneered at *half* of them as a basket of deplorables. In the same paragraph,
she described the other half as having legitimate concerns that weren't being addressed.
As far as her criticisms of half of Trump's voting base -- politically, stupid as hell. But
valid? Well, what do carefully-taken public opinion polls from the 15 months before the election
tell us? 2/3 of Trump supporters believe Obama is a Muslim who was born in another country. 63%
want to amend the Constitution to eliminate citizenship for people born in the U.S. 40% consider
African-Americans lazier than white people. A third of Trump supporters believe that the internment
of Japanese-Americans during WW2 was a good thing. 31% believe in banning homosexuals from entering
the United States. A quarter of them believe that Antonin Scalia was murdered in a conspiracy.
A quarter believe that vaccines cause autism. 16% believe that whites are a superior race, and
another 14% just aren't sure.
I don't see a very strong case that she was wrong.
It's the same problem the UK had with brexit. People feel squeezed, invariably because of neoliberalist
policies that benefit the wealthy, and the rising wage and wealth gap drives resentment because
of it.
Suddenly, you get populists who spring up with "solutions" to such problems, but rather than
being actual solutions seem to scapegoat totally unrelated factors, such as immigration, free
trade, power blocs, specific groups of people who may be out of favour at the moment, rather than
the actual correct causes in the first place.
Your post actually chimes with what I've been saying. There was a big moment for the left, that
came in 2008 in the USA. A mixed race opponent of the Iraq War, sounding plausibly leftish leaning,
praised public healthcare, accused relentlessly by the right of being a communist/socialist, of
being a muslim, of not born in the USA. And he won. So only 8 years ago, there was a moment where
American electorate shifted left, it'd seem. But instead Obama brought back Rubin, Summers, Geithner,
same old 1990's wall street cabal. FDR he was not.
There'll be a moment within a decade for things to move left, who will head 'the left' (Clinton
and Blair types?) will tell whether things actually do move in that direction.
People have lost their sense of security, status and even identity. This result is the scream
of an America desperate for radical change
They will blame James Comey and the FBI. They will blame voter suppression and racism. They will
blame Bernie or bust and misogyny. They will blame third parties and independent candidates. They
will blame the corporate media for giving him the platform, social media for being a bullhorn, and
WikiLeaks for airing the laundry.
But this leaves out the force most responsible for creating the nightmare in which we now find
ourselves wide awake: neoliberalism. That worldview – fully embodied by Hillary Clinton and her machine
– is no match for Trump-style extremism. The decision to run one against the other is what sealed
our fate. If we learn nothing else, can we please learn from that mistake?
Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies
of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined
precipitously. They have lost jobs. They have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net
that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future for their kids even worse than
their precarious present.
At the same time, they have witnessed the rise of the Davos class, a hyper-connected network of
banking and tech billionaires, elected leaders who are awfully cosy with those interests, and Hollywood
celebrities who make the whole thing seem unbearably glamorous. Success is a party to which they
were not invited, and they know in their hearts that this rising wealth and power is somehow directly
connected to their growing debts and powerlessness.
For the people who saw security and status as their birthright – and that means white men most
of all – these losses are unbearable.
Donald Trump speaks directly to that pain. The Brexit campaign spoke to that pain. So do all of
the rising far-right parties in Europe. They answer it with nostalgic nationalism and anger at remote
economic bureaucracies – whether Washington, the North American free trade agreement the World Trade
Organisation or the EU. And of course, they answer it by bashing immigrants and people of colour,
vilifying Muslims, and degrading women. Elite neoliberalism has nothing to offer that pain, because
neoliberalism unleashed the Davos class. People such as Hillary and Bill Clinton are the toast of
the Davos party. In truth, they threw the party.
Trump's message was: "All is hell." Clinton answered: "All is well." But it's not well – far from
it.
Neo-fascist responses to rampant insecurity and inequality are not going to go away. But what
we know from the 1930s is that what it takes to do battle with fascism is a real left. A good chunk
of Trump's support could be peeled away if there were a genuine redistributive agenda on the table.
An agenda to take on the billionaire class with more than rhetoric, and use the money for a green
new deal. Such a plan could create a tidal wave of well-paying unionised jobs, bring badly needed
resources and opportunities to communities of colour, and insist that polluters should pay for workers
to be retrained and fully included in this future.
It could fashion policies that fight institutionalised racism, economic inequality and climate
change at the same time. It could take on bad trade deals and police violence, and honour indigenous
people as the original protectors of the land, water and air.
People have a right to be angry, and a powerful, intersectional left agenda can direct that anger
where it belongs, while fighting for holistic solutions that will bring a frayed society together.
Such a coalition is possible. In Canada, we have begun to cobble it together under the banner
of a people's agenda called The Leap Manifesto, endorsed by more than 220 organisations from Greenpeace
Canada to Black Lives Matter Toronto, and some of our largest trade unions.
Bernie Sanders' amazing campaign went a long way towards building this sort of coalition, and
demonstrated that the appetite for democratic socialism is out there. But early on, there was a failure
in the campaign to connect with older black and Latino voters who are the demographic most abused
by our current economic model. That failure prevented the campaign from reaching its full potential.
Those mistakes can be corrected and a bold, transformative coalition is there to be built on.
That is the task ahead. The Democratic party needs to be either decisively wrested from pro-corporate
neoliberals, or it needs to be abandoned. From Elizabeth Warren to Nina Turner, to the Occupy alumni
who took the Bernie campaign supernova, there is a stronger field of coalition-inspiring progressive
leaders out there than at any point in my lifetime. We are "leaderful", as many in the Movement for
Black Lives say.
So let's get out of shock as fast as we can and build the kind of radical movement that has a
genuine answer to the hate and fear represented by the Trumps of this world. Let's set aside whatever
is keeping us apart and start right now.
Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal
policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards
have declined precipitously.
You forgot to mention identity politics. Neoliberalism and identity politics go hand in
hand. I don't think it's a surprise that after the 50's and the Second Red Scare, HUAC, McCarthyism
and the John Birch Society the socialist, communist and other left-wingers were gone from the
US and identity politics became ascendant.
We don't see SJW being dragged in front of Congress and them losing their jobs, nor
do we see the National Guard coming in to break up Slut Walks. Instead, we see them in the highest
positions of power and with governments and corporations embracing their ideas. The reason is
simple; identity politics and SJWs are no threat to people in power.
Keep people divided into ever smaller identities and they can't fight back. Keep demonizing
people for objecting, calling them sexist and racist for speaking up, and you muzzle the opposition.
If someone wants to take on neoliberalism then they need to abandon identity politics.
Glass-Steagal was repealed, Wall St. stole itself rich, people wanted change (Yes we can!). But
not a single bankster megathief was even investigated and in the rust belt and elsewhere millions
suffered. They were told that they needed to shut up because they were evil privileged white males
who needed to be HRC's blue wall because she owned them. Refusal to comply meant they were racist
misogynists.
So now they are racist misogynists and proud of it.
And why all this? Because Hillary's ego is so large that it bumps into the edges of the universe.
She calls that her class ceiling.
Thanks Hillary. You brought us Trump. You and that bunch of privileged DNC-ers that are in
bed with Wall Street.
The left's reflections are getting closer, but we're still not quite there it seems.
... ... ...
The visible, real-life consequences of globalisation and modern capitalism are those targets
picked out (hardly by coincidence) by Trump and Farage. The most obvious sign of globalisation
is not a billionaire's yacht, but that when you call to sort out being overcharged or crappy service,
you finally get through to an outsourced offshored call centre. And when the right attacks them
and the left inevitably and correctly defends them - that immigrants do contribute to the economy,
but are still disadvantaged economically, that women are paid less for the same work, that muslims
face discrimination every day - we're infact subliminally reinforcing Trump/Farage's blunter message:
that the left's priority constituents are immigrants, people of colour, muslims and women.
And then we criticise a 50 year old white unemployed or zero-hour-contract man for being "selfish"
and "stupid" when he votes for the only candidate who *appears* to put him first, when we seem
to ask him to put everyone else first.
The left is losing the argument because our answers to modern problems are removed from everyday
experience. Correct, but complex. Trump and Farage understand KISS. If we think the solution is
to just keep saying the same thing louder, like an English tourist abroad, we'll carry on losing.
"It was the Democrats' embrace of neoliberalism that won it for Trump"
Yes indeed, I have seen this coming since the mid nineties, when the -fairly high tech- Company,
where I worked for at the time, became a victim of globalization, 120 people got fired, a.o. me.
Gladly I was able to still find a job at 50, a hell of a lot of others did not.
Besides, I have been active in International business since the early 1960's until recently,
so I know what I am talking about.
We are spoiling 200 years of social economic improvement to the short term interests of capital
at supersonic speed. (modern communication and transport, the free movement of capital)
Both the republicans and the democrats made that happen (as their followers did in Europe)
The Globalizing, Outsourcing, Monetary, Laissez-Faire, Supply side economy.
That is the one thing that I was in agreement with, with Trump, for the rest, by the way he
is talking now, it looks very much as if we will be having to deal with a liar. (and a cheat?)
After all he did say a lot of different things while selling himself in the campaign from the
image that he seems to depict now..
The worst things are in my opinion his wish to destroy the livelyhood of lots of people world
wide by not accepting the human influences on the climate, this besides lots of others things
is in my opinion extremely selfish, especially seen the fact that a green economy can be -at least-
as profitable (in work and money) as the fossil one was.
And of course the repeal of Obamacare, one of the few successes that Obama could materialize
in his mainly obstructed time in office.
What is 'Neoliberalism'
Neoliberalism is a policy model of social studies and economics that transfers control of economic
factors to the private sector from the public sector. It takes from the basic principles of
neoclassical economics, suggesting that governments must limit subsidies, make reforms to tax
law in order to expand the tax base, reduce deficit spending, limit protectionism, and open
markets up to trade. It also seeks to abolish fixed exchange rates, back deregulation, permit
private property, and privatize businesses run by the state.
Liberalism, in economics, refers to a freeing of the economy by eliminating regulations
and barriers that restrict what actors can do. Neoliberal policies aim for a laissez-faire
approach to economic development.
"It's a belief that the human social system works best if there's almost no government, and
almost everything is done through markets... and also it says there should be no trade unions,
no tariffs, remove all the controls and the economy will work better.
Now that's only true of a system if it is inherently stabilizing, it's like saying 'this ship
will go a lot faster if you take off all the stuff that's there to stabilize it.' Yeah it will
but it'll go upside down at some point and sink."
From the British perspective this is true here as well. After a number of high powered meetings
over a fifteen year period, the Labour Party embraced NeoLiberalism and paid when it failed. Those
meetings where pretty big and millions turned up. Those meetings took place in 19779, 983, 1987
and the final one was in 1992. The general public announced that no one would elect anyone who
did not support wholesale privatisation, free markets at every turn with a special emphasis on
labour market laws. Any devience, under any circumstances from Tory ideology was punished at the
ballot box. Labour was forced to drop clause four as a sop to get elected.
And when this neo liberal wet dream started to crumble in the form of crippling PFI schemes,
light touch banking, zero hour agency work and possibly bigger than the light touch banking collapse,
the free movement of Labour for the biggest companies in the UK. Who did the public blame for
these Tory driven Liberalism? The Tories? Themselves for forcing the Labour Party to adopt these
flawed policies? The Newspapers who condemned anything other than free market ideology? Nope,
the blamed the very people who had been campaigning against Tory policies all along. The people
who got blamed for the banking collapse was not the people who DEMANDEDbanks be deregulated, not
the Party who carried out the deregulation, but the poor saps in power when it blew up.
Who gets blamed for the importing of labour? The political ideology that people had supported
for thirty years? Nope, again the Party that bent over backwards to accommodate the Tesco, ASDA
and sports direct et al.
And guess what? After punishing anything to the Left of Reagan or questioning free trade at
the ballot box, and dismissing it as 'Socailism' it turns out they voted for a protectionist who
is opposed to free trade and multi Nationals. The Party who are opposed to free trade, multinationals
and 'What is good for GM is good for America'? The protector of jobs and regulated labour markets?
Why the GOP of course. The Party whose DNA has all this time been at the heart of protecting jobs
who shun free trade agreements and are at the very heart of the socialist movement are the Republican
movement. And nobody even said anything. We all just moved into a parallel universe where the
Republican movement have been campaigning against free trade for two hundred years.
"The indisputable fact is that prevailing institutions of authority in the West, for decades,
have relentlessly and with complete indifference stomped on the economic welfare and social security
of hundreds of millions of people. While elite circles gorged themselves on globalism, free trade,
Wall Street casino gambling, and endless wars (wars that enriched the perpetrators and sent the
poorest and most marginalized to bear all their burdens), they completely ignored the victims
of their gluttony, except when those victims piped up a bit too much - when they caused a ruckus
- and were then scornfully condemned as troglodytes who were the deserved losers in the glorious,
global game of meritocracy."
"Neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade..." Are you
sure those are neoliberal policies? They sound exactly like conservative Republican mainstays
to me. Didn't Trump run on these very things?
Exactly, they are virtually the same, with the difference being that the GOP adds "nostalgic nationalism
and anger at remote economic bureaucracies – whether Washington, the North American free trade
agreement the World Trade Organisation or the EU. And of course, they answer it by bashing immigrants
and people of colour, vilifying Muslims, and degrading women".
In difficult times, people want relief as fast as possible and they want to blame *anyone*
for their plight. This is what a demagogue offers; it's why Trump is in the White House. Prepare
yourselves, and never give in to Trump's cynicism.
Warren sold Sanders out. Sanders sold his supporters out for Debbie Wasserman Shultz, who incidentally
was reelected. Hillary was forced on the ticket by the oligarchy. Change will not come from Trudeau,
or Obama, or Trump, or Sanders or Warren. These people have betrayed what they said. Where do
we go from here? Which is the way that's clear? Dunno, but all of the above have shown to be frauds.
Whose next?
In this election, Donald Trump was the lesser evil, so I am glad that he won. There won't be nu
clear war on Iran or wherever, and better relations with Russia, China, and hopefully, the rest
of the world.
As for domestic politics, we'll take care of those issues ourselves, forcefully protesting
against, if necessary. It'll be few and far between, I project.
In this election, Donald Trump was the lesser evil, so I am glad that he won. There won't be nu
clear war on Iran or wherever, and better relations with Russia, China, and hopefully, the rest
of the world.
As for domestic politics, we'll take care of those issues ourselves, forcefully protesting
against, if necessary. It'll be few and far between, I project.
"...a green new deal. Such a plan could create a tidal wave of well-paying unionised jobs, bring
badly needed resources and opportunities to communities ... and insist that polluters should pay
for workers to be retrained and fully included in this future."
That is, at least, the only positive suggestion that's been made. I think it's a good one the
needs to be developed. I'm far from an economist but perhaps we need also to start thinking about
blended economic systems rather than just one type as well.
What I don't agree with is the continuation of identity politics. It's suffering badly from
overuse and also from its juxtaposition with the application of economic pain to those who are
also consistently abused with every vile epithet known to man. In brief, people have been operant
conditioned to either worship at its feet or loathe it with most or all of their being. It's past
its use-by date and needs to grow into the real expression of its stated aims.
As an example, Merkel is quoted as saying, ""Germany and America are connected by values of
democracy, freedom, and respect for the law and the dignity of man, independent of origin, skin
colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or political views."
The words are just positive framing. We all know now that 'democracy' (defined by the UN as
extreme terrorism to be fought and eliminated when iit involves public voting) refers to voting
by an elite group. For the rest of it, Junckers right hand man was quoted this week as saying
it's to be achieved by 'elimination of all national, cultural, ethnic, and faith identity'.
There is a unbridgable gulf between those two concepts, and the first one is simply dishonest.
But journalists never explain that.
The way forward is to treat all people with dignity and respect, as long as they're not harassing
or killing each other, and stop trying to brainwash them. If someone is a racist and content to
keep that to themselves, leave them alone. Likewise with all the other -isms and -obias. The law
and institutions need to treat people equally indeed. No negative and no positive discrimination.
'Indigenous peoples' could have a special role- but not to dispossess, sponge off, or lord it
over others. Religious holidays need to be observed for all religions, not for none. I can hear
the business howls now but the reality is we need to be decreasing industrial pollution and having
less 'stuff', not increasing it.
I wanted Trump to win but if I saw someone(including him) harassing someone else racially,
homophobically, or any other -ism or -obia, I would defend the victim to the death as long as
they were in my presence. That includes male victims of domestic violence. Everything has its
day and identity politics is in that category.
We need a new way and it needs to honour the reality described in the fraudelent rhetoric of
the recent past globalist, multiculturalsit, and liberalist concepts. We need a completely new
economic system or blend of the old which serves the needs of all the people, al the time. And
we need democratic systems which empower constant feedback from those people on how far its succeeding.
Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal
policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards
have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They have lost pensions. They have lost much
of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future for their
kids even worse than their precarious present.
Agree 100% with this, but am at an utter loss to grasp why this is chalked up to the hip new lingo
of "neoliberalism." Bullshit. It's as pure a distillation of conservatism as has ever been penned.
This obsession with renaming things for the sake of confusion serves no one well. This is prime
Trickle Down and the Conservative Manifesto through and through.
I am afraid the author is correct in describing the problem as Neo Liberalism - It is not Conservatism
or Capitalism.
This is Neo Liberalism - You are the CEO of a plant employs 5,000 people that makes widgets.
You don't know how to make a better widget but you want to increase profits so you decide to close
down your plant and outsource 4,000 of the jobs to a low wage economy where workers don't have
the same rights (remember China doesn't have democracy or freedom of speech).
Now your making widgets cheaper but you still aren't making enough money so you offshore the
tax liability to a tax haven - There goes schools, roads, hospitals.
Now your making so much more money for the company what do you do? You give yourself a pay
rise. Not any old pay rise. You pay yourself five or ten times as much.
And then you buy shares because the share price goes way up.
And then you donate to politicians and they tell the great unwashed (that's you and me) this
wheeze is FREE TRADE, or conservatism or capitalism or trickle down.
It isn't its Neo Liberalism and both left and right in most of Europe and the USA has embraced
it to the detriment of its citizens.
Naomi Klein: The Democratic party needs to be either decisively wrested from pro-corporate
neoliberals, or it needs to be abandoned.
It starts by having the DNC follow its own rules. The superdelegates were dutifully counted
as Hillary supporters from Day One of the primaries. Something like 507 to begin with! When Sanders
won successive states, more and more superdelegates mysteriously appeared supporting Hillary.
People understand what a rigged game means. This was Thumb-On-The-Scale tactics and people saw
through it. The Party chose Hillary and that was that. That's not democracy. The Democratic Party
needs a complete transformation from root to branch.
But yes, the bigger picture must be a focus on institutional reform. Not just for America but
everywhere.
I agree with Klein's take on neoliberalism, its Panglossian economic model, as a cause of much
angst in the world, but the remedy is simple in the US -- regulation. Break up the big banks,
end monopolies based on third-party payments, licensing and credentialing (health care, the universities,
etc.), and levy higher taxes on the wealthy. I truly believe that race relations among Americans
have never been better, and that most "problems" have largely been manufactured. What America
is crying out for is good, pragmatic government.
Naomi is spot on. She is speaking a truth that too many have no wish to hear because it tampers
with their idealize status quo. They have theirs and to hell with everyone else. That time has
past and the groaning of the privileged- people who do not CARE (which does not include many people
with means- that is stupid to relegate the carers to hell with the criminals) is so LOUD right
now. They are spinning bank reports and market doom and gloom.
It has been said that HALF of the USA is a 'basket of deplorables' - WOW that is reductionist
logic and it explains nothing.
I am not American and yet, what I know is that PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE- human beings- so please-
what a bullshit argument- that you have tried all too often with Brexit (its not working for you
so who is the insane one? Wasn't it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is doing
the same thing over and over while expecting a different result?
RESEARCH says that people are usually very informed about the issues of their own lives. All
they have left is their lives and the lives of their children. A LITTLE respect would be nice.
Many creatures can only see things that are moving. Maybe some people are like that once they
trust. WE ALL trusted government, police, agencies because we wanted to believe in a common good.
That trust was ABUSED. The last grasping woke people up. They saw that grab very clearly.
And this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCWNqMV4Bgs
(I was married to a cop at that time and the interviewee is one of the most staid journalists
in Canada with a program on public television.
Someone has to OWN those facts before casting aspersions on mankind. The voters are not stupid
ESPECIALLY when it comes to SURVIVAL and it is brink time.
You expect them to DIE QUIETLY? Dream on in your precious nightmare.
And people have been saying that for decades but no one has been listening, least of all the
trendy neoliberals who thought they had found the final economic solution.
You cannot strip away a person's identity, life and loves, without them losing their dignity
-totally. You must prepare and assist every one of them for change over realistic time scales
dealing with every consequence as it happened. None of that was done because all of what has happened
is the product of opportunism - cash today think about it tomorrow.
These trendy neoliberals have cheated us all, not once, not twice, but all the time, and they
show no guild, no guilt at all. They will continue to pay the price until they listen to us and
change.
Naomi is spot on. She is speaking a truth that too many have no wish to hear because it tampers
with their idealize status quo. They have theirs and to hell with everyone else. That time has
past and the groaning of the privileged- people who do not CARE (which does not include many people
with means- that is stupid to relegate the carers to hell with the criminals) is so LOUD right
now. They are spinning bank reports and market doom and gloom.
It has been said that HALF of the USA is a 'basket of deplorables' - WOW that is reductionist
logic and it explains nothing.
I am not American and yet, what I know is that PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE- human beings- so please-
what a bullshit argument- that you have tried all too often with Brexit (its not working for you
so who is the insane one? Wasn't it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is doing
the same thing over and over while expecting a different result?
RESEARCH says that people are usually very informed about the issues of their own lives. All
they have left is their lives and the lives of their children. A LITTLE respect would be nice.
Many creatures can only see things that are moving. Maybe some people are like that once they
trust. WE ALL trusted government, police, agencies because we wanted to believe in a common good.
That trust was ABUSED. The last grasping woke people up. They saw that grab very clearly.
And this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCWNqMV4Bgs
(I was married to a cop at that time and the interviewee is one of the most staid journalists
in Canada with a program on public television.
Someone has to OWN those facts before casting aspersions on mankind. The voters are not stupid
ESPECIALLY when it comes to SURVIVAL and it is brink time.
You expect them to DIE QUIETLY? Dream on in your precious nightmare.
Perfect. Thank you, Naomi, for the best column on the 2016 election. Democrats are proving to
be sore losers but they can come around if they all or most read your take on the outcome of our
presidential election. Neoliberal has been our downfall but still most Americans are not aware
of even the word. Times to get explanation of the ideology and the negative effect on the world.
It has been so cruel and so horrible since Jimmy Carter who started this whole thing but the Clintons
were the cruelest of all. I am so glad Hillary did not win. I could not vote for Trump so voted
for Jill Stein.
It was also their (and the left in general's) embrace of identity politics. Welcoming the whiny
'social justice warrior' attitude that puts everyone into little groups and puts those groups
into little lanes, and no one can ever leave their group or lane. Calling people racist or bigoted,
not for actual racism or bigotry, but for merely expressing a different opinion. White privilege-
trying to shut down the opinions of white people. Cultural appropriation- witch-hunting people
for wearing a certain hairstyle or costume. Safe spaces- creating echo chambers and segregating
people from even hearing opposing opinions or ideas. Microagressions- claiming offense over perceived
slights and insults in harmless remarks. not to mention trying to police, ban, and control speech.
I'm a liberal, I lean left, my ideals and values and principles and what I stand for are more
in line with left-wing ideology, but if they want to be taken seriously and have a chance at winning
again, the left needs to let identity politics die.
An ideology that believes that if you give rich people absolutely unfettered ability to make
even more money, they'll magically look after everyone else.
The center left's shameful, braindead acceptance of Thatcher-Reaga, Dumbonomics has been a
worldwide plague.
The EU, supposedly a bulwark of common sense, is still officially austerian and neoliberal,
even though some hard thinking is going on.
Anger-fuelled adoption of far right policies and economics is a further lurch in the same direction:
deregulation, unchecked corporate power, quashing of workers' rights.
A bad time for the disenfranchised all over the world, now being used as electoral cannon fodder
by their owners.
As an English woman who lived in America for some years, it was perfectly clear to me that voters
there have a choice between cuddly-right and hard-right.
There is no "left" in America, and there is none in the UK either in any meaningful, workable
sense. All we have is the soft-right and an unreconstructed 70s Trot. Brilliant.
Nice as it might seem, " The Leap Manifesto, endorsed by more than 220 organisations from Greenpeace
Canada to Black Lives Matter Toronto, and some of our largest trade unions" sounds like yet another
loose coalition of pressure groups with no cohesive platform or plan. Same old, same old.
Absolutely spot on. I remember, as a rare liberal working at a GOP-run Enron, how disheartened
I was watching Bill Clinton pander to the GOP elites and shove NAFTA through a GOP-run Congress
while the majority of Democrats voted against it. He also sought, for political expediency, many
neoliberal solutions that doomed the working class to subsistence. The GOP crowed that Reagan
won the Cold War when actually it was the shift of wealth from the West to the 3rd world as a
bribe that ultimately brought us to the globalized mess we find ourselves in. This was during
Clinton's presidency. Unfortunately Obama did a u-turn and continued GW's disastrous tenure in
what really matters: wars, globalization, abandonment of the working class. Why didn't the Democratic
elite not remind voters that the GOP was behind globalization and the shift of wealth from the
middle class to overseas?
A Message from the Rust Belt: It's the NAFTA, Stupid
The road to President Trump began with the enactment of NAFTA, a heinous betrayal by the Democratic
Party of its blue collar base and of it's most basic principles, taking it from the party of the
New Deal to the party of the Brave New Global World Order Deal, screwing it's most loyal constituents
in favor of Wall Street.
The next step on the road to the Trump House was the Clinton's reckless deregulation, culminating
in the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, yet again in the name of a bigger, more profitable, more
powerful Wall Street at the peril of Main Street.
But perhaps the most decisive factor in sending blue collar rust belt America into the arms
of an orange-haired demon is what happened when they put their faith, heart and souls into electing
Barack Obama, a man who ran as a progressive, promising hope and change, but who then immediately
governed as a neo-lib.
I know what some of you are saying right now, that given the fierce opposition he was up against,
he accomplished what he could; but that's a bunch of bull, as we say in the Midwest.
No one forced him to appoint, immediately upon taking office, Wall Street insiders to his cabinet
and make Larry Summers (the architect of deregulation, neo-lib style) his chief economic adviser.
No one forced him to appoint corporate toady, Common Core loving, privatization loving (through
charter schools) Arne "teach to the test" Duncan to Secretary of Education.
No one forced him to immediately abandon, in the fight for Obamacare, the public option.
No one forced him to ultimately come up with a health care plan, that at its base, is of by
and big Pharma and the insurance industry, one that lowers costs not by controlling them but by
rationing care (that's what those huge deductibles and co-pays are for and they're working--working
Americans, even while insured, don't dare visit the doctor, except when at death's door, for fear
the doctor will order tests they can't afford to pay.)
Most now use their insurance as catastrophic policies to be used only in emergencies. This
is why Obamacare is so hated in America--not because it's socialist, but because it isn't. (Remember,
they voted for hope and change)
No Republican cabal forced Obama to embrace TPP, NAFTA on steroids and so univerally hated
here in the heartland.
Ah, but you say, Hillary has come out against it. But only after praising it and only in cagey
language, about not approving it in its present form (and she has yet to comment on the viscerally
hated NAFTA forever linked to the Clintons and the Democrats).
Much is made (and rightly so) of Trump's threats to constitutionality and the rule of law.
Yet Democrats seem blissfully unaware of their own full-frontal assaults on the Constitution.
For elected officials who have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United
States, supporting NAFTA and TPP, which sign over US sovereignty to unelected, unaccountable (corporate
controlled) international tribunals, giving them the power to, in essence, overturn any US, state
or federal, is nothing less than an act of treason. You might as well just take the Constitution,
rip it to shreds, and throw it up in the air like confetti.
(It's so easy to see Trump's threats to the Constitution, so difficult for Democratic elites
to see their own obliteration of it.)
Why is the hatred of NAFTA, of TPP (and of the Clintons) so visceral in rust-belt America?
I know people who watched the plants they worked in dismantled piece by piece and shipped off
to Mexico. I've spoken to people who've had the humiliating experience of going to Mexico to train
their replacements. I've talked to union members who've reported that employers, at the bargaining
table, have demanded huge cuts in pay and benefits, saying that unless they concede, they're moving
to Mexico.
It's personal.
It's not like blue collar, rust-belt America hasn't given the Democrats chance after chance.
They've been voting Democratic since 1992.
They gave Obama two chances, believing his promises of hope and change, only to witness his
championing of TPP.
Time and again, the Clintonian Democrats have deceived and betrayed their blue collar, rust-belt
base. Time and again rust-belt blue collar America has supported them, nonetheless, hoping, like
Charlie Brown, that this time they wouldn't have the football pulled away.
But the accumulating decay, the devastation of the great recession (and the feeble, corporate
oriented Democratic response) have left them with no hope left. The vote for Donald is a howl
of rage and desperation. He was the only way left for them to vent their rage (after the Democratic
elites dispensed with Bernie Sanders).
The next four years are going to be hell. But for heartland rust-belt America, the last thirty-five
years have been hell (and they have nothing left to lose).
On the one hand you don't want immigrants in your mist because they undercut local workers.
And in the other hand you don't want those same people to get good jobs in their own country,
because they undercut your own workers.
You think you have a God given right to jobs for which you aren't productive enough.
In other words you don't want to compete.
You want to sell us your stuff allright ( NAFTA slaughtered the Mexican farming sector, specially
subsistence farming) but you would rather don't buy Mexican stuff, unless it is raw materials
so you can add value and sell it back to us.
NAFTA has made countless articles cheaper to all of you, and has slowed down illegal immigration
which has been in the decline for a while.
But you want it all, no matter how unrealistic.
Having you cake and eat it. While riding an unicorn please.
Why Klein doesn't mention Jews in her list of targets of this right wing hate and reaction is
surprising. In defining the reason neo-liberalism failed so many people, she states "At the same
time, they have witnessed the rise of the Davos class, a hyper-connected network of banking and
tech billionaires, elected leaders who are awfully cosy with those interests, and Hollywood celebrities
who make the whole thing seem unbearably glamorous. Success is a party to which they were not
invited, and they know in their hearts that this rising wealth and power is somehow directly connected
to their growing debts and powerlessness." And this paragraph directly applies to how the Trumpettes,
the KKK, who endorsed him, the Alt-right who he played a major role of normalizing, sees JEWS.
Central to the ideology of the extreme right is their hatred of Jews. How Klein missed that is
really baffling.
Naive comment. The "lefts" criticism of Israel is largely unrelated to the growing right's hostility
to Jews. It's the latter you need to be concerned about.
What right's hostility in the US? Where are they. There isn't a single Republican member of Congress
who is hostile to Israel. David Duke ran for senate in Lousiana and got 3% of the vote.
Naomi: "But this leaves out the force most responsible for creating the nightmare in which we
now find ourselves wide awake: neoliberalism."
Is this completely correct, leaving out as it does something that has grown since at least
the last days of WWII and throughout the Cold War, something that some call the "Deep State?"
Here's one view of it, written by a former Republican congressional staffer but in an essay
found on the Bill Moyers and Company's website (Bill Moyers is definitely neither a Republican
nor a conservative):
"Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of
Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according
to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by,
the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of
a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and
its operators mainly act in the light of day."
Lofgren's description is not exhaustive, not really focusing on the darkest heart within the
"military industrial complex" that is intimately associated with the deep state, namely the covert,
classified areas of the intelligence and security components. (I find the fact that the present
president recently renewed the illegal and unconstitutional 9/11 State of Emergency Act for the
eighth year in a row, just as his predecessor did every year he was in office after
the Act was first signed in September, 2001, telling.)
Still, it's good starting point.
It looks to me that this huge beast is more about empire than Neoliberalism (or even NeoConservatism
-- it encompasses both; it's not necessarily "left" or "right" as most use the terms, not truly
Democrat or Republican).
Hillary has promised to be a president for everyone…that is, everyone who contributes to 'The
Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation'.
According to the Foundation's website, it is a 'non-profit 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.'
The easiest way to make an organisation non-profit is to pay out all earnings - seven-figure director
fees, first class travel, Fifth Avenue offices…oh how you can spend your way to a luxurious non-profit
outcome! And whatever is left over after your personal indulgences have been satisfied, you can
spend on a few pet projects.
The Clintons are seen as money grubbers who'd sell their own family members for the right price.
Hillary is a despised person.
Trump is no better. The only difference between him and Hillary is that he is openly corrupt.
Whereas Hillary hides her corruption behind a cloak of establishment respectability.
The dumbest thing about the response to this is is how everyone is just shoehorning their own
narrative into this. If this was just about neoliberalism, nobody would have voted for the Republican
party. Trump won for a variety of factors. It wasn't that he was against globalisation, it's that
he lied that he could change it. These people believed his "we'll bring back all the jobs" over
concrete plans.
Such a coalition is possible. In Canada, we have begun to cobble it together under the banner
of a people's agenda called The Leap Manifesto, endorsed by more than 220 organisations from
Greenpeace Canada to Black Lives Matter Toronto, and some of our largest trade unions.
I hang around in liberal circles in Toronto and even there, Black Lives Matter is hardly popular.
I know socialists see the result and think that they can be next, but they won't be.
The political class assiduously serves the needs of the wealthy, while the working people fend
for themselves. The banks get a bailout, the bankers get a bonus, and the consumer gets his house
foreclosed on. The oil companies and hedge funds get loopholes built into the tax code, and the
middle class hears that they might not be able to draw their Social Security until they're seventy.
It's not hard to see why people are unhappy, and Trump was unafraid to call the system rigged
and the players corrupt. You can analyze the results of this election until you're blue in the
face, but I think what it ultimately comes down to is that the working people have been thrown
under the bus in favor of corporate profit for far too long.
True enough, but Trump's "solutions" will just make it worse for the same group of people and
continue to support corporations and the wealthy. Sadly yet again the voters have been duped.
Probably. The only hope I have is that Trump is a vanity candidate, so I expect he really will
try to do the best job he can for as many people as he can. He genuinely has no love for the political
class and our campaign finance or lobbying systems. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that
something half decent might yet come of his election. Probably not any of the big issues, and
it's a shame about the environment and the Supreme Court, but you never know... Or so I'll keep
telling myself.
1] Since the Eighties the powerless left have been saying that the solutions are on the left
... while the voters kept moving right. Repeating the same thing but louder doesn't make it work
any better.
2] Since the Eighties every faction of the left has been calling unto the other flavours of left
to 'unite' ... whereas as what they usually meant was 'join us'. Even now I see no evidence that
the left is capable of running a 'united-self' ... let alone capable of uniting and healing the
deep rift in the society of Trumpian-US or Brexit-UK.
This ship has sailed! The Modern Left has failed to prevent this fascist take-over every bit
as much as 'Old Left' failed to stand-up in the Europe of the 1930's and 'Older Left' failed to
withstand the nationalist fervor of '14-'18. No, I am afraid that, as in all previous episode,
this fascism must be fought. We better start preparing while we still can.
But the problem with your story is that the left were defeated some time back. What we've had
since are liberals (i.e. the neo-liberal right) tacking ever-rightward, constantly insisting that's
the only way to avert the hard populist right. The result has been complete failure, as all that
right-ward movement by liberals has achieved is to further create the conditions that lead to
the rise of the right.
Its pretty much the same thing that happened in Russia post-communism. Neo-liberalism/liberalism
(they are, in fact, the same thing) led to the rise of watered-down kind of fascism.
The modern pro-capitalist/non-populist right has failed to prevent this fascist take-over every
bit as much as 'Old Right' failed to stand-up in the Europe of the 1930's...
This article is spot on. Neoliberalism creates its own hierarchy which has no place for the peole
who voted for Trump. Two quotes from US voters (with acknowledgements to Sky News).
1. A black man who voted for Trump...'most blacks have more in common with white woeking class
families trying to make ends meet than they do with the democrats'
2. A well heeled white democrat man in shock....'trying to come to terms with an election which
has shown me a side of America I was unaware of...'
Shock horror....Trump was elected by ordinary people.
It was interesting to see that nearly each and every newspaper in the US and the UK and everywhere
else and nearly all the TV channels started a barrage of anti-Trump rhetoric always repeating
his sexual escapades and his racist and sexist comments. Only a few alternative blogs or news
channels dared to criticise Hillary or question her integrity.
Now that Trump has won has shocked all these news channels and everybody is asking who voted for
him ? All those "deplorable" people as mentioned by Hillary or all those sexist, racist or uneducated
whites ? Were they angry ? If so, why ? Was it a protest vote ? Why ?
It is interesting to read Charles Hugh Smith's writing "The source of our rage" below and wonder
why all these "expert" commentators got it wrong -- https://goo.gl/VuEGZy
Turn on your television or pick up a paper. Listen to a radio or read the online news. There's
always someone telling us how we should think, and what we should do.
The belief that they know better - that they are superior to the rest of us - permeates every
corner of our lives. Those that disagree with and challenge the 'consensus' are considered ignorant
or uneducated.
This is the argument that's been trotted out since Brexit. The poor old folks didn't know what
they were doing. That somehow, those who grew up under the black cloud shadowing post-Second World
War Britain couldn't comprehend the implications of seeking to regain control of their economy
and borders.
That's the way society has gone - the megaphone minority blasting away in our ear. The elites
who believe their values and opinions are the only ones that matter. Pity the poor taxpayer who
picks up the tab.
The international 'specialist' who flies in for a couple of days to lecture us on what they
think we're doing wrong. From how farmers should manage their land, the type of energy we should
use, through to how to control our borders. How these self-appointed experts love to enlighten
the great unwashed. It happens at the local level as well. It could be the council dictating something
as simple as the colour a homeowner is allowed to paint their fence.
There's the local action group. After moving into an area and setting themselves up as they
see fit, they seek to restrict who can join them, and what their fellow residents can do.
A paddock that once held a herd of sheep has been subdivided, and then subdivided again. Yet the
new owner places a placard on their new fence protesting against any future developments.
The events of yesterday in the US have turned the world on its head. World leaders are struggling
to know how to respond, to Trump's victory.
While so much of the commentary and analysis by the experts has been about the two personalities
involved, the US election results reflect something much more basic than that.
It's that the ones who do the lifting - that is, those who set their alarms early and go off
to work - are tired of subsidising those that are the recipients of the public purse. They've
had enough of paying for the lifestyles of those who look down on them. This includes the political
class who lecture them, and everyone else.
The commentariat are putting their spin on the US election result. Much like Brexit, they're
arguing that the poor uneducated folks didn't know what they were doing. The result is a two-fingered
salute to the political elite who sign off on trade agreements with little regard for those that
will lose their jobs. It's a protest against those elected to represent the voters' interests
but rarely, if ever, visit the factory floor.
But it's not only the political class who left the majority behind. The result also reflects
the great chasm that continues to grow between the wealthy elite - Wall Street - and those on
the other side where wages have gone nowhere for years.
The post-GFC world has only pumped more money into the top few percent, while everybody else
has been left a long way behind. While the Dow Jones Industrial Index has increased more than
two-and-a-half times since the lows of 2009, real wages have barely increased a dime.
Nobody knows how the Trump presidency will play out. I doubt he even knows himself. And as
the elites predict, it might turn out to be one of the US' great follies.
Some are calling the result a swing back to conservatism. But the result illustrates ever so strongly
how the so-called 'silent majority' are deciding to reclaim the way their lives are governed.
It's a major blow to elitism, and is a trend that will only grow.
Perhaps if The Guardian and every other major left media site would have been understanding this
the past few years instead of ignoring Bernie, plugging for Clinton, and pushing the SJW stuff
there wouldn't have been a Trump presidency. Everyone shares a bit of blame for his win. Hopefully
we can not get so obsessed with blind Dem support and identity politics going forward.
Ya think? Finally someone says something sensible. Neo-liberal economic policy and neo-con foreign
policy I might add. There is a German blogger who is a polyglot. He speaks German, French, Italian,
English and Russian. He reads the romance languages at least I don't know about Russian. He monitors
how different news events are spun to the various populations. Which facts are presented, which
omitted, obfuscations, lies and who's controlling the narrative. Because of the time difference
he went to bed before the election results were known and woke up after. The opening sentence
on his piece that morning was, "So I just woke up and found that the world has changed. World
War III was called off."
Which in my estimation is accurate. Perhaps not WWIII but certainly another major war. And
what's the result over here in America? It's the Hillary supporters who are behaving violently.
Rioting, destroying property, assaults, interfering with transportation etc. Not covered in your
press of course because it is the republicans who were supposed to be the violent monsters and
it doesn't fit the narrative.
First, neo-con warring, an essential subcomponent of neoliberalism, for when CIA manipulation
of political strife isn't possible. Indonesia versus Iraq, for example.
Second, Hillary supporters rebelling is in the news this morning, though they aren't a) airing
it as an alarming event, nor b) having the same paramilitary police response to it.
Third, R has been pushing for warring and I've no idea where you'd (they'd?) come up with an all
R Washington isn't going to jump right in. Particularly, post election, when congress refuels
the "campaign donation" money laundering machine, defense contractors (Northrop, etc.) and infrastructure
(Parsons Brinckerhoff, etc.), with the gifting of federal contracts, which will no doubt run way
over budget as cost plus contracts.
There's a whole lot of less than Whole Truth used to manipulate. Some intentional, some due to
ignorance.
Long ago I asked, what is the difference between ignorance and arrogance, and about the only thing
I can come up with is ignorance is unintentional while arrogance is confident ignorance.
And people like Trump never went to Davos? Republicans don't do that? Yes, a lot of people are
in economic pain, and the Democrats and Clinton share that blame. I agree that the Democratic
party needs to be either decisively wrested from pro-corporate neoliberals, or it needs to be
abandoned, but Trump's victory is not just about economic pain. It's also about fear of the diverse
country we are becoming. You want to know who is to blame for the election of Donald Trump? The
people who voted for him. They are the ones who fell for the con that he was their solution.
What you say is correct, but the point is that it is expected that the GOP will protect business
interests and profit at the expense of people. That is why they exist. The Democrats have historically
been the party that protects the working class. As the author points out, they have abandoned
that role during the last 40 years, leaving the working class without protection from the concentration
of corporate wealth, power and influence. Working class whites, Latinos and blacks should be allies,
not competitors for the scraps left after the Davos party. The conservative right in America is
successful because they have successfully pitted these natural allies against each other, but
they have been aided the the embrace of corporate neoliberalism by the Democratic party leadership.
Bill Clinton gave us Bush the Younger thanks to having the self control of an adolescent chimpanzee.
Now the Democrat establishment aided by another Clinton gave us Trump. When are we going to stop
buying into the neo-liberal bullshit. They have played us like suckers since the revolution the
French won for us. Speaking of the French, their revolution scared the shit out of the "founding
fathers" especially the parts about equality and fraternity. I saw Trump coming a long time ago,
but I thought someone would stand up. It wasn't as if we weren't warned. Instead all the talking
fucking heads are telling us it's time to heal to work together. Right, like the way the Republicans
worked with Obama. Are we going to work together, are we going to fight? Nah. We"ll find someone
new to bomb in the name of liberty and some new shinny thing will come along and we'll just stay
bent over. But never forget, we are the greatest and the most exceptional.
Good post. But it was also Obama who recently led us here. He didn't do anything. Sure he was
stymied by the Republican congress. But he didn't even use the bully pulpit.
He seemed to me to want to work for the rest of the world more than he did the U.S. He couldn't
even see that the trade agreements are a problem for our citizens. And I supported him more than
any previous presidential candidate, because I thought he cared.
Generally speaking, American and British media supports neoconservative foreign policy (regime
change in Libya and Syria, military confrontation with Russia and China, expanded funding for
NATO, the Iraq War WMD lies, etc.). At the same time, it tends to support neoliberal trade policies
(free flow of capital, offshoring manufacturing to sweatshop zones) that enrich billionaires while
impoverishing the middle class.
The only real difference between "conservative" and "liberal" media outlets is in their take
on identity politics; this is why people view media as propaganda that tries to point people away
from the more important issues of global war and wealth inequality. It's a distraction tactic.
Naomi Klein is right about the neoliberalism that played such a huge role in the creation of massive
wealth inequality in the United States, but the other issue is that Hillary Clinton embraced the
Bush-era neoconservative program (just look at her record as Secretary of State with Honduras,
Haiti, Libya and Syria, as well as all the arms deals and support for Saudi Arabia and Israel).
In addition, she was completely loyal to the Wall Street interests who crashed the economy in
2008 and yet were never criminally charged by the Obama Administration.
Obama shares much of the blame - despite coming in with Congress in Democratic hands, he quickly
abandoned his populist base in favor of pro-Wall Street agendas; he expanded the domestic mass
surveillance program and persecuted whistleblowers like nobody before him; and he was seduced
by the CIA's regime change/drone assassination program. His peace prize is now the punchline of
a joke. He didn't help out homeowners who'd been targeted by Wall Street; he instead pushed for
a massive taxpayer bailout of Wall Street - and minority homeowners in particular were hit hard
by the banks. As far as all the young people who supported him? He did nothing to alleviate student
loan debt; that's not what Wall Street wanted. As far as renewable energy? He did little if anything
on that front; instead he quietly OK'd offshore oil drilling, oil exports, and pipelines like
Dakota Access. He betrayed his base and served Wall Street, and of course that's what Hillary
Clinton would have done as well.
Bernie Sanders, in contrast, had good policies on all these issues and would have won the primary
if it hadn't been rigged by the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the corporate media.
The Democratic Party reforms needed are obvious:
(1) A fixed number of debates in the primary (Sanders vs. Clinton? 9 debates. Obama vs. Clinton?
26 debates).
(2) Elimination of the superdelegate system. (In Feb 2008, Clinton had 241 to Obama's 181; in
Feb 2016, Clinton had 451 to Sander's 19)
(3) Opening the primaries to independent voters in places like New York, at the very least allowing
last-minute party registration for independent voters.
That all takes power away from Wall Street-tied party elites, who will otherwise continue to
pick losers that will serve Wall Street interests in exchange for big donations - but who are
unpopular with the general public. That rigged process is why Bernie Sanders, who would obviously
have beaten Trump with enthusiastic millenial support, was prevented from winning the Democratic
Primary.
The other party in this debacle, the corporate media - they deserve to be broken up by anti-trust
legislation. TimeWarner, Disney, etc. should all be forced to break up into a hundred independently
owned news outlets, otherwise it'll be an endless stream of Wall Street propaganda from them.
" Hillary Clinton embraced the Bush-era neoconservative program (just look at her record as Secretary
of State with Honduras, Haiti, Libya and Syria, as well as all the arms deals and support for
Saudi Arabia and Israel). In addition, she was completely loyal to the Wall Street interests who
crashed the economy in 2008 and yet were never criminally charged by the Obama Administration."
Very much so. Hillary Clinton to me was pretty indistinguishable from George Bush. I never
voted for Bush and I wasn't going to vote for a female version of him.
"They will blame James Comey and the FBI. They will blame voter suppression and racism. They will
blame Bernie or bust and misogyny. They will blame third parties and independent candidates. They
will blame the corporate media for giving him the platform, social media for being a bullhorn,
and WikiLeaks for airing the laundry."
And in the Guardian, of course, they'll work out some way to blame Jeremy Corbyn...
We need to ask why the polling was wrong. People who normally vote did not, and people who
normally don't vote did. Clinton really did rig the election as proven by Wikileaks, and lots
of Bernie supporters could not bring ourselves to vote for her ; and Clinton called Trump's
redneck base "a basket of deplorables", and many of those folks who would have watched the election
from a bar stool got up to kick her ass. Naturally the same persons who pretended that Clinton
did not rig the election want to continue to pretend. But Naomi, she really did.
I too believe Clinton and the DNC sealed their own fate. But the "bucket of losers" accusation has
proved to be false, the product of a spoof Podesta email.
So in other words Naomi Klein admits that "rampant insecurity and inequality exist" and that something
is required to be done to correct this - which I think many of us realise is a balancing of the needs
of national autonomy and globalisation, but then Naomi has the audacity to attribute these "responses
" to "neo fascists" So suffer on you poor under privileged unwashed. but should you rise up then
we ( the enlightened) know that you are being prodded by neo fascists !! A totally ridiculous idea
which can only be explained as the last desperate gasp of the politically correct whose credibility
is not only on the line but is now clearly beyond the pale
Beautifully said. Eight years of neo-liberal acting/progressive talking Barack Obama and the prospect
of more of the same from the deeply flawed Hillary Clinton was enough to hand the presidency to the
grotesque Donald Trump. The Democratic party is smoldering and needs to be rebuilt as Naomi says
by and for the 99%.
Naomi Klein is right about the neoliberalism that played such a huge role in the creation of massive
wealth inequality in the United States, but the other issue is that Hillary Clinton embraced the
Bush-era neoconservative program (just look at her record as Secretary of State with Honduras, Haiti,
Libya and Syria, as well as all the arms deals and support for Saudi Arabia and Israel). In addition,
she was completely loyal to the Wall Street interests who crashed the economy in 2008 and yet were
never criminally charged by the Obama Administration.
Obama shares much of the blame - despite coming in with Congress in Democratic hands, he quickly
abandoned his populist base in favor of pro-Wall Street agendas; he expanded the domestic mass
surveillance program and persecuted whistleblowers like nobody before him; and he was seduced by
the CIA's regime change/drone assassination program. His peace prize is now the punchline of a joke.
He didn't help out homeowners who'd been targeted by Wall Street; he instead pushed for a massive
taxpayer bailout of Wall Street - and minority homeowners in particular were hit hard by the banks.
As far as all the young people who supported him? He did nothing to alleviate student loan debt;
that's not what Wall Street wanted. As far as renewable energy? He did little if anything on that
front; instead he quietly OK'd offshore oil drilling, oil exports, and pipelines like Dakota Access.
He betrayed his base and served Wall Street, and of course that's what Hillary Clinton would have
done as well.
Bernie Sanders, in contrast, had good policies on all these issues and would have won the primary
if it hadn't been rigged by the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the corporate media.
The Democratic Party reforms needed are obvious:
(1) A fixed number of debates in the primary (Sanders vs. Clinton? 9 debates. Obama vs. Clinton?
26 debates).
(2) Elimination of the superdelegate system. (In Feb 2008, Clinton had 241 to Obama's 181; in Feb
2016, Clinton had 451 to Sander's 19)
(3) Opening the primaries to independent voters in places like New York, at the very least allowing
last-minute party registration for independent voters.
That all takes power away from Wall Street-tied party elites, who will otherwise continue to pick
losers that will serve Wall Street interests in exchange for big donations - but who are unpopular
with the general public. That rigged process is why Bernie Sanders, who would obviously have beaten
Trump with enthusiastic millenial support, was prevented from winning the Democratic Primary.
The other party in this debacle, the corporate media - they deserve to be broken up by anti-trust
legislation. TimeWarner, Disney, etc. should all be forced to break up into a hundred independently
owned news outlets, otherwise it'll be an endless stream of Wall Street propaganda from them.
" Hillary Clinton embraced the Bush-era neoconservative program (just look at her record as Secretary
of State with Honduras, Haiti, Libya and Syria, as well as all the arms deals and support for Saudi
Arabia and Israel). In addition, she was completely loyal to the Wall Street interests who crashed
the economy in 2008 and yet were never criminally charged by the Obama Administration."
Very much so. Hillary Clinton to me was pretty indistinguishable from George Bush. I never voted
for Bush and I wasn't going to vote for a female version of him.
While I'm troubled by many of the implications of this electoral result, I think the main story is
that the Democrats have bled so many votes that an extremely unpopular Republican candidate was able
to win simply by holding on to most of the votes that Romney managed to get 4 years ago and flipping
a few swing voters. When the final tally comes in, Hillary Clinton will likely have received over
8 million fewer votes than Obama in 2008 and nearly 5 million less than he got in 2012. Trump got
fewer still, and he'll now be president because he managed to sway just enough voters in the rust
belt to win several of those states.
It could not be clearer that Sanders' approach would have been the better one for this election
by far. He spoke to the anger at the economic hollowing out of so much of this country while offering
prescriptions that were in the best interests of the vast majority of people and framed the discussion
in a way that made it clear race was not at the center, that the unchecked pursuit of the class interests
of the wealthy & well-connected was responsible for so much of the human devastation that can easily
be observed in so many parts of the country.
Anyone who zealously advocated for this view was derided as a "Bernie bro" or mocked with sneering
suggestions that Bernie was only a viable candidate in white states. (Nevermind that being
absolute bunkum) Clinton supporters and other DNC hacks falsely equated working class white people
in states like Wisconsin and Ohio supporting a more left-leaning economic program that placed a lesser
emphasis on racial & identity issues to engaging in some sort of insidious white male identity politics-
and they did so deliberately, to muddy the waters.
They forced a widely reviled, ethically challenged, evasive servant of the establishment who deemed
TPP "the gold standard" of trade agreements, supported the Iraq war, was content to let the financial
sector completely off the hook for the last financial meltdown and engineered the disastrous Libya
intervention down everyone's throat on the premise that Americans didn't have a choice. Anyone who
expressed their fear that this would result in a loss to Trump, much less voiced a slight preference
for Trump over Clinton (even if absolutely de minimis), was vilified to such a degree that I am confident
that it stifled some of the public discussion about how to electorally confront Trump. The only acceptable
answer was voting for Hillary Clinton without reservation, even accepting that many criticisms of
her were valid was tantamount to enabling fascism.
Look where we are now. There's a lesson in this: you cannot rely on progressive issues on a few
social positions as a fig leaf to cover up a massive failure to challenge the systemic rot of our
economy, our governmental institutions and our legal system. Standing up for a person's right to
peace, security and opportunity irrespective of race, ethnicity or creed is absolutely the right
thing to do. Same goes for women's right to make family planning decisions or the rights of gay people
to marry and live free of discrimination. None of these can begin to mask massive system-wide failures,
that we are seemingly hopelessly chained to an economic paradigm that is grossly indifferent- even
actively hostile- to the welfare of the majority of our citizens.
I think Sanders' response to Trump's election is entirely appropriate. If Trump does follow through
on some of his challenges to globalization, lobbyists or modernizing and improving our infrastructure,
we should offer our qualified support. If he attempts to push through massive deregulation, lopsided
tax cuts for the wealthy, stripping of environmental protections, or anything to stoke the flames
of bigotry and division we should unite in principled, civil opposition.
Excellent and intelligent post. I especially agree with your last sentence. Trump may have saved
us from an insane war with Russia. But mass resistance is called for if he and the blood-red Congress
try to turn us into Christo-fascist serfs.
Absolutely on target, thanks Naomi! The DLC (Democratic Leadership?? Council) won this for Trump.
They may have taken a couple of presidencies--mostly on false promises--but their wishywashy presidents
did nothing for real people and worked solely for the rich oligarchs and imperialists. The "Leadership"
was only toward the Right. This election was the Revolt of the Rustbelt and the Dead Small Towns.
But Drumpf will do nothing for them except postpone, then forget, and finally turn against any who
dare complain.
And just think--if not for the DLC stuffed shirts and Wall Street bootlickers who held power in
the Dem establishment, we might be happy that Bernie & Jane Sanders--AUTHENTIC feminists and genuine
reformers--were going to the White House. I'm 80 years old, may not be around to see the young people's
victory, so I get sick thinking of how much we almost gained, but was lost by the DLC Beltway minds
and the GOP (Greedy Oil Party) solipsists. We lost more than Trump can guess, until his Miami properties
are all swallowed by the sea. It takes a heavy knock on his orange noggin to get that egomaniac's
attention.
I firmly believe that we must bring down BOTH of our over-age, limping, idiot-led political parties,
or reform them from the grassroots up! (If they can be saved, which I doubt.) It's time to revive
the LaFollette Progressive Republicans and the New Deal Democrats, but under different names--and
this time NOT just for privileged, "entitled" white males. Yes, I know Bob LaFollette tried to be
inclusive, but the time is way past when our children and grandchildren must support and empathize
with the entire HUMAN race, not just the paleface branch who've grabbed all the goodies.
As for the macho white males, offer the cowboys a chance to put their he-man cravings to work
at the top of wind-powered electric generators 200 feet tall out in the deep ocean, or avoiding glass
slashes from large solar trombe wall collectors or even small glass solar cells, or staying alive
around unexpected flares of methane, or getting caught in the ebb of a massive tidal bore and swept
out to sea. All of these are renewable energy generating systems, safe for the planet but requiring
daredevils who would marvel at how comparably un-scary mining and lumberjacking were back in the
Olden Days.
Trump was born into the 1% and has stayed there; inherited wealth don't ya know. His policies and
those of the Republican hierarchy include : union busting, lower taxes at the top, austerity at the
bottom, financial deregulation below 2008 levels, and privatization of government services. Democratic
policies are the complete opposite in each of these cases.
Trump doesn't stand for less neoliberalism but more.
"People have lost their sense of security, status and even identity."
That's about the only part that's correct. Globalisation and the threat of open borders is what
does that. Everyone wants to feel secure in their home, individually or collectively, without the
threat that anyone who likes your home better than theirs can invite themselves over and redecorate.
Canada's elite smugly refuse to recognize that its seeming imperviousness to "ethnophobic nationalism"
is precisely because it has secure borders and an immigration policy that selects immigrants.
Obama was elected twice in very recent history. If the country consisted mostly
of bigots, that would have never happened. To chalk this up to bigotry is
exactly the wrong thing to do - it makes one feel all smug and superior without
bothering to engage with the real issues, like the ones that Klein is discussing.
The Democrats have failed as a party of the middle and working classes. They
are the party of Wall Street bankers and the MIC and the Hollywood elite, who
are more concerned with eating organic arugula and with the bathroom rights of
transgender people than they are with the economic plight of the majority of
people in this country. And they nominated the one person who almost perfectly
embodies this establishment: Clinton - a war mongering, corrupt establishment neoconservative who
revels in Hollywood fund raisers with $50,000/person
tickets, gets paid a quarter of million dollars by Goldman Sachs for an 1-hour
speech, and salivates at the prospect of starting more wars in the middle east
and poking Putin in the eye. That's why the lost, not because of bigotry.
This piece is exactly right. The infiltration of the neoliberals has poisoned mainstream politics
and hijacked the left. It is given form by the Washington Consensus:
1. Fiscal policy discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
2. Redirection of public spending from subsidies ("especially indiscriminate subsidies") toward
broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health
care and infrastructure investment;
3. Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
4. Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
5. Competitive exchange rates;
6. Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of
quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively
uniform tariffs;
7. Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
8. Privatization of state enterprises;
9. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except
for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight
of financial institutions;
10. Legal security for property rights.
Trump is planning to tear up a lot of this, and he is quite right to do it, even if for the wrong
reasons. Globalisation has screwed working people in the developed world and enabled multinationals
to form an unholy alliance with the chinese communists to exploit the chinese people to make bigger
profits, whilst the old manufacturing base in the developed economies has been hollowed out and sent
to China.
The Democratic Party changed fundamentally under Carter/Clinton in the 1980s/1990s. Very much like
Labour in the UK changed during the same period under Blair. During that period, both parties morphed
from domestic worker's parties into global capitalist parties with (somewhat) progressive social
agendas. In both instances, the move away from core left economic values was justified by electability.
The sweeping elections of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair in the early 1990s won the argument and relegated
the original base of the parties (workers) to the periphery.
Now that neoliberals are no longer electable, what's the justification for their continued existence?
No one on the left is happy with their core policies (deregulation, privatization, free trade, unfettered
immigration, coziness with corporations/banks, etc.). If they aren't advancing progressive social
issues y winning elections, why should we continue putting up with the neolibs co-opting our economic
policies?
Ideally, Democrats would use this opportunity to revert back into being a domestic worker's party
with genuine progressive/leftist values (much like Labour did in the UK by electing Corbyn). It almost
happened with Sanders. Given the enthusiasm/turnout he generated, that's clearly the way forward.
Sadly, if I were betting, I'd imagine the Democratic establishment will do exactly what the Labour
establishment did in the UK post Brexit...circle the wagons and double down. And with the anger being
directed at Trump rather than the Democratic establishment's malpractice in this botched election,
they may get away with it (unlike the Blairites in the UK).
The New Democrats (neoliberals) have been circuling the wagons for awhile now. They have tried to
shoot down progressive candidates running in primaries for office and support the neoliberal ones.
The guy who lost to Rubio was a former republican who became a New Democrat while the party shut
down any progressives.
It will take alot of battles to change the party back to their New Deal roots. The party saw the
reaction to the true son of the New Deal, Bernie Sanders. Instead of taking lessons from that and
what the democratic voters craved, they did everything to undermine him and shut him down.
It will take very heavy equipment to remove the entrenched neoliberals from the party and put true
democrats in their rightful place
It's strange to watch...the UK seems to be about half an election cycle ahead of us in its rejection
of neoliberalism. Everything happening in UK politics is echoed over here about 6 month's later.
Down to the fact that, in both countries, wealthy orange haired baboons somehow managed to speak
to the disaffected working class. If Gove hadn't snaked Boris Johnson at the death, both countries
would currently be led by said orange haired baboons. I mean, what are the odds?
Granted, it is the Year of the Monkey per the Chinese calendar...so there might be something in
that after all.
Relatedly, I cannot wait until the UK's new Secretary of State has a photo op with our President
elect. Which one is the doppelganger?
This is a very decent article, indeed the mainstream left made a deal with the devil and now he's
getting his due. But on the other hand I think it's terribly optimistic to assume everything boils
down to kick starting a new democratic-socialist movement, raking in all those votes that have just
been waiting for it to happen(and only voted for a right wing populist because it didn't yet, sure)
and fixing everybody's problems forever.
For one, the neoliberals managed to singlehandedly to make the left look like even more of a villain
in the eyes of those who already eschewed it, alienate those who believed in a left solution but
were not diehard about it, and fracture the remaining group into niches who refuse to engage in dialogue
or even in recognize each other as fellow lefties. Managing to form a stable coalition is a beginning
but it only deals with the latter problem, the left still has a huge public image problem to solve
before it can make a return.
And for another, the very idea of safety nets and benefits seems to have fallen out of fashion with
the electorate: the "I had to climb the hill both ways to get here, so nobody dare cut a tunnel through
it" mentality has been on the rise lately. It seems the neoliberals' failures somehow managed to
make us all even more individualist, if only a bit more tribal too. Thus, for a new left to rise
it wouldn't be enough to restore trust among all the isolated left groups, but also among society
as a whole.
But, when you have people homeless, starving, falling through society's cracks you have a rise in
crime.
Many who are suffering are not shiftless. Many are working but, don't make enough to pay bills and
put food on the table.
Many do not have access to healthcare.
Children go to bed without food.
When society is uncaring, mean and causes undue suffering, society falls apart and into haves and
have nots.
All the money that went to help people is the same money that now lines the pockets of the uber wealthy.
Our schools cannot teach with rats and cockroaches, ceillings falling in and no heat. When children
cannot get a lunch anymore, how do they learn?
When we cannot pay teachers or even support them, you end up with the bottom of the barrel teaching
the upcoming generation inadequately.
You can tell the strength of a society from how it cares for its poor and in need.
Ours is a 'i got mine' selfish shallow society now.
And it is violent and people are filled with hate.
Maybe because we have stopped caring and making sure people have opportunities and jobs and education
and help when they fall on hard times.
Agreed, except for the major actors who started this globalization's depression ofN. American and
European workers-- the Reagan and the Bush corporate supporters and puppet masters. Clintons and
other neolibs have followed suit because they wrongly believed that they could beat them by joining
them yet still do a bit of good for their voters. Wrong. But yes, the Revolution continues. Whether
it can save the planet -- the environment, however, is doubtful, and nothing matters nearly as much.
For years on is far to late.
Yes it was the Democrats promotion of neo-liberalsim aided by such claptrap as this opinion from
another Guardian scribbler.
"Centrism has failed these and many other voters. Clinton was not handpicked by the Democratic
party's elite: she defeated an unexpectedly successful challenge by self-described socialist Bernie
Sanders, partly because of his failure to inspire African Americans. "
That a closet Clinton supporter should have the temerity to write something like this to explain
Clintons defeat is beyond belief, when we know from Wikileaks e-mails that the DNC actively opposed
Sanders.
The reality is that all politics is dominated by the golden rule: he who has the gold rules.
Well meaning scribblers like Naomi can scribble all they want it will never change the situation.
Even revolution will not change the situation for the simple facts are "the oppressed are potential
oppressors".
The achievement of dominance and superiority seems to be built into human genes, and why not it is
so in the rest of the animal world.
Forget Richard Dawkins, dominance is certainly not universal among living creatures. If a species
exists with a plentiful supply of food, domination and competition are unnecessary. Think of the
cooperative bonobo and the symbiosis of insects and field flowers. On the other hand, where resources
are scare, competition begins and we have social structures like the baboons and leafy trees that
kill competitive seedlings by their own shade.
However, throughout evolution cooperation outweighs competition. If it didn't we'd still be solitary
single-celled amoebae. As things are, our own bodies are well-furnished with microscopic critters
from RNA through viruses and bacteria, many of whom run the shop in the background. Cooperation,
whether vestigial, symbiotic or by choice, is the way that leads to life. Competition is the way
of violence and death. That's not Marxism. It's nature.
"Forget Richard Dawkins, dominance is certainly not universal among living creatures. If a species
exists with a plentiful supply of food, domination and competition are unnecessary."
There is a plentiful supply of food for the human species.
So how can you explain the general situation that exists on the planet whereby governing elites control
and enjoy the major part of all that human labour creates to the detriment of over 50% of the human
population ?
"Neo-fascist responses"? Get over yourself Klein. Trump won because the Clinton's "own" the Democrat
Party and they and Goldman Sachs were confident she would be the nominee and millions of gullible
Americans would vote for Hillary.
By far the best candidate was Bernie Sanders but the Clintons had him run off the road by "Super
Delegates". Oh and by the way is it not odd that the Democrats did not change the electoral system
when they were in power?
House of Cards comes close to showing us just how ruthless the Clintons really are.
Well, that it is worthwhile reading. At the beginning I thought: good that someone pointed that out.
People haven't forgotten NAFTA and Hillary's speeches in closed wall street circles and so on. I
just wanted to remark that it was probably a multitude of reasons that explain the Democratic loss.
Comey's interference and other stuff that is outright dismissed by the author also played a role.
However, as I read on I couldn't help but realize that there seems to be another person who wasn't
even aware that Bernie and Elizabeth supported Hillary and wasn't aware of their arguments or the
Democratic platform Bernie Sanders fought so hard for. The last two paragraphs speak volumes of Ms.
Klein's realism or rather the lack thereof.
And how clear does it have to be that "the Network" is and has been purely supra and post-national?
How many trillions in dark loot in shadow banks and other asset dumps which the Panama Papers only
show a fraction of?
These Fokkers and Fuggers, what drives them? How much is enough? There's always been this cadre
of people who figure out how to scam and manipulate and "transcend boundaries," but to the extent
that exists today? With the habitability of the planet in question?
But then I have to remember that these people are into self-pleasing on a gargantuan scale, are
what we call sociopaths, who have been with the species since "we" figured out how to grow grains
and build granaries and walls to protect the granaries and warriors to man the walls and attack the
neighbors and take their stuff, and artisans to make the weapons and "improvements," and kings to
issue the orders, and priests to justify it all as the Hand and Will of God -- what we call "civilization."
And the people at the top have known since forever that if they insulate themselves adequately from
the rabble, they face no consequences for their predations, and can live out their lives of looting
and indulgence and die comfortably, cared for by loving nurses and doctors who will ease their passing
(unlike what the rest of us now face). Because as they have known since forever, "Apres ils le deluge,"
"IBG-YBG,"
http://tradicionclasica.blogspot.com/2006/01/expression-aprs-moi-le-dluge-and-its.html ,
And what are the rest of us going to do when they have passed on, or fled like the Nazis with
the gold from the teeth of millions and the art treasures and other portable wealth of demolished
and decimated nations, to live out their lives as CIA "assets" or in comfortable temperate South
American and African places? Dig up their corpses and desecrate them, or try to find their "cremains"
and burn them again? They do not care what happens to their children, even.
I wish us ordinary people all the luck in the world trying to create and maintain a different
order that will let everyone eat only to their honest hunger and drink only to their reasonable thirst...
Couldn't agree more. The neo-liberalism orthodoxy instead of suddenly knocking at the door has come
silently home to roost. The Democrats in America and Labor in UK were hand in glove with elites in
the greatest robbery the history has ever seen. The concentration of wealth in one percent which
was rationalized as panacea of all economic ills has turned out to be an opening of mythical Pandora's
box unleashing evils of racism, xenophobia, misogyny etc. The abhorrent echo of "too big to fail"
is still heard by the those who were let down by the same oligarchs. I have yet to find an answer
to the vexing question as to why enormous benefits of human knowledge and scientific advances be
exclusively extracted by one percenters.
Guardian commentators use identity politics and cries of "racism, sexism and xenophobia" to try and
distract the working class from noticing how internationalism, globalization and immigration has
stagnated their wages, moved meaningful jobs oversees and stoked up asset prices allowing a homeowner
in London to earn more by twiddling their thumbs than their Polish cleaner gets paid in a year.
No matter how shrill the likes of Owen, Jonathan, Paul, Polly and Hadley try and distract us with
their daily dribble of identity politics, we increasingly see them as just another faded facet of
the corporatist, internationalist status quo.
The union excesses (which have largely been killed off and the union and former and would-be union
workers looted and impoverished along with the rest of the "lower orders) are just part of the disease
-- which is corruption, and self-pleasing at the expense of everyone else. Union "leaders," absent
disinterested "regulation" by government (which has been mostly corrupted too) and thanks to cooptation
by "capitalists," definitely screwed the ordinary people (who one must acknowledge included quite
a few rank-and-file that aspired to leadership so they could join the looting).
There probably is stuff that needs to be built and manufactured (not the 7,000 pound SUVs and
big Dodge and GMC and Ford F-series and "TUNDRA" trucks) to try to keep the species and culture alive.
But killing the ability of ordinary people to organize, essentially making unions illegal except
in tiny niches, just makes the end-game even worse. And continuing to punch down on working people
on account of some 1962 wages (NOT "salaries," these were hourly payrolls, with "benefits" that in
may cases like pension funds were subsequently looted by "private equity" vampire-squids and captured-government
actions) just makes it harder for ordinary people to come together AS A CLASS and fight the 0.01%
for a decent future.
my post on Facebook that mirrors Naomi:
My thoughts about last night:
Bill Clinton's New Democrats were incinerated last night...arrogant, ivy league, sleeping with Wall
Street, multinational corporations, insurance companies... and thinking that if they wrap themselves
in the social issues from abortion to gay marriage that wage starved workers with enormous bills
and debts, evaporating opportunities, disappearing pensions, shit schools and deteriorating infrastructure
wouldn't notice they were overlooked and forgotten. This election underscores that Economic injustice
is color blind
What I want to know though is that, given the reality of what you are saying, did none of this
occur to the Democratic party prior t the election?
If they knew all this why did they not respond to it instead of continuing to plough the same
old furrow regardless of the likely consequences for ordinary voters?
Why? Because the Dem Elites knew that with Hillary their perks, access, power, etc. was secure. They
wanted status quo and, just as they have behaved the past years, failed to listen to their constituencies,
ignored them. They should have known just by seeing Bernie's exceptional campaign and the enthusiasm
that fueled it, giving him more money than what Hillary often raised from her wealthy donors each
month, that no one was excited about more of the same. Arrogantly, they chose to ignore and minimize
what was before their eyes.
The most cogent analysis I have read so far. Bravo Ms. Klein. In a year where the country was screaming
for populist change, the Democratic party establishment who had their own highly effective populist
candidate, CHOSE to offer up possibly the most "establishment" candidate in history. Fly-over America
responded with a sharply erect, if ignorantly self-destructive middle finger.
Spot on diagnosis. People are angry that neolibralism has failed them and does not given a damn about
them. Clinton offered nothing but the same to too many people. Trump was a molotov cocktail, warts
and all, that they got to throw into Washington.
I don't buy the racist argument. People that elected Obama in 2008 and 2012, but Trump in 2016
are not racist. At the same time I acknowledge that all the KKK people did vote Trump.
Question is, does the left have an answer that is palatable to the people? It would be good if
it did, but I'm not holding my breath. Corbyn isn't it, that you can be certain of.
Clinton was a comically bad choice that made no sense whatsoever. The left often gets told that it
has to endlessly suffer centrist/neo-liberal "lesser evil" candidates in order to defeat the right
as they're more electable, which is an argument that at least makes some logical sense under some
circumstances, even if I disagree with it. But in the case of this election, everyone has known
for years that Clinton is wildly unpopular, and there was a radical alternative to her available
who consistently out-polled her against Trump in the form of Sanders.
Now her backers, such as Hadley Freedman on here today, rather than admitting their massive and
obvious mistake in supporting her against Sanders and generally backing the "centrist" policies that
brought us to this point, are suggesting nonsense such as the idea that those who voted for Trump
should be "held responsible." What does that even mean? What are you going to do, elect a new people?
You could have had a radical candidate who unlike Clinton could have brought about real change, and
unlike Clinton would have attracted many of Trump's blue collar supporters and, you know, won
.
All that lesser evil neoliberal politics gives us is a lack of change that allows the right to
make even more radical changes during the periods they're in power and eventually leads to the rise
of people like Trump, and it's particularly stupid when it throws up deeply unpopular and unelectable
people like Clinton, Miliband or the various empty suits lined up against Corbyn. It's time this
paper decisively turned its back on the concept.
I don't have a lot of confidence in the prospect of political ideologies forged in the Industrial
Age - "left", "right", "conservative", liberal" - being able to meet the challenges of this post-Industrial
age and the future beyond.
Western societies are fracturing into ever-smaller social groups defined by different, complex
combinations of social/economic/national/ethnic/topographical/sexual/religious factors which mushrooming
sub-groups all create their own realities based on the unregulated information they they select from
divisive, self-reflexive social media sources rather than inclusive "mainstream" news media which
have become increasingly corrupted and not trusted.
Fragmentation, disintegration of societies - these lead to paranoia and aggression aimed at the
"other" - and we can see this on both the "left" and the "right" in the blame-games that have followed
Brexit and Trump's victory. The 19th century liberals and conservative who provided the foundations
for the institutions of Western Democracy didn't foresee the emergence of global corporations and
banks with interests that could defy "the national good" or disrupt the moderately equitable distribution
of wealth and replace it with a massive diversion of wealth to a tiny global elite (So long affluent
workers! Goodbye aspiring middle-class!) - while placating most of the population with a consumerist,
material lifestyle mostly funded by debt. The old system is broken.
In both the Brexit referendum and the US election the most striking split was between the old
- the over-50s, clinging to the past - and young people, disconnected in their social media silos,
wanting a different future but, as a generation, not able to organize and politically express their
unhappiness and their hopes for the future because inadequate conventional Left/Right political thinking
doesn't chime with the reality of their lives.
Not everyone who voted for Donald Trump is a racist or a misogynist. Not everyone who voted for
Hillary Clinton has no sympathy with an unemployed factory worker in a mid-west town whose future
has been written off. However, everywhere you look - people are anxious and fearful that "the others"
are trying to stop them getting what they solipsistically feel they deserve.
Donald Trump won't be able to get Apple of Walmart to switch their product sourcing from China
to the US, nor will he be able to halt the long-term economic decline of the US any more than Theresa
May will be able to prevent post-Brexit economic decline in the UK: the challenges our dysfunctional
political institutions face are too complex for politicians who are strong on rhetoric and promises
but intellectually feeble and cowardly when it comes to decision-making and execution.
We need education, public-service-based information, new political ideas and new political parties
that can cut through the destructive white noise of Twitter and Facebook and focus on values that
bring people together and counter the greed of the supra-national elites - something more powerful
than divisive, out-dated concepts like Left and Right.
What a lot of words to say bugger all.
Why do people with no answers always say we need more education ?
We have to get rid of this notion that we US and UK are post industrial.
We have made a huge mistake offshoring our industry and must relocate the more essential parts. We
cannot be a service economy without making things.
Bashing metal turning wood molding plastics must be part of our future.
We cannot be a nation of management consultants and hairdressers.
The boom in population during the Boom didn't help. We are overpopulated, and our current economic
structure cannot support the material lifestyles and the narratives of freedom that we grew up living
with or dreaming about. That's the education that's needed.
Until we accept our current situation, we cannot understand or construct new political ideas,
parties, or narratives.
Neoliberal globalization is the worst kind of socialism, whether or not it is actually socialism.
It's what we're going to get if young people don't become collectively more informed and quickly.
There is an attitude of entitlement among young people that drives towards a socialist mentality
and the left has picked up the scent. They're going to chase that vote and those disaffected voters
are going to chase that lie right down the rabbit hole eventually. If Hillary and Obama have their
way, the riots that are being orchestrated right now will start the process immediately.
A very confused article. Neo liberalism is unfettered Global Capitalism given a nice sounding name.
It is an invention of the right. To think that the most extreme Republican President ever, will improve
the lot of the common man is quite simply bizzare.
A good chunk of Trump's support could be peeled away if there were a genuine redistributive
agenda on the table. An agenda to take on the billionaire class with more than rhetoric, and use
the money for a green new deal
Particularly as Trump himself is a member of that billionaire class and clearly has no interest
in redistributing wealth away from himself, or in doing anything to overhaul the economic system
that has made him very rich.
Trump was elected US President by riding the same wave of anger & disaffection that fuelled Brexit.
Many of those who were disappointed by the result were quick to console themselves with the (wishful)
thought that he will not attempt to implement his more radical proposals, or that, if he tries, he
will be thwarted by the Republicans (who now hold majorities in both the House and the Senate). It
is important to bear in mind however, that any who dare oppose him will know that they do so at the
risk of their seats.
The "Inconvenient Truth" is that the politics of Donald Trump has much in common with movements like
Attack and Occupy Wall Street, and hence with Naomi Klein. They both want to stop, or put a break
on, international trade. Donald Trump wants to revive local production through protectionism. Klein
sees international trade as a source of both environmental and social degradation.
Naomi, thus, carries some responsibility for Donald's success.
The combined Trump/Klein policies would see the old rust belt workers boarding self driven electrical
buses to go to work in the new windmill factories. These windmills, normally, would be both more
expensive and less effective than if the business was subject to international competition, hence
the electricity they produced would be more expensive, giving domestic business a disadvantage.
The new environmental businesses would require support from the public purse (if not, we would
already have had them). The taxpayers seem in no mood for such grand scale subsidies.
History does not repeat itself, but in the 1930s the industrial nations raised barriers to trade
in order to protect their work forces. As a result, everybody got poorer and reacted by electing
extremist politicians.
Michael Moore outlines his post-election strategy. Point 1 is Take over the Democratic Party and
return it to the people. They have failed us miserably.
Exactly the same as what is happening in the Labour Party. But in that case The Guardian supports
neoliberalism and seeks to undermine the ones who are trying to change things.
Sadly I think the electorate in some western societies are in danger of becoming just as ineffective
as 'the proles' in 1984, while the vice like grip of the military/industrial complex is just as tenacious
as that exerted by Big Brother and the party.
Since the entire political class, or least those with any clout all sing from the same hymn sheet
while moderate, or leftist figures, like Corbyn, or Sanders, are bound to be shredded by their own
party and by the media, then what hope, eh, unless that hope is something new and outside of party
politics?
Thank you, thank you, thank you Naomi. Even after an unbelievable defeat, the neoliberals still don't
get it. Blame game articles are starting already but no self reflection.
The role of the media (The Guardian included big time) have a responsibility and offended people's
intelligence and sensitivity about democracy, elites etc. Now they are running for cover. Today,
Hadley Freeman writes "Misogyny won the US election – let's stop indulging angry white men". Disgrace,
offensive and arrogant. Also, Hadley Freeman with "The US has elected its most dangerous leader"...No
remorse, no responsibility, blaming American people for being angry, for swallowing the same medicine
again...
Compare the Guardian and AP (recall who called California early and rigged the pre-selection against
Sanders?) and Waleed Aly here: (
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/us-election-2016-its-not-about-racism-or-sexism-its-about-class-warfare-20161109-gslxzs.html)...What
options did the "forgotten", vast majority, the "insignificant other", the disadvantaged, the
powerless have? When one is drowning, the relatively privileged onlooker has a duty to help rather
than blame the one drowning for "pulling our hair". Of course the future looks terribly bleak for
democracy, gender/racial relations etc...
Seriously, could Clinton be an answer for the family that struggles to pay rent, the homeless,
the unemployed, those scared of terrorism or a WWIII, the working poor, those in debt due to college
fees, those who lost their house and jobs for the sake of "free trade"...These are many, many people
folks...real people with flesh, dreams and humanity...
Understanding their pain and their lack of options (thanks to NDC & the Media) does not mean one
identifies with Trump and the ugly fascist monsters creeping behind him...It's not about us or one's
dream about equality, freedom...It's about survival & human dignity for millions of US people...
Did the demonizing of many working people send them straight to Trump land? Waleed Aly: "progressives
have treated the working class largely as a source of xenophobia ... ignore it at our peril" --
Excellent article much of which could have been written during the past thirty years.
We all know hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I was puzzled as to why Mrs Clinton seemed to
cold shoulder Bernie Sanders. He had already connected with many of the 'left behind' by putting
a Social Democratic view opposite to Mr Trump's views. Both had identified the problems that the
Chicago economists and neoliberalism had caused, but not having Mr Sanders involved or even accepting
that his views would be part of her next administration, Mrs Clinton left the field open to her opponent.
If only she had remembered her husband's slogan 'Its the economy, stupid', it may have turned fire
on Trump's campaign.
There is an irony that although it was right wing politicians who bought in the neo liberal policies
which have impoverished working people, it is the social democratic parties on both sides of the
Atlantic who have suffered by trying to make neoliberalism work. They could not demonstrate however
how 'trickledown' benefitted the poorest and the image left was of rich people sucking up more wealth
and more influence over politicians as Ms Klein points out.
On our side of the Atlantic Mrs Thatcher ensured that the right have a strong supportive press
due to her ownership reforms and the right is gradually weakening our BBC so that any opposition
views will be stifled. Mr Corbyn has already been character assassinated. It remains to be seen if
Mr Trump carries out his threats to the American press supporters of Mrs Clinton to reinforce only
right wing views.
The smell of authoritarian regimes is now appearing in many places.
There was an almost dynastic arrogance in the Clinton's assumption that they would carry the day.
I have often been impressed with Bill's eloquence and Hillary's tough fight for a rational health
and insurance system, but have never heard a word of self-criticism about the dire effects of deregulation
and the financial crisis. The democrats missed their chance for radical measures when they had control
of Congress just after Lehman Bros.
Still, for international affairs, climate change, any sane kind of approach Trump is an unmitigated
disaster. Hillary has much experience in international affairs, but her opportunism in the wake of
9/11 had led her to support the intervention in Iraq. Of course we were all opposed to Saddam's régime,
but not with those means and in that kind of way, made much worse of course by Bush jr. Islamic State
is a direct consequence of the chaos and unemployment in Iraq created under the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld
administration.
"Neo-fascist responses"
"Trump-style extremism"
"they answer it by bashing immigrants and people of colour, vilifying Muslims, and degrading women"
You call my right to vote the way I choose "stupid".
You just don't get it. Millions of Americans voted exactly this way. A big middle finger to the establishment,
media, Wall Street, "experts", and yes moral posturing know-it-alls is a great way to use your vote.
You completely misunderstand Trump. He is far more for the working man than Clinton. The poor
voted for him in droves. And for good reason.
I am an angry white male, and I am not a misogynist, as this paper would have it.
I am fully aware of the appalling nature of Donald Trump.
On the other hand, I fully understand the bureaucratic nature of the Democrat Party, the embedded
interests of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex in that bureaucracy, the dirty tricks
that that bureaucratic machinery got up to in order to extinguish Bernie Sander's campaign.
I am aware of how that machinery has been ramping up a situation of global conflict, shamelessly
recreating an aggressive Cold war Mk II situation with Russia and China, which is simply cover for
the US racist colonial assumption that the world and its resources belongs to it in its sense of
itself as an exceptional entity fulfilling its manifest destiny upon a global stage that belongs
to its exceptional, wealthy and powerful elites.
And I am aware of how Hillary was so keen to service this reality and American image of itself.
And to go beyond that, and bomb Libya for 6 months, killing thousands of civilians (Middle eastern
unpeople) and, may I suggest, doing nothing whatsoever for the women of Libya. Quite the opposite!
Michael Moore, in a talk in which he predicted the victory of Trump before the election, notes
how Trump went into an American car factory and told the executives of that company that if they
relocated to Mexico, he would put a huge tax on their cars coming into America. Not all was misogyny
in the vote for Trump. Whether he delivers on his threat or not, unlike the democrat bureaucratic
machinery, he showed he was actually listening to working class Americans and that he was ;prepared
to face up to company executives.
What has this paper got to say about Hillary and the Democrat Party's class bigotry – its demonstrable
contempt for 10s of millions of Americans whose lives are worse now than in 1973, while productivity
and wealth overall has skyrocketed over those 43 years.
What has this paper got to say about the lives of African American women, which have been devastated
by Republican/Democrat bipartisan policy over the last 43 years?
What has Hadley Freeman got to say about Hillary's comment that President Mubarek of Egypt was "one
of the family? A president whose security forces used physical and sexualised abuse of female demonstrators
in the Arab Spring?
A feminist would need more than a peg on their nose to vote for Hillary – a feminist would need
all the scented oils of Arabia. Perhaps Wahhabi funded Hillary can buy them up.
Great article, but Hilary was hardly responsible for privatization and austerity in the USA. She
only had 2 terms in the senate (and was only one of 450+ in congress). She was in fact mildly center-left
and at least nominally and aginst the TPPA. She could have led a progressive congress (as in the
Johnson year) if her coattails were long enough.
I have never in my long life ever seen a politician so demonized... not by the mainstream media,
but by the new media run mostly by the alt-right and funded by the likes of the Koch brothers. It
worked.
The climate accord is now finished ..any movement towards single payer or paid parental leave,
minimum wage increase ...gone. - military spending is now going up, and Trump is proposing tolls
on all roads -all to be privatized to pay for tax cuts for the top earners. and this is tip of the
iceberg...and not including the racist upswing.
That said, the DNC has a lot to answer for with its undemocratic superdelegates and documented
undemining of Sanders...as did the media who either ignored him or unfairly lambasted him. The RealClearPolitics
average from May 6-June 5 had Sanders at 49.7% to Trump's 39.3%, a 10.4-point cushion...polling that
included independents. In that same time frame, Trump was polling close to Clinton and was even ahead
in multiple polls. Most people were well aware of Sander's so-called "socialist" label since October
the previous year, so I'm unclear if that would have been a factor in the general election.
An analysis of the media is long over due : It was remarkable to see the media, including American
media, go into shock mode and scramble to reorganise the script and the thinking to run a perspective
on what was happening on the night the votes were counted. The media had conditioned themselves to
a Clinton win. Clearly the editors and the reporters were not out on the streets and in the hustings
getting all the messages. The Guardian is in shock mode after the British Referendum and the American
Presidential Election. The most politically dangerous person is a discontented voter with a ballot
paper. How could the media have not spotted in advance what was happening ? I do not buy the lazy
perspective that the voters deceived the media into their voting intentions. Personally, I think
the media have got fat and lazy and need to come out from behind their editorial desks.
Naomi, has omitted one very important detail: automation, i.e. the use of AI to replace
jobs.
This absolutely requires us to restructure society to provide security and purpose to each every
one of us who is not part of the super rich owners.
For example we will see driving jobs rapidly disappearing within the next five to ten years.
I also notice that where the worst effects of rampant capitalism are ameliorated there appear
to be fewer issues. I'm thinking of many Western European nations where the issues do not yet seem
to have the over fifty percent traction that they have in the US and the UK. If Australia were suffering
a similar economic slow down it may well join the US and UK. But what's happening in Canada and New
Zealand?
The problem with centre left parties throughout the western world is that they sold out to corporate
capitalism, which forced people who rejected neoliberalism to go to the extremes to protest. The
question is, once someone's loyalty has been broken, it is that much more difficult to win loyalty
back, if it is possible at all.
And you're right - the neoliberal capture of centre-left legacy parties from the Democrats to
the German SPD and French Socialist Party has created an exceptionally unpromising landscape and
public mood. Trust has been broken. Responsibilities betrayed. Intellectual traditions traduced,
distorted, or simply cast aside.
In moments of humiliation or defeat - and make no mistake, this was both - there needs to be reflection
and a willingness to return to first principles as well as evolving new strategies and insights appropriate
to the present.
Economic realities shape cultural and social relations. The left should always listen to the experiences
of people and build a consensus based on solidarity between groups and not the alienated support
of different self-interested demographics. Exploitation is the corner-stone of capitalism when it
is left to run unchecked. Without regulation, capitalism tends towards monopolies that end up subverting
democracy itself.
These are the issues Bernie Sanders raised and the enthusiasm with which it was greeted is testimony
to the fact that there are white working class voters hungry for a politics of positive, radical
social change. Intoning with robotic piety that the people have never had it so good despite overwhelming
evidence to the contrary is a form of deceit; when it comes from the mouths of corporate Democrats,
it is political obscenity.
In moments of humiliation or defeat - and make no mistake, this was both - there needs to be
reflection and a willingness to return to first principles
I think what I've realised from the Brexit and Trump results is how desperate people are for something
to believe in. What used to be called 'the vision thing'.
For decades we've had to choose between different forms of managerialism and variations on a theme
of 'there is no alternative to rule by the market'. We just had to put up and shut up, there was
nothing to get excited about. Nobody's ever jumped up and down shouting "What do want? Trickle-down
economics! When do we want it? Now!"
The thing about demagogues is they offer that emotional release. What we need is principled political
movements that also enable it.
Absolutely right. One of the by-products of There Is No Alternative, though, is that managerialism
and wonkiness have been fetishised. Hillary Clinton's devastatingly uninspiring offer to the American
people was hailed by some as a mark of her "maturity", "experience", and "competence". Bernie Sanders,
by contrast, was attacked for firing people up, for inspiring them to believe change was possible
- by implication, of course, such attacks rest on the belief that change is in fact not possible
at all. It is a bleak nihilism that states the best that can be hoped or organised for is a slightly
better management of existing structures.
There is a hypocrisy, too, when someone like Clinton derides Trump's economic plans as "Trumped-up
trickle-down". In reality, they were arguing simply over who would offer the *bigger* tax cuts. The
notion that there were alternative visions on the economy, on climate change, on racial equality
or healthcare and education, not to mention foreign policies, was almost completely absent.
This is why I wrote that in some ways Hillary Clinton was the greater evil in this election. It
is one thing to hark backwards to a mythical past, as Donald Trump did. It is quite another to put
such tight constraints on the entire notion of what is possible in the future. Trump offered nostalgia.
Clinton offered the tyranny of low expectations - forever.
But that is all in the past now - for the future, I agree with you that there needs to be a willingness
to offer radical, inspirational and visionary alternatives to a system that has simply not worked
for the majority of people who through no fault of their own find their quality of life, possibilities
and security in decline while wealth flows ceaselessly upwards and into the pockets of those already
insulated from the harm their favoured politicians unleash.
Bernie showed what can be done - he also showed that people are willing to finance such campaigns
and thus liberate the political process from the death-grip of corporate donations. Personally, I
am sceptical of whether the Democratic Party is an appropriate vehicle for such politics (I know
that Bernie doesn't agree with me!) Regardless, his campaign should provide somewhat of a model for
what can be done - and likewise his statement from today. Amidst the headlong rush - in this paper
as well - to denigrate and smear voters for failing to advance bourgeois liberal interests, it is
imperative that deprived, working class voters of all races are listened to properly and not labelled
racists and bigots. A few no doubt are. But these are, in many instances, the same people that helped
elect Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. They are crying out for something to organise around. Hillary
Clinton failed because she was not and never has been a person capable of, even interested in, offering
that.
This is a great article. Alas, I fear it is all too late.
Everyone knew what was wrong with Clinton and the whole rotten DNC operation, but they supported
her anyway. When her flaws were pointed out, people kept saying 'but she's a woman.' As if that even
mattered.
Fundamentally the left has to abandon its obsession with identity politics, embrace national identity
and individual liberty. Then it will be able to get over its economic message and win the day.
sou812
3h ago
0
1
The Democrats abandoned the only people that are paying
the bills in this country - period! And the working class
sent a message loud and clear. The arrogance and ignorance
of he left is astounding: focused on the novelty of
getting a woman elected to the presidency even though she
was the worst of choices. An arrogant, dishonest, bought
and paid for Wall Street elitist like her husband, they
thought that her experience was enough to seal her
success. Ta!
The Dem's have lost it all and it will take two decades to
recover, if ever.
After 8 years of "no change" Obama, a president totally owned by the corporations, banks, big
money etc. and the man who failed to do anything about that huge and ever widening wealth gap
the Democrats were obviously out of favour with the poor working class. But the voters seem to
have forgotten than Trump still stands for the Republicans and thats where he will enrol his
cabinet from, he can not act alone. Those same weak, ineffective ultra right loonies that
stood against Trump and made him look special will now stand with him in government. Its still
money politics.
Yet the mainstream media will persist in explaining the Trump disaster in terms of race or
gender issues, never in terms of economic class.
This is how they keep us divided.
Ed209
5h ago
2
3
Good article, but it fails to mention immigration as a
further factor hammering the working class. Of course it's
pc to pretend that immigrants create jobs rather than
taking them etc etc. But I would put this question to any
economist, journalist or politician who doesn't believe
that immigration hurts the working classes: how would you
like it if a million workers arrived, all qualified to
your level or above in economics/journalism/politics, and
all willing to work for much less than you make?
Of course, in the case of the UK it hasn't been one
million, but more than three million. And in the case of
the USA, untold millions (illegals alone are thought to
number 10 million).
It's because economists, journalists and politicians
never have to face this kind of competition for their own
jobs that they are so keen on mass immigration. But
low-skill/no-skill workers face this reality everyday.
Nika2015
Ed209
4h ago
0
1
Telling it like it is...Bravo!
Reply
Share
Share
on Facebook
Facebook
Share
on Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
Dana Todd
Ed209
4h ago
0
1
There's a pretty in-depth analysis of immigration's
effect on economy and workers/wages here
http://cis.org/immigration-and-the-american-worker-review-academic-literature
Bottom line is, it's complicated, and not all
immigrants are the same - or the same value to a
country. Immigrants with college degrees definitely add
to the GDP of their new home, typically estimated in
six figures cumulative per individual contribution.
Immigrants without college degree do place a drain on
the country, through depressed wages, because there's
parity (and since we haven't invested as much in our
educations here, we are not as competitive to outside
labor). Illegal immigrants cause a definite deficit,
albeit not so big as to threaten an entire economy -
but by creating an artificial competition they drive
wages down.
I am by all measures a liberal and very open to
immigration - I think we can't measure in dollars what
we get in new ideas, new energy, culture, art, food,
music - but for those who take a hard line look at the
return/impacts, it's worth taking the time to
understand the more complex story in the data.
"... The emails currently roiling the US presidential campaign are part of some unknown digital collection amassed by the troublesome Anthony Weiner, but if your purpose is to understand the clique of people who dominate Washington today, the emails that really matter are the ones being slowly released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. ..."
"... "What is remarkable is that, in the party of Jackson and Bryan and Roosevelt, smiling financiers now seem to stand on every corner, constantly proffering advice about this and that". ..."
"... Do they want more of the same + the Clinton's insatiable appetite for self-enrichmentand that permanent insincere smile? If not, why not give Trump a chance. If they don't like him, kick him out in four years' time. ..."
"... My feeling is this sort of behaviour has its equivalents throughout history and that when it peaks we have upheaval and decline. ..."
"... "Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're out." ..."
"... Of course you are quite correct, the Democratic Party is a fraud for working people and a collection of self serving elitist. If you have a solution to solve why people keep voting for them I would love to hear it. ..."
"... I am sure the people of Syria and Libya are grateful to these amazing people for destroying their countries and stealing their resources. ..."
"... What's left is a pretty ugly, self-righteous and corrupt crowd. Their attacks on Comey have been despicable, beneath contempt and absurd. I think they're going to lose and they will deserve to. ..."
"... "Former National Endowment for the Arts chairman Bill Ivey says a leaked e-mail to Clinton deputy John Podesta did not reveal a 'master plan' for maintaining political power via 'an unaware and compliant citizenry.'" ..."
"... I use work in these circles and the soul crushing thing is that elites look out for themselves and their careers and have no real personality, morals, values, character, backbone and certainly no interest in the people. They have personalities of wet fish and are generally cowardice and an embarrassment to mankind. In sort a waste of space ..."
The emails currently roiling the US presidential campaign are part of some unknown digital
collection amassed by the troublesome Anthony Weiner, but if your purpose is to understand the clique
of people who dominate Washington today, the emails that really matter are the ones being slowly
released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta.
They are last week's scandal in a year running over with scandals, but in truth their significance
goes far beyond mere scandal: they are a window into the soul of the Democratic party and into the
dreams and thoughts of the class to whom the party answers.
The class to which I refer is not rising in angry protest; they are by and large pretty satisfied,
pretty contented. Nobody takes road trips to exotic West Virginia to see what the members of this
class looks like or how they live; on the contrary, they are the ones for whom such stories are written.
This bunch doesn't have to make do with a comb-over TV mountebank for a leader; for this class, the
choices are always pretty good, and this year they happen to be excellent.
They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They are also
the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of our streets;
the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to fix social security
or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think, not a class at all but
rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.
...I think the WikiLeaks releases furnish us with an opportunity to observe the upper reaches
of the American status hierarchy in all its righteousness and majesty.
The dramatis personae of the liberal class are all present in this amazing body of work: financial
innovators. High-achieving colleagues attempting to get jobs for their high-achieving children. Foundation
executives doing fine and noble things. Prizes, of course, and high academic achievement.
...Hillary's ingratiating speeches to Wall Street are well known of course, but what is remarkable
is that, in the party of Jackson and Bryan and Roosevelt, smiling financiers now seem to stand on
every corner, constantly proffering advice about this and that. In one now-famous email chain, for
example, the reader can watch current US trade representative Michael Froman, writing from a Citibank
email address in 2008, appear to name President Obama's cabinet even before the great hope-and-change
election was decided (incidentally, an important clue to understanding why that greatest of zombie
banks was never put out of its misery).
The far-sighted innovators of Silicon Valley are also here in force, interacting all the time
with the leaders of the party of the people. We watch as Podesta appears to email Sheryl Sandberg.
He makes plans to visit Mark Zuckerberg (who, according to one missive, wants to "learn more about
next steps for his philanthropy and social action"). Podesta exchanges emails with an entrepreneur
about an ugly race now unfolding for Silicon Valley's seat in Congress; this man, in turn, appears
to forward to Podesta the remarks of yet another Silicon Valley grandee, who complains that one of
the Democratic combatants in that fight was criticizing billionaires who give to Democrats. Specifically,
the miscreant Dem in question was said to be:
"… spinning (and attacking) donors who have supported Democrats. John Arnold and Marc Leder
have both given to Cory Booker, Joe Kennedy, and others. He is also attacking every billionaire
that donates to [Congressional candidate] Ro [Khanna], many whom support other Democrats as well."
Attacking billionaires! In the year 2015! It was, one of the correspondents appears to write,
"madness and political malpractice of the party to allow this to continue".
There are wonderful things to be found in this treasure trove when you search the gilded words
"Davos" or "Tahoe".
... ... ...
Then there is the apparent nepotism, the dozens if not hundreds of mundane emails in which petitioners
for this or that plum Washington job or high-profile academic appointment politely appeal to Podesta
– the ward-heeler of the meritocratic elite – for a solicitous word whispered in the ear of a powerful
crony.
This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids,
points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their
loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else. Of course Hillary Clinton staffed
her state department with investment bankers and then did speaking engagements for investment banks
as soon as she was done at the state department. Of course she appears to think that any kind of
bank reform should "come from the industry itself". And of course no elite bankers were ever prosecuted
by the Obama administration. Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people
at the top tier of American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another's
careers, constantly.
Everything blurs into everything else in this world. The state department, the banks, Silicon
Valley, the nonprofits, the "Global CEO Advisory Firm" that appears to have solicited donations for
the Clinton Foundation. Executives here go from foundation to government to thinktank to startup.
There are honors. Venture capital. Foundation grants. Endowed chairs. Advanced degrees. For them
the door revolves. The friends all succeed. They break every boundary.
But the One Big Boundary remains. Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't
part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're
out.
It's all polyarchy,plutocracy and powerful lobbyists for the arms and finance industries. The
average US citizen counts for nothing. The higher up on the socio-economic scale you are, the
more you count. Except for a brainwashed vote once every 4 years.
From today's Guardian…
"US politics tends to be portrayed as driven by geopolitical interests rather than personalities,
and so most ordinary Russians assume that little will change, whoever wins."
"And nothing will change for the average US citizen, just like in Britain. Looks like most ordinary
Russians have got it spot on.
And as if that were not enough, the elections are 'rigged' in various ways.
Americans have a great responsibility not only to their country but to other so-called advanced
western democracies which follow they US model. A radical change in US politics to bring it in line
with genuine concern for the interests of the average citizen would greatly assist efforts here on
the other side of the Atlantic to do the same.
Astonishing that registered Democrats rejected one of the cleanest politicians in modern US
history in order to nominate the Queen of Wall St. What do they hope to gain from expanded corporate
globalism and entrenchment of the corporate coup d'etat at home?
Except that it was the same party grandees (Super-delegates - the very word sticks in your
throat no?) who all but confirmed Clinton's appointment before a single ballot was cast by the
party rank and file.
"What is remarkable is that, in the party of Jackson and Bryan and Roosevelt, smiling financiers
now seem to stand on every corner, constantly proffering advice about this and that".
Spot on. There's amnesia today about where the Democratic party historically stood in regard
to Wall Street and its interests.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
Real issues - like economic well-being for all - have been replaced by Democrats with mindless
identity politics. Clinton is literally running on "I will spend half a billion to reduce bullying",
on unisex bathrooms, and more women of color everywhere.
Is that what democracy should be all about? FDR and other real Democrats would die laughing
if they would see these current "progressive liberals" - they stand for nothing, they are a total
waste of time, as Obama so amply demonstrated.
The warning signals were screaming months ago and the mass media concocted a smear campaign against
Sanders because he wasn't owned and he was the wrong gender.
Sanders would have destroyed Trump in this election.
Yes he did endorse her. Because it is customary for the losing candidate(s) in the nomination
race to do so. He said he would endorse her if she won, right from the start of the process. For
the patently obvious reason, which he repeated again and again, that even a compromised HRC is
far better than Donald Trump.
And he kept his word, but not before he did his level best during the convention to get some
decent policies jammed into the Democratic Party platform.
And if the same sort of leakage had come from the Republicans you'd see exactly the same patronage
and influence peddling. If there's one area of politics that remains truly bipartisan it's the
gravitational pull of large sums of money.
We even read the pleadings of a man who wants to be invited to a state dinner at the White
House and who offers, as one of several exhibits in his favor, the fact that he "joined the DSCC
Majority Trust in Martha's Vineyard (contributing over $32,400 to Democratic senators) in July
2014".
Then there is the apparent nepotism, the dozens if not hundreds of mundane emails in which
petitioners for this or that plum Washington job or high-profile academic appointment politely
appeal to Podesta – the ward-heeler of the meritocratic elite – for a solicitous word whispered
in the ear of a powerful crony.
Something timeless about it all, isn't there? Like reading an account of court life in the
era of Charles II.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
There's nothing revelatory in the fact that this is happening among the Democrats, there is surely
a carbon copy going on with the Republicans! But somehow I don't think Wikileaks will be releasing
anything about that, until the GoP happens to do something that steps on Putin's toes...
We'll find out the truth about how Wikileaks operates one day. The alignment between Wikileaks
releases and interests of Russian foreign policy became suspicious a long time before you read
on Breitbart that Clinton made it up. And I wasn't in any way denying or diminishing the activities
described in the article. There are just better articles out there, which consider corruption
in "the system" from all sides - which is exactly how it should be viewed, not more of this divide
and conquer bullshit.
It is clear that rigging had taken place in the Democrat primaries, Bernie Sanders was more popular
with a big chunk of the electorate including the young, here in the Guardian few people had a
bad word to say about him, compare that to Hillary who's only strong point seems to be that she
is a safer choice than Trump.
I'm not so sure anymore either. For the world, maybe Trump is better in the end (ofc Clinton is
by far better for the US). I knew what a hawk Clinton is but seeing her "obliterate Iran" comments
made me think she might be even more dangerous than I thought.
The corollary is, Trump is the only candidate that Hillary can beat. That bares some thinking
over, I believe, especially in the light of the way we know the political system and the Democrats
in particular work. Oh well . . .
It didn't matter so much when the right-wing parties were puppets of billionaires.
The political crisis arrived when the supposedly "left-wing" parties sold out to them too.
At which point, democratic choice evaporated.
Financial interests have today captured the entire body-politic of Britain and America, and
it really doesn't matter which party you vote for - Goldman Sachs will call the shots regardless.
And they see you as simply a cash-cow to be milked for the benefit of the very rich, themselves
included.
Your general point is broadly accurate - however I would have second thoughts before singling
out Goldman Sachs any more than say Morgan Stanley , Citigroup or Bank of America.
I think he meant Goldman Sachs as a term for the larger banking group of interests (as you listed).
Some call them the 'white shoe boys'. Everyone knows the banks control everything now.
you've got it the wrong way round....it's the groups you mention that plead NOT speak with politicians.
Please don't include those running hospitals and universities with the worldwide business and
finance mafia.
"This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids,
points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class:
their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else."
This is quite a mundane observation. To which social group does a tendency for in-group loyalty
NOT apply? I think what it actually shows is that high status people mix together and are more
confident in using such forms of communication with powerful people (with whom they assume a connection)
for personal gain. Hardly surprising. And also only applies to the sample - those who emailed
- rather than the general class. That is, it's a bad sample because it is self selecting, and
therefore says something more about people who are willing to communicate in this way, rather
than their broader class.
So to be clear, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. One is about how often you are loyal
to your group, and the other is about the nature of loyalty itself.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
That the people at the very top of their industry and professions know each other and communicate
with each other is hardly a surprise. Nor is it bad - it helps the world to function. Nor is it
necessarily corrupt provided they operate within the law. What is important is that getting to
the top of these professions is an opportunity open to everyone with the ability and the drive.
That, sadly, is not the case. Nepotism does not help either.
These people at the top of their professions have a track-record of abysmal failure. Goldman Sachs,
Citigroup and the other banks should have been allowed to collapse in 2008, as fitting punishment
for their greed and incompetence. Instead, they used their paid-for access to the Bush White House
to demand and acquire a trillion-dollar bailout.
[neo]Liberal may be a dirty word to call someone in America but the author of this piece seems
unaware it doesn't work quite the same way the other side of the Atlantic. May I suggest panty-waisted
pointy-head instead?
Better yet: Globalist. Its an underlying theme that we have seen unite the Clintons and Bush/Romney
families in this election cycle...we now know who the enemy is, and they have infiltrated both
the Democrats and the Republicans. They have a secret badge they wear pledging an allegiance to
a higher power: the Clinton/Bush/Romney families are the jack-booted thugs of the American globalists.
The more the administrative class' borderless "humanism" aligns with the oligarchy's desire for
cheap labor, the less objectionable those cuddly persons become.
It's very easy to make a case that HRC is unfit for the presidency... Except for the fact the
alternative is Trump. A clique arranges matters for themselves and the electorate is basically
told to go to hell.
What is over there is on it's way over here if it hasn't happened already. You can build big
corporations with a flourishing financial sector or you can build a nation. I would say choose
but you don't get a choice.
Good job in presenting Hillary as the poor victim, when she has the whole weight of the neo-liberal
media-banking system behind her... Next up in Orwell land...
"Along with the concept of American Dream runs the notion that every man and woman is entitled
to an opinion and to one vote, no matter how ridiculous that opinion might be or how uninformed
the vote. It could be that the Borderer Presbyterian tradition of "stand up and say your rightful
piece" contributed to the American notion that our gut-level but uninformed opinions are some
sort of unvarnished foundational political truths.
I have been told that this is because we redneck working-class Scots Irish suffer from what
psychiatrists call "no insight".
Consequently, we will never agree with anyone outside our zone of ignorance because our belligerent
Borderer pride insists on the right to be dangerously wrong about everything while telling those
who are more educated to "bite my ass!"
― Joe Bageant, Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War
A meritocracy always crashes and crushes its actors and puppet masters whenever merit is neither
exhibited nor warranted ...... for then is it too much alike a fraudulent ponzi to be anything
else.
What Americans need to ask themselves is: Are they happy with things as they are after 8 years
of Obama? Do they want more of the same + the Clinton's insatiable appetite for self-enrichmentand
that permanent insincere smile? If not, why not give Trump a chance. If they don't like him, kick
him out in four years' time.
Are Americans happy with things as they are after 8 years of a Republican Congress stonewalling
every attempt to improve things for ordinary people, even shutting down the whole government in
pursuit of their partisan agenda? The childish antics of our 'democratic representatives' have
diminished the ideals of democracy and would sink even further with Trump, who could do a lot
of damage in four years.
Bit ironic, given your user name "noteasilyfooled". You are aware that Donald Trump (in spite
of several attempts to lose his fortune) is a billionaire?
It has been ongoing through out history, ancient Greece and the beginning of democracy, Romans,
Kings, Queens, courts and courtiers. Is it really a surprise that if you do not have a Harvard
MBA, you won't rise through the ranks of Goldman's and McKinsey? It's no different here in England,
£50,000 and up to dine with Dave and George last year.
Most of the population trusts who they elect to do the jobs they themselves would not do or
could not do, it's steeped in history that the well educated take the helm. Politics is nepotism
and money has always played a very large part, for every party, not just the democrats. Let's
not pretend the republicans are innocent saints in all of this, if Wikileaks were to delve into
their actions there would be a shit storm, remember the NRA is part and parcel of the Republican
party.
Most of the population trusts who they elect to do the jobs they themselves would not do or
could not do
Not sure we do .. We're totally apathetic and cynical in regards to politics, and certainly
those who put themselves forward mostly aren't up to the job but are seemingly unemployable elsewhere;
look no further than the last PM and his idiot chum, and now the current PM and her front bench.
Would you employ 'em?..
Ehm, sorry, no. Remember there is a word, democracy , which is taken to mean that governments
act according to the wishes of the people who elected them. Your petty partisanship is blinding
you.
They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They
are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers
of our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan
to fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they
think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered
to but who need never explain themselves.
This is across the WHOLE of the West no matter whether right leaning or left leaning.
The really interesting question is whether it has always been like this (and we just don't have
the emails to prove it) or whether this is a fairly new phenomenon. My feeling is this sort
of behaviour has its equivalents throughout history and that when it peaks we have upheaval and
decline.
The current malaise goes back a long way but was catalysed by the end of the Cold War. Because
the West 'won' with a system of liberal capitalist democracy, politics took a back seat to business
interests. The Clintonian and Blairite 'third way' was billed as a practical compromise but the
reality was an abdication of politics. Into this vacuum stepped the kind of self-serving elite
the Podesta emails reveal. Arrangements are starting to break down and Michael Gove's much derided
statement that people have 'had enough of experts' is actually the most insightful thing that
has been said about 21st Century politics so far.
Yes, yes, Thomas. But one click on your name reveals an approach to these elections which about
as unbiased against Clinton as Comley's - it's pretty clear who you want to win.
Among other things, if Trump wins, though, there will be war in Europe within 2 years, as Putin
grabs the Baltic states and the USA sits back, arms folded - you heard it here first.
And by electing Trump, we are trying to fuck up all of the people you mention in your article
above. We can't completely, but through things like term limits we can make Washington a city
full of strangers to them. It is much more difficult to deal with strangers in the "back room"
as you can't trust them.
We need to make Washington as inaccessible to those folks as it is to Main Street America.
We have to break America for these globalist elites before America will work for Main Street
again.
Because the American oligarchy has now turned globalist, their goals are now contrary to those
of the American people, and that's why all Hillary has is empty slogans like "I'll fight for you"
while Trump is saying tangible things like "I'll build a wall" and "I'll renegotiate or tear up
NAFTA."
We are done with them, and this is just getting started.
"Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous
in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're out."
What's particularly interesting is to contrast the main-chance sleaziness of their internal jockeying
with the overwhelming self-righteousness of their pronouncements on public issues. No wonder the
voters want revenge.
Of course you are quite correct, the Democratic Party is a fraud for working people and a
collection of self serving elitist. If you have a solution to solve why people keep voting for
them I would love to hear it.
I think the point is that all politics is the same, democrat or republican. These people are self
serving leeches on the rest of society and they have us thanking them for it......well in the
USA they have you mindlessly chanting USA USA USA over and over again but you get my drift.
Wikileaks doesn't get 'directed'. It's very likely the leaks are from the inside of the Clinton
campaign. They've been very sloppy and not very tech savvy by all accounts.
That such a state of affairs exists is no surprise at all, especially as the whole proclaimed
basis of society in America is designed to produce it exactly.
They may couch it in different terms and dress it up to look like 'democracy and freedom',
but it is a selfish, greedy stampede where only the lucky or the nasty succeed.
We are forever told that anyone can achieve the 'American dream', but it is a complete myth.
The idea that if everyone just puts in the effort they could all live in limitless luxury is such
a false illusion you wonder why it hasn't been buried along with believing the world is flat and
the sun is a god.
no they don't! The freedom and democracy is just bullshot that cons the populace to not see that
it's really "nick all your stuff under the threat of violence". They're gangsters. That's all
they do.
Seriously? Your story is powerful people associate with each other and do each other favours?
Absent a pure dictatorship, that's how power works. Even then, I happen to know you're inferring
too much design in some of the events you describe.
This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their
kids, points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this
class: their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else.
We all know how people in power act in their own interests and that goes for both Parties, not
only the one singled out in this article.
What is less clear is how all this hysteria about personalities makes any difference to ordinary
people whose interests have been entirely sidelined in this election circus. Where is the discussion
about how Americans can get affordable healthcare, or a job that pays more than the minimum, or
how to respond to climate change, for instance?
The US presidential race signifies the way the political process has become irrevocably debased.
The e-mails merely highlight the cynicism of politicians who long ago ceded power to the financial
and corporate world.
Politicians don't really understand the complexities of finance, in the same way they are unable
to fathom the Middle east, or even what life has become like for huge swathes of the American
population. At the same time politicians have long ceased to be the engine of social progress,
in fact more often than not their policies are more likely to do great harm rather than good.
If anybody is surprised by the general tenor of these e-mails I assume they must have been
the sort of children who were heartbroken when one day their parents gently sat them down to break
it to them that Santa was actually Daddy in an oversized red suit.
" The dramatis personae of the liberal class are all present in this amazing body of work:
financial innovators. High-achieving colleagues attempting to get jobs for their high-achieving
children. Foundation executives doing fine and noble things. Prizes, of course, and high academic
achievement."
I am sure the people of Syria and Libya are grateful to these amazing people for destroying
their countries and stealing their resources.
Just look over here as former politicians get on the gravy train as they lose their seats or retire.
As for the Eton alumni - closer than the mafia ....
Yes ...just look at thsi stunning revent incisive Guardian journam=lism that has helped break
this open
"But if she wins, what an added bonus that, as the first woman to enter the White House, she
will also step through the door as by far the most qualified and experienced arrival there for
generations."
"Forget the FBI cache; the Podesta emails show how America is run"
First, no, no one in his right mind should forget the FBI cache which very likely contains
evidence of serious crimes by Clinton.
At the very least, they can prove she did not comply with subpoenas and destroyed evidence
and lied to the FBI.
Second, yes, the Podesta e-mails do show us something of how America is run, but the picture
is far from complete.
We've not had a enough look into the Clinton Foundation and its intertwining with the affairs
of a very senior official and the President himself.
One very much suspects Hillary of playing "pay for play" with foreign governments, much the
kind of corruption the US loves to accuse less-developed countries of.
After all, when the Clintons were in the White House, fund-raising gimmicks reached unprecedented
levels. President Bill came up with the offer of a sleep-over in the Lincoln Bedroom for rich
supporters who coughed up a $250,000 campaign contribution.
There are many indications, but no hard proof, of just how corrupt this foundation is. One
analyst who has spent some time studying it has called it a huge criminal scheme.
Let's not forget that Julian Assange, the man who gave us the Podesta material, has promised
revelations "which could put Hillary in jail" before the election.
You're right of course. All of politics is about doing favors for people high and low, you scratch
my back and I'll scratch yours. In the entire article the one real scandalous thing is that it
quotes from hacked personal emails that no on but those who wrote them have a right to see.
If anyone thinks that the immediate solution to not backing this type of behavior from one of
the major political parties is to elect a huckster riding the wave of righteous revulsion to all
of this, then they deserve everything that they will get when said huckster gets to the pinnacle
of power.
The solution does not lie with the other major political party either, boy would I love to
see a release of emails detailing how that organization is run. It is already in collapse due
to the eroding corruption resulting in downright robbery of the people, and on-going bigotry and
constant war-mongering to rob the world of its assets.
Nothing will happen to change any of this unless a realistic third party based on true service
to the people of this country gains national acceptance. The best thing that could come from these
emails and the fracturing of the Republican party would be that all disillusioned and disgruntled
citizens unite to form this third party. This will take the emergence of some genuine, selfless
leadership, but I have hopes that this can and will happen.
Otherwise, the future is not rosy, and one day we may look back at this hateful campaign with
nostalgia.
We have our own elite clubs in this country some of which have been here for centuries. All members
regardless of Party are connected through elite school networks and by of course the class system
which is copper fastened to keep the great unwashed out. Corruption, nepotism and cronyism are
all present here too even if concealed by the veil of respectability and having the right postcode.
From the comfort of their clubs, their marble homes and granite banks they rob the people of Britain
and the world.
I'd recommend reading "The Unwinding - An Inner History of the new America" by George Packer who
dissects this very well via potted biographies of several real people. The book also covers it's
opposite - the rising unemployment, de-industrialisation, repossessions and other themes. A very
useful background for understanding this election and whatever comes after. And a good read too
which can't always be said about such books.
Trump supporters say that Trump is not a politician or part of the Washington "establishment"
but he has built his empire by buying politicians for years. His flock is so fooled.
As someone who started in poverty and rose to do well through lots of hard work and lots of good
luck, the "revelation" that this country is controlled by a smug elite is not news. I may be liberal
but I have no illusions about the elitism and exclusionism that ruling cadres always exhibit.
And if I could achieve one thing, politically, in this lifetime it would be to break the back
of privilege in this country and on this planet forever, and make true meritocracy -- not cronyism,
not nepotism, not herdeitary wealth and power -- the ONLY determinant of success.
Then setup/ join a grassroots party.
I would like to see a pan-European, non-ideological party which will focus on getting people out
of the debt economy into economic and financial freedom. The price of housing and transportation
and education needs to be addressed. There needs to be less government, fewer MPs and more room
for people who create value and employment. There is a lot of innovation out there online for
example, but the mass of people are not being exposed to these options. A
This is how the rich, powerful and landed interest in all societies work. Constitutional democracy
was supposed to counter it`s worst excesses.
Voters everywhere understand how their governments have been subverted and that is why politicians
are mistrusted.
I was confused by your spelling for a second - David Icke.
One theory states that society would have had to crate a similar model if Icke hadn't provided
us with one. It is also, probably, better to blame alien overlords to human ones.
This is a pretty tame assessment. The more I see about HRC (who I once respected, not that long
ago) the more angry and saddened I feel. The Dems have lost their connection with the people they
were meant to represent. What's left is a pretty ugly, self-righteous and corrupt crowd. Their
attacks on Comey have been despicable, beneath contempt and absurd. I think they're going to lose
and they will deserve to.
The funniest thing about the comments of this article is the people who claim that electing Trump
will be different somehow. Trump will demolish the system, Trump will shake things up! Please!
Trump IS a part of this system, a system that has two clubs, A and B. Each club has its interests
and each club wants to elect a figure that would represent its interests. Moreover, clubs A and
B really work together, they are two groups of shareholders that are sometimes in disagreement
in the distribution of profit, but at the bottom line they are working for the same goal, the
enrichment of themselves and their associates. You have to be very naive to believe that POTUS,
a mere public relations figure, would be allowed to make any significiant executive decisions
in this company. That's not what a public relations officer does. The real decisions are with
the executives of the club, and they are not elected, they are admitted into the club. The real
question, however, is if it can be otherwise, if it has ever been otherwise, can we conceive of
a system that would be different. This should be the concern of all political experts, scientists
and journalists.
Yeah but he's going to build a wall, lock her up, tear up trade agreements with the neighbours,
bar Muslims from coming to the USA, create millions of well-paid jobs, open up loads of coal mines,
have a trade war with China, end lobbying, establish limited terms (if only a president could
have a third term) and sue umpteen women for alleging sexual assault.
"Just a bunch of expensive suits deciding on what's best for the world (and themselves)"
That's the wrong emphasis based on the points made in this article; surely it is "Just a bunch
of expensive suits deciding on what's best for the themselves (and the world)".
sanders said it and trump, an insider of independent means, are both right about the Clinton duo's
sleazy corruption. thank you Wikileaks, thank you perv Weiner, thank you Huma for sharing (one
of your) computers with your sex-fiend husband. thank you for sharing your total honesty and high
morality, all deserving that we citizens pay your pensions and salaries.
Its taken a while but i think I've decided. I genuinely want Clinton to lose, i think Trump will
be a disastrous president and the worst in history by far, and worse then Clinton.
That said
Clinton and the DNC deserve to lose for the horrific way they treated Sanders in the nomination
to see Clinton crowned the candidate... she does not deserve to win and i cannot face that smug
arrogant speech which will come if she does much less the next 4-8 years.
Lobbying, influence then a thin line to break into corruption and the system being run for the
selfish interest of the tiny few against the majority. The US is no exception to this, it is just
done more subtly with a smokescreen and sleight of hand.
I'm not sure where the "news" is in this piece. The same rules of engagement apply during Republican
administrations. The same rules of engagement apply in every administration in every country in
every part of our benighted World .... and, sadly, always have done. The only response to the
article that I can think of is that eternally useful Americanism ... "No s**t Sherlock."
it is the elite - both right and left wing who have accumulated all the power, know each other
very well and have one aim in life - to retain the power and priviledge for themselves, their
families and their peers - whether that is by social class, university, religion and yes race.
Bitter - you bet people are bitter - ignorant people who don't see they are all much of the same.
It's all about the power and the money that they have, you don't and you don't seem to care. Actually
you probably do have right power, money, class and race hence the pathetically flippant comment.
Well he's already aware of media bias and that a Deep State exists quietly in the background so
it will be interesting to see what happens after the election.
Brilliant. Absolutely and positively the best piece on the subject I have read. As an American,
once a cable installer who visited all the cliche homes of social-strata USA, I find a ray of
hope ij what you write. It is a hope that Americans will just admit the unbelievable folly of
Hillary Clinton as a choice for dog catcher, much less Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces.
For God's sake, or the sake of Howard Hughes even, this group would nuke Idaho for not approving
of a transexual-animal wedding ceremony, let along disagreeing on healthcare. You have framed
and illuminated a portrait of the macabre aristocracy now in charge. I hope more people read this.
Neither of the two main political parties have a candidate worth anyone's time. The choice
is between a sexual predator and a serial liar to see who will lead the richest most powerful
country on the face of the earth and these two are what the parties have puked up for us to choose
between. I cant imagine a general or admiral sitting in front of either of these two specimens
and thinking themselves proud to be led by them.
This entire cycle is a disgrace, vote for Hillary, impeach her in a year stick Kaine in as
a caretaker and then have a proper election in 2020, its the only sane way out of this disaster.
"Sexual predator", really? You mean like Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton, 2 men with RAPE accusations
following them around for decades? All Trump did was kiss women in show biz and beauty contests,
and they LET him. I guess you never saw Richard Dawson on Family Feud?
You know damn well, people who get to the top in so called western capitalist representative democracy,
only represent themselves. The very idea they care about the people in general is totally demolished
by observing the evidence, how countries function and where the money flows to and where from.
The people are no better than domesticated cattle being led out to graze and brought back in
the evening to be milked. Marx was right when he talked about wage slavery. The slavers are those
in the legislatures of the west.
I really like Thomas Frank, author of the brilliant Pity the Billionaire.
I can't help feeling here that he's really softballed the the US elite (the Democrats in this
case) by only mildly calling them on their epic corruption.
If seen from Main street, is it any wonder the US electorate have in their millions turned aournd
and said "no, you're not going to ensnare us again with your bullshit promises because you want
our vote, you are the problem and we're going to kick YOU out"
I mean how many times can they hope to fool the electorate with bought and paid for contestants,
all the while with the media having their back. When the media is as corrupt and 'owned' as the
US mainstream media, people look elsewhere and there they find voices that are far far more critical
of what their awful rulers get up to.
Trump and Clinton have been friends for years. So the electorate is fooled once again. Every time
the public start to get wind of what's going on, the establishment just adds another layer to
the onion. By the time the hoi polloi catch up, they've siphoned tens of billions, hundreds of
billions for themselves, and created all new distractions and onion layers for the next election.
People are undeniably stupid.
This confirms the existence of a shadow government, made up of rich and powerful industrialists
and bankers who control the way elections results turn out, so that they can help themselves.
From their standpoint, Trump will be a wart in their rear end, because he basically lacks the
sophistication needed to hide excretion under the carpet and walk over it smiling. He is already
full of it and therefore is of no use to them. They did not expect him to come this far. There
is a first time surprise for everything. They did not expect Sanders to gain momentum either.
But they managed to contain it, phew! Now with Clinton, they can continue with their merry ways,
earning billions more, settings fires across the globe and making more profits out them. It is
not just the Democratic party that is full of stench. It includes the other party as well. Right
wing and left wing belong to the same bird. All the campaign for voting, right to vote, participate
etc. are just window wash. American democracy is buried deep in the Arlington cemetery. What runs
now is Plutocracy, whose roots have cracked through the foundations and pillars of this country.
Either a bloody revolution will happen one day soon or America will go the way of Brazil.
The US public are pretty happy generally with extra-judicial killing (we call that murder in
the UK, remember this for later on in the post), seems little concern about the on-record comments
of Clinton regarding Libya.
In fact the on-record comments of Clinton generally, that doesn't even involve hacked email
accounts, are absolutely damning to most Europeans.
However.. here in the UK what passes for satire comedy TV shows have rigorously stuck to the
line Trump is an idiot, Clinton is a democrat.
I can understand their fascination with Trump.. he's an easy target.. but nobody in the UK media
seems to have the balls to call out the fact that Clinton is neck deep in 'extra judicial killing',
which I find odd.. More importantly I find this to be an absolutely damning indictment of British
media. This organ not withstanding.
Interesting, but this just tells of the usual cronyism and nepotism; unedifying as it is. We see
very little here though of her true masters; i.e. Goldman Sachs; or more specifically the people
who own GS who are Hiliary's puppet masters. I would be more worried about Hiliarys ambition apparently
to push for a conflict with Russia; a conflict that serves the Military industrial complex and
the bankers that own it. DT may be a Narcicist but as Michael Moore says; "the enemy of my enemy....."
It's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous
in-group – if you don't have XYZ's email address – you're out.
Great article that makes you think as a reader. For instance, though more ethical, it makes
you wonder how things are different in the BBC or The Guardian, or NYT, or other powerful organisations.
How far does merit count, how far does having the right background, how far not rocking the boat?
Hopefully the article will inspire others to look into the leaderships of American politics where
"everything blurs into everything in this world'.
The most shocking emails to me were the ones that revealed the Democratic Party had a substantial
role in creating and organizing groups like Catholics United, with the intent of using them to
try to liberalize the Catholic Church on issues like abortion and same sex marriage.
The same people who (rightly) cried foul over GW Bush crossing the church/state divide apparently
had no problem doing the same thing when it suited their agenda. I tend to vote Democratic, but
I don't know if I can continue to do that in the future. This kind of thing should not be happening
in America.
With a constitution like that of the US, with its establishment parties sharing a bought and sold
executive evey few years, and in the absence of representative parliamentary democracy, the psuedo
macarthyist insinuations of this article are as civilized as it can get.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599
"And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in
general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong
but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking
- and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging."
And there is the thinking of the elite rolled into a few sentences.
"Former National Endowment for the Arts chairman Bill Ivey says a leaked e-mail to Clinton
deputy John Podesta did not reveal a 'master plan' for maintaining political power via 'an unaware
and compliant citizenry.'"
One might think that after reading this article, that a liberal/progressive like me would hate
the Democratic Party and all of the elites in it. Well, you would be right (no pun intended),
but the folks that I really despise are on the GOP side of the equation.
My animosity begins with Eisenhower, who turned the Dulles brother lose on the world to start
so many of the fires that still rage today. Then came Nixon, with his "southern strategy", to
turn the hate and racism that existed in America since its founding into a political philosophy
that only an ignorant, half-assed Hollywood actor could fully weaponize. Then there was GWB who
threw jet fuel onto the still smoldering ashes left from the Dulles boys.
(And if you think you can throw LBJ back at me, consider that he saw no way out of Vietnam
simply because he knew the right was accuse him of being soft on communism - and so the big fool
pushed ever deeper into the Big Muddy.)
And the toxic fumes from those blazes then drifted over Donald J Trump and his fellow 16 clown
car occupants - all trying to out-hate each other.
There is simply no alternative to the Democratic Party because the GOP represents hate, misogyny,
racism, and the zombie legions that catered to the corporatocracy and the Christian right. It
was such a winning strategy that the Democratic Party created the Democratic Leadership Council
(DLC) - led by the likes of the Clinton's who out-repug'd the Repugnants, and stole their corporate
lunches. And this is what we have left (no pun intended).
First, Frank misunderstood Kansas. Now he says he was blind to the reality of the Democratic party
until the Podesta emails enlightened him. He's right though that the Democrats are never out of
power whether they win or lose elections (although it's always more convenient to win them, even
with a Clinton and the knowledge that he or she means nasty baggage to come). Republicans have
a lock on country clubs; Dems have a lock on government.
i understand that the republicans make up most of the governor positions as well as state houses
plus the fed. senate and congress...that is why america is now a banana republic [re: see the
fbi interference] and is why america is now an embarassment...run as it is by the republican duck
dynasty intellectual class. stay tuned as fascism follows. please don't stand close to me...you're
an american and embarrassing....
Trust me, middle and lower-class people also try to let eachother know that their kids need a
job, and can you help out. And I don't mind the bank exec promoting the dinner of locally grown/caught
produce with the tastesful wine pairing. Certainly pretty twee, but otherwise pretty normal.
What should be concentrated on is the amount of "OMG, they are complaining about billionaires!"
whining in these emails, and the amount of manipulative news cycle management and duplicitous
skullduggery that takes place.
And how about a law that prevents the Clintons from even stepping on Martha's Vineyard for
at least 4-5 years?
In all, a somewhat depressing but predictable confirmation that the Democratic party has embraced
the donor class to the extent that the donors are now the party's true constituents.
A self-interested, self-promoting, self-protecting "Elite" seeks to control and dominate. Clinton
is clearly integral to this abhorrent system. The USA is in desperate need of change yet the political
system is the antidote to any change. Trump is not the answer. Americans should be very worried.
The only benefit to Trump winning is that both parties will be blown up and recreated with new,
fresh faces - and Trump will be impeached within months.
Why isn't Trump the answer? No one can give me a valid rational reason. He is one of the few who
has shone light on the Swamp and is bringing the woke corrupt world down.
that elite you speak of happen to be your fellow americans and live on your street..unless of
course you live in a trailer park..in which case stop your whining and get yourself an education
and a better job instead of spending all your time watching wrestling and celebrity apprentice
and moaning about the elite...i notice trump hired his stupid kids instead of cracker jack executives...i
guess thats some of the nepotism you're crying about....ya rube.
Trump is different though. He socialized in these environments...the politicians...use hit him
up for donations....gossip too him about the goings on even try and sleep with him .
Trump does not drink so at these events he probably heard unlimited stories maybe even Bill Clinton
bragged to him.
For what ever reason he wants to bring
This scum down. Maybe they disgust him like they disgust us?
'This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids,
' I ss written as evidence of nepotism. But there is no mention of whether or not these requests
were successful. Nepotism requires that the person requesting the favour is granted it.
lol no she doesn't. she doesnt want single payer, neither did obama. she doesnt want a liberal
supreme court. she doesn't want the minimum wage raised to 15. she may support race gender lbgt
"fairness" as long as it is to her political advantage. but when it isn't, she will throw anybody
under the bus.
"Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people at the top tier of
American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another's careers,
constantly."
As long as that class division exists, nothing will ever change, and that class will never
relinquish that division of their own accord.
How different is this from anywhere else on the planet? There will always be " elites" composed
of well connected and/or powerful and/ or wealthy and/or famous people.
I have a good job in a good firm and i am inundated by emails from clients or their friends
trying to place their offspring. I decline politely, blame HR and PC, express my sincerest regrets
and delete.
As for wealthy and powerful people enjoying holidays in the company of other wealthy and powerful
people, so what? I spend my holiday with my friends and my friends tend to have the same professional
middle class background and outlook.
She should have said ."You guys are a bunch of cowardly, greedy, malformed humans. You are the
cream of everything wrong with society today.. And the worse of it all is,. you know it too. I
can smell it in this very room."
That's what!
If we followed the likes of Frank Democrats would be out of power for ever.
No, these Democrats would merely be members of the Republican Party, honestly declaring that the
people with money make the rules to benefit themselves. What's the moral point of being in power
if you have to be just as bad as the opposing party in order to stay in power?
I use work in these circles and the soul crushing thing is that elites look out for themselves
and their careers and have no real personality, morals, values, character, backbone and certainly
no interest in the people. They have personalities of wet fish and are generally cowardice and
an embarrassment to mankind. In sort a waste of space
A meritocracy wouldn't have such hob-nobbing going on for positions of power. There'd be no reason
to ask for special consideration for 'Johnny' -- since he would already have risen to the top
based on his own MERIT. So I don't understand why this author keeps insisting that this is a meritocracy
when the evidence is so clearly and so obviously the opposite.
Once upon a time these emails would have been front and centre of Guardian reporting, headline
news and leader columns, now a single opinion article tucked away from the front page. Truly the
gatekeepers have lost just as much credibility as the political class that they shill for.
It is well known that there is a deep state operating in America, if you want to learn something
instead of sneering and being ignorant, you could do worse than reading books such as these:
This is happening in America, which has always claimed that there are no classes here and everything
is done according to merit. So, yes, it's exactly like the triad you mention and it is the more
offensive for occurring in a country that expressly repudiates it.
That article adds up to zero, it does not tell us anything. There are people with networks, and
people promote other people they know. Nothing peculiar about this, it works like this in every
walk of life. By and large people with high stakes will choose other people who they know can
get very hard jobs done, otherwise their project becomes a failure. Can other talented people
break into these networks? They can and they do.
he's pretty powerful yes. he just runs interference for clinton controlled foundations as far
as i know, but i'm sure he will help out the big banks if called upon. your comment reeks of dishonesty.
The Democrats are as bad if not worse than the Republicans at deceit, manipulation of the media,
leaking false information, feeding out a narrative etc..
Its basically become like an arms race between the 2 parties to win by any means necessary
because they are so polarized.
The system needs to be overhauled and changed because its not fit for the 21st century. The
UK political system too needs to modernise because its creaking as well.
Frank (What's the matter with Frank? Frank) misses the point. completely. The amazing thing about
all these emails is how absolutely squeaky clean Podesta is. How many of us could say the same
if our personal emails from the last 10 years were blasted all over the internet?!? Not one --
not one! -- example of intemperate language, of bias, of unchained passions, of immaturity. I'm
proud to be his fellow citizen and would gladly let him serve as Chief of Staff again if he so
chose. Go Italian-Americans!
The Democratic Party faces exactly the same problem as the Labour Party in the UK.
They are both parties which are supposed to represent the interests of the working class and
middle class but they have been infiltrated by corrupt right wing groups lining their own pockets
and representing the interests of the oligarchy.
The Labour and Democratic parties need to work together to get these poisonous people out of
their organisations before they destroy they destroy them from within.
This is all fascinating, and disturbing, but sadly, not a surprise.
It also isn't restricted to the upper echelons of political parties either.
It is no coincidence we hear the same comedians/pundits/writers on Radio Four every week.
It is no coincidence we see the same people on tv.
It is no coincidence the sons and daughters of sons and daughters of the people who went to certain
universities go the same universities.
It is no coincidence certain arts grants go to a certain group of people a lot more than they
go to others.
It is no coincidence that European grants go to the same small groups of people running organisations.
I'll wager it is no coincidence at the Guardian certain people get work experience and internships.
Its the way the world works, and it stinks.
Great essay. It is hard to get all the thoughts about the elite into words when so much anger
and confusion exist now that all lines have blurred. No longer left and right, but top to bottom.
Whereas the world is mostly very grey for the bulk of us, these emails shed a light very clearly
on what is black and white and green all over for a few who are really in control. This election
has certainly pulled back the curtain and left everyone exposed. For so long Americans could pretend
there was virtue and dignity in the "democratic" foundation of our politics, but now with absolute
certainly we can see that it is not so and likely never was. No pretending anymore.
The class to which I refer is not rising in angry protest; they are by and large pretty satisfied,
pretty contented. Nobody takes road trips to exotic West Virginia to see what the members of this
class looks like or how they live; on the contrary, they are the ones for whom such stories are
written. This bunch doesn't have to make do with a comb-over TV mountebank for a leader; for this
class, the choices are always pretty good, and this year they happen to be excellent.
They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They
are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of
our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to
fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think,
not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who
need never explain themselves.
This is a good point. A lot of people who torpedoed Bernie Sanders' campaign against Hillary
Clinton in the primaries seem to be comfortable with little or no political change. They do not
seem willing to admit that the political and economic system in the US (and elsewhere) is fundamentally
broken, and effectively is in ruins.
You' re saying that one bad effect of hacks is that email security will be improved and it will
be harder to have secure communications. In effect, you hate the idea that the NSA can read our
emails, but you're worried that the Russians won't be able to. Personally, I don't want either
the government or Wikileaks to invade my privacy. You apparently think that data theft is OK as
long as Julian Assange does it.
That's an ahistorical understanding of the party. Yes, in the runup to the Civil War, the 'Democratic'
party was the party of proto-white supremacists, slave owners, and agriculturalists. But the party
system as it exists today with its alignment of Dems = liberal and Republicans = conservative
came into being around/after 1968. Claiming that today's 'Democrats' voted against slavery is
like claiming that today's 'Republicans' are worthy of being lauded for being abolitionists -
which would be high hypocrisy given their habits of racism and black voter suppression.
Righteousness and majesty...They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened
ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.
Exactly what Bernie Sanders was against, just think what 'could' have happened if he were the
nominee. The question is when will the email explicitly showing Clinton undermining him come out?
Hillary deserves every bit of what is coming out against her, she asked for it, she wants the
power and celebrity, but it comes with some pretty ugly stuff. As Mr. Sanders said, she is very
'ambitious', an understatement. If nothing comes out to prove her malice against Mr. Sanders,
I will always be convinced it is there somewhere. Now because of what the Democrats did against
him that was proven and oh by the way 'the Russians did it', we have her running neck and neck
with Trump. They asked for it, they got it.
Why is it that literally all Western democracies have developed totally incapable and immoral
political elites at the same time who seem to be lacking any kind of ethical compass?
It is blatantly obvious in the USA where both candidates are almost equally abysmal, but for
different reasons. But the same is also true in Germany, Great Britain, France and most other
Western countries I can judge on. How did that happen? Where are the politicians who are doing
the job for other reasons than self-fulfillment and ideology?
Trump, Clinton, May, Johnson, Farage, Hollande, Sarkozy, Le Pen, Merkel, Gabriel, Petry ...
and the rest are all product of a political system that is in a deep crisis. And this comes from
someone who has always and will always believe in democracy as such. But how can we finally get
better representatives of our political system again?
What the writer is describing and what the e-mails reveal, is, for anyone with half a brain not
too dumbed down by partisanship; is the structure of a system that isn't democracy at all, but
clearly an oligarchy. The super-rich rule and the rest are occasionaly alowed to vote for a candidate
chosen by the rich, giving the illusion of democracy.
Yup, that about sums it up. Yet in the case the choice is truly awful.
And whilst we are here let's remember that the European Parliament is very democratic. The
US system or the UK System would never allow so many nut jobs from UKIP, FN, Lega Nord and various
other facists have a voice. The EU parliament is very representative.
Good read. Money is like manure and if you spread it around it does a lot of good. But if you
pile it up in one place, like Silicon Valley or the banks, eventually it will smell pretty bad
and attract a lot of flies, like the one that seems attracted to Hillary.
You get some idea of just how batty the US electoral campaign system is when you consider that
John Podesta is the guy who has hinted at 'exposing' the US government 'cover up' of UFOs...and
even got Hillary Clinton making statements about looking into Area 51. Well, that's the vote of
all the multitude of conspiracy loons nicely in the bag -- It only shows just how desperate the
campaigns are.
world history has always provided that the wealthy look after themselves. What's new? Here, both
American candidates are wealthy. But Clinton appears to want to look after others and other will
look at and after her. I'm not sure what Trump can look after, perhaps his business dealings and
bankruptcy triumphs, and lawsuits. Perhaps America is going through a new type of revolution,
generational and the massive entry of the post-industrial age in America. How many Americans are
screaming for the past, while at least one U.S. automakers shifts some of their factories to Mexico
- e.g., Chrysler.
We get the candidates we deserve, in any so-called democracy. The west worships money and glitz
and celebrity, willingly watches "reality" TV, and in general can aspire to nothing better than
material superiority over the neighbours. The U.S., with its pathetic "American Dream," is the
most egregious victim of its own obsessions. Bernie Sanders, who in Canada, Britain, or western
Europe would be considered centrist, is vilified as a raving socialist. Genuinely well-disposed
people with a more humane alternative political vision lack the necessary millions to gain public
attention. And so one is left with Business-as-Usual Hillary Clinton (mendacious elitist one-percenter)
or the duplicitous demagogue Donald Trump (mendacious vulgar one-percenter).
The internet should be a democratic forum for intelligent discussion of alternatives but has
become largely the province of trolls and wingnuts. We should be able to do better.
I'm with MarkusKraut; not because of what the e-mails have discovered - I suspect we all suspected
this kind of machinery from BOTH parties - but because their discovery is entirely one-sided.
What does it prove? That the Republicans are any better? Or that Don is any more qualified to
be president than he was two weeks ago?
No. It proves one thing, and one thing only - that Republicans keep secrets better than
Dems do. At least the important ones.
And I say that as someone who was a security administrator for ten years. And I can guarantee
you one thing (and one thing only): The Russians would NOT have got past any e-mail server that
I built.
My worry is now not who gets elected - this was always a ship of fools - or who's to blame
(although I'm sure we'll be told in the first "hundred days"), but what it means for democracy.
And don't worry, I'm not going to try to equate democracy with Hillary (although I still support
her); but about secrecy .
E-mail has always been the most likely medium to be cracked (the correct term for illegal
hacking), and secrecy is anathema to democracy - always was, and always will be.
And having been caught with their pants down, I'd like to see the Democratic party, win or lose
this election, to say that ALL future e-mails will be a matter of public record. And challenge
the GOP to do the same.
Unfortunately, it'll simply be viewed as a failure of security that any administrator like
me could tell you is almost impossible, and they'll simply buy better servers for 2020.
I've never felt any of the mail to be particularly surprising, but merely a demonstration of what
a NeoLiberal society, run by money, looks like at a more granular level. I won't vote for a Trump,
but living in California I can vote Green without having to pull the lever for a Clinton. If California
goes Trump, then every other state in the nation will have swirled down the drain with him.
In the book 'Who Rules America" written by William Domhoff, first published in 1967, it laid out
how the ruling class sits on each others boards of directors, (which he called 'interlocking directorates",
inhabits certain think tanks and organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations or political
parties, goes to the same clubs, intermarries, and knows one another. I.E. the ruling class is
a coherent group of HUMAN BEINGS. People think they are some abstract, nameless wonder. They are
not. Podesta's e-mails, as Frank rightly notices, show the Democratic Party elite. Another set
will show the Republican Party elite, and how BOTH link to each other.
We are talking about the biggest war mongering outfit on the planet. An election. This ship is
being driven by assholes no one elected...and as per, walk away with money and knighthoods while
the fabric of our society is unravelling. Store water and tinned goods...or good luck on the help
line
Good comment except for the needless hand-wringing about reading "private" e-mails. The freak
show that is the 2016 US general election is yet another clear sign that neo-liberalism is a scam
run for and by bankers, corporate CEOs, kooky tech billionaires, corrupt politicians and other
wealthy and amoral sociopaths.
The media has become their propaganda arm and the divide between what people experience and
see and what the media tells them is happening grows ever wider. Alternative media outlets (although
some of these, such as VICE, are neo-lib shills also) and organisations like WikiLeaks are more
important than ever as they still speak truth to power. Even some dissidents and media 'agitators'
are coming down on the side of the establishment - I am thinking Snowden, Greenwald and Naomi
Klein all of whom have wagged their fingers at Julian Assange for doing a job the media used to
do.
A good rule of thumb that tells you who the establishment worries about is looking at who is
repeatedly denounced in the media. Trump, Assange and Putin currently have the powers that be
worried because they are giving them the proverbial two fingers (or one finger, depending on which
side of the Atlantic you are on) and exposing the rotten framework of lies and corruption that
hold the rickety system together. Media darlings like Snowden present no real threat and are tolerated,
even celebrated.
Obama can GTFO. He created this situation by allowing Loretta Lynch to be compromised, as well
as himself. The BFBI was left with little choice but to go public in a legal way via FOIA requests,
something that the corrupt DoJ can't stop. Jason Chaffetz has now formally asked another member
of the corrupt Government to recuse himself, as he too is compromised and was tipping off the
Clintons. We have yet to find out just how far these rabbit holes go, but the Illuminati appear
to be worried - $150M is a lot to explain away...
BillFromBoston 10h ago
Obama criticizes the FBI today...but didn't have a single bloody word to say when BillyBob
(that's Bill Clinton to you Brits) happened to bump into the nation's Attorney General several
days before she declared Hillary to be a candidate for sainthood.
But that's understandable...after all, all they talked about was grandchildren and golf.Just
ask them,they'll tell you!
curiouschak 10h ago
Idiot democrat primary voters. They actually ended up selecting such a toxic, defensive,
shifty corrupt candidate that she may up handing the election to an orange turd with a dead
raccoon on its head.
They couldn't do the right and smart thing and elect Sanders. He would have wiped the floor
with this tangerine blowhard
Chuckman 10h ago
You are pathetic, Obama, absolutely pathetic. Who ever heard of the chief magistrate criticizing
law enforcement during an investigation about which he indeed knows very little.
Or, maybe that should be, pretends to know very little. There are suggestions that some
material could be dangerous to Obama.
His previous testimony that he knew nothing about illegal, insecure computers being used
at State appears contradicted by the fact we now know from Wiki-Leaks material he had a pseudonym
and had e-mails back and forth from Hills and Company.
"... Holding on to the White House in 2016 is extremely important. We can't afford to let party elites jeopardize that by ignoring the will of the voters. Join me and DFA in telling superdelegates to pledge to support the popularly-elected winner of the nomination now. ..."
"... If Trump wins, all the Democratic party elites should be given their pink slips and never allowed to run the DNC again ..."
Recall this warning to the Democratic Party after Bernie Sander's landslide win in New Hampshire?
Shockingly, all the superdelegates went over to Hillary Clinton:
Holding on to the White House in 2016 is extremely important. We can't afford to let party
elites jeopardize that by ignoring the will of the voters. Join me and DFA in telling superdelegates
to pledge to support the popularly-elected winner of the nomination now.
If Trump wins, all the Democratic party elites should be given their pink slips and never allowed
to run the DNC again.
"... Now being reported that the Cheryl Millls laptop, thought to have been destroyed as part of her immunity deal, is actually intact and being reviewed by the FBI. Ruh Roh. Not sure if it will contain emails related to yoga classes or national security ..."
Now being reported that the Cheryl Millls laptop, thought to have been destroyed as part of
her immunity deal, is actually intact and being reviewed by the FBI. Ruh Roh. Not sure if it will
contain emails related to yoga classes or national security
Rouvas -> stratplaya 45m ago
Why does she get immunity anyway? Usually you give someone immunity in return for getting
them to blab on someone...
Oh yes, silly me, it's the Clinton's we are talking about... different rules apply
"... Well I'm sure there's many reasons but one has to be because religion was a good way of saying "I haven't got a fucking clue" without losing face. And we're obsessed with keeping face. ..."
"... That's all religion really is. It fills the gaps in human knowledge and as the gaps become fewer we become less religious. ..."
"... The issue of course is humans collectively know a lot of stuff but individually we only know a very specific amount of stuff. There's a lot of stuff on the internet these days which we can access and (skim) read but that's not to say we understand any of it or can critically assess it. ..."
Well I'm sure there's many reasons but one has to be because religion was a good way of saying
"I haven't got a fucking clue" without losing face. And we're obsessed with keeping face.
That's all religion really is. It fills the gaps in human knowledge and as the gaps become
fewer we become less religious.
Now we probably shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves and say we've closed all of the gaps
(we've barely left our neck of the woods) but there is certainly the sense that humans know a
lot of stuff.
The issue of course is humans collectively know a lot of stuff but individually we only know
a very specific amount of stuff. There's a lot of stuff on the internet these days which we can
access and (skim) read but that's not to say we understand any of it or can critically assess
it.
Which brings me to Trump. Religion is not as popular these days because we've all got a bit
cocky and think we know everything because we can Google it. But we still have massive gaps in
our knowledge.
Trump panders to the same gaps in our knowledge that religion once did. Trump has the answers.
Clinton is the problem. We know this apparently. Just like we once knew there was a god.
As a general rule we should stick to what we know rather than what we perceive since perception
can be so misleading (good old common sense). We should also be deeply suspicious when someone
comes to us with answers especially when those answers are actually in the form of nothing in
particular and criticising everyone else.
Just for one second put aside what you think you know about the world and the "elite" and stick
to what you actually know about Trump. Sexual assault anyone?
I'd actually argue the opposite. Thousands of people are turning to Trump as a cynical form of
rebellion. They think that voting for him will be interesting/fun. If you were to ask them how
a Hillary Clinton presidency would seriously make their lives worse, they'd have nothing serious
to answer. At best they might say that they'll be fine, but that the rest of the country would
suffer, and then spout of a bunch of nonsense as to why that would be. It's a luxury to be so
reckless, which is where America is right now. If millions of lives literally depended on the
outcome of this election, people would be much more careful about how they plan to vote.
"... So no mention of the Department of Justice tipping off the Clinton campaign Guardian? Surely that it a pretty damning new revelation. Corrupt to the core. No of course not, ignoring wikileaks and shilling more of the same old wall to wall Anti Trump scaremongering. ..."
"... We get it, Trump is a jerk. Hillary Clinton is systemically corrupt. ..."
"... And here I was thinking the Guardian was progressive… but you'll stoop to anything to get your chosen corporatist candidate over the line eh? ..."
"... Obama changed his tone. The Dems are in desperate mode. Kinda nice to see them on the defense. However they will never change their globalist agenda to sell off the rest of middle class. ..."
"... Trump against the entire establishment with unlimited funds. They sent out their top politicians/celebrities in full force and still can't flip Florida. If he wins with only popular support it will be the best upset in modern history. ..."
"... Obama has destroyed the nation with his identity politics, his lies, his elitist BS, his lack of awareness of the constitution, his constant pronouncing of guilt or innocence from the WH, his inviting key players in the BLM movement and the various idiot celebs like Jay-Z and Beyonce, to the WH, his arrogance, etc. ..."
"... As the above LA Times poll shows, Trump now has a monstrous 5.4% lead. His supporters are growing on a daily basis, as he continues to attract African-American supporters and Democrats in record-breaking numbers for a Republican candidate. ..."
"... Obama is a master of calling people racists without actually coming out with it. He is also a master of playing on people's fears. He has been such a disappointment. Instead of uniting the country he has kept it divided. ..."
"... The Obamas are hypocrites of the highest order,In 2007/8 they said the Clintons were toxic and Hillary should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. The Obamas cronyism for the powerful and elite makes my blood boil ..."
"... The Obamas swept into the White House on a dream ticket provided in the main by the black vote, With the first 2 yrs of hobnobbing with the rich, powerful and famous he was slow to do a thing for the voter and all of 8 yrs on he still hasn't and we all know he never will ? ..."
"... The condescending Obamas are now out rallying for the very same woman they denounced 8 yrs earlier. They are in essence expecting the voter to forget everything that went on before and vote the impeached X President and his caustic wife ..."
"... Sure... He's all that. But he said he doesn't want a nuclear war with Russia. Hillary on the other hand is really keen on the idea. All her MIC backers agree. ..."
"... And clinton has the official endorsement of all the republican neocons who wrote and implemented the project for the new American century which embarked your country on a series of illegal wars in the middle east, millions of people dead, and created international terrorism. Oh and your national debt rose to trillions and your country's Infrastructure is falling apart and you have absolutely nothing tangible to show for it. Good luck with Hillary guys. ..."
"... "But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote 'paid tribute' to Ronald Reagan's economic and foreign policy. She championed NAFTA - even though it has cost South Carolina thousands of jobs. And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for George Bush's war in Iraq. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton. She'll say anything, and change nothing. It's time to turn the page. ..."
"... Shouldn't it be illegal, for Obama, a government official, to attempt to influence the election? The Guardian already reported that Obama has been campaigning more than any sitting president before him. ..."
"... And besides, is that what he does on taxpayers' dime? Shouldn't he in general be addressing important issues of the country? ..."
Massive multi billion dollar corporate entities and
financial conglomerates who have a vested self interest in
the election will throw everything they have got into the
system. No effort too extreme, nothing out of bounds.
65jangle 6h ago
So no mention of the Department of Justice tipping off the Clinton campaign Guardian?
Surely that it a pretty damning new revelation. Corrupt to the core. No of course not, ignoring
wikileaks and shilling more of the same old wall to wall Anti Trump scaremongering.
We get it, Trump is a jerk. Hillary Clinton is systemically corrupt.
And here I was thinking the Guardian was progressive… but you'll stoop to anything to get your
chosen corporatist candidate over the line eh?
BlueberryCompote -> ByzantiumNovum 6h ago
The lunatic Russophobia of the US State Department makes your intervention unnecessary as Obama probably was the last bulwark against insanity.
Obama changed his tone. The Dems are in desperate mode. Kinda nice to see them on the
defense. However they will never change their globalist agenda to sell off the rest of middle class.
Trump against the entire establishment with unlimited funds. They sent out their top
politicians/celebrities in full force and still can't flip Florida. If he wins with only popular
support it will be the best upset in modern history.
aldebaranredstar 8h ago
Obama has destroyed the nation with his identity politics, his lies, his elitist BS, his
lack of awareness of the constitution, his constant pronouncing of guilt or innocence from the WH,
his inviting key players in the BLM movement and the various idiot celebs like Jay-Z and Beyonce,
to the WH, his arrogance, etc.
He has not only destroyed the Dem Party--which is weaker than it has ever been--but the entire
nation with his Executive orders that got overturned by the SCOTUS--the man is pure hell. A bad
leader is a bad leader, no matter the color. People are disgusted with his actions as POTUS and
that is the bottom line cause of the rise of DT. Obama has waged war in his own nation--not only
overseas. Peace Prize--HAHAHA.
Flugler 8h ago
Walkover;
As the above LA Times poll shows, Trump now has a monstrous 5.4% lead. His supporters are
growing on a daily basis, as he continues to attract African-American supporters and Democrats in
record-breaking numbers for a Republican candidate.
In addition to this, the polls may be horribly off, as Trump has what many are calling the
"monster vote" waiting in the wings. This is in reference to the stunning amount of previously
unregistered voters who have never voted in their life but plan on showing up to the polls to
support Donald Trump, as internal polling is showing.
Further supporting how strong his momentum is across all categories is the fact that Donald
Trump now has the majority of support across ALL age categories. A huge development, considering
that he has been struggling with young voters throughout much of his campaign.
rocjoc43rd 8h ago
Obama is a master of calling people racists without actually coming out with it. He is
also a master of playing on people's fears. He has been such a disappointment. Instead of uniting
the country he has kept it divided. I wonder if he is keeping the country safe while he
spends the next week campaigning for his replacement.
mandyjeancole 8h ago
The Obamas are hypocrites of the highest order,In 2007/8 they said the Clintons were toxic
and Hillary should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. The Obamas cronyism for the
powerful and elite makes my blood boil
The Obamas swept into the White House on a dream ticket provided in the main by the black
vote, With the first 2 yrs of hobnobbing with the rich, powerful and famous he was slow to do a
thing for the voter and all of 8 yrs on he still hasn't and we all know he never will ?
The
condescending Obamas are now out rallying for the very same woman they denounced 8 yrs
earlier. They are in essence expecting the voter to forget everything that went on before and vote
the impeached X President and his caustic wife another bite of the proverbial cherry, Donald
Trumps somewhat blundering campaign has been mired in his apparent misogyny and he has come in
for the most horrendous criticism by the world's press while Mrs. Clintons lies and, deceit up
until now were considered acceptable for a 30 yr veteran of politics.
Mr. Trump maybe an
all-American dreamer, he may not always come across as the most coherent, but he loves his Country. and he wants what's best for it.....If America is looking for mistakes made look no
further than Europe, The powers that be.. have made the most catastrophic decisions that have in
turn left the once proud cultures of Europe in the grip of Islamic fundamentalist whose barbaric
in doctoring wants to take us back a 1000 yrs. Give Mr. Trump 4 yrs.. its not too long..He just
might surprise you. MJC
Meep_Meep 8h ago
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump decried Democratic rival Hillary Clinton as
"the candidate of yesterday," calling himself and his supporters "the movement of the future."
Yeah...the future!
DeAngelOfPi -> Brighton181 8h ago
Sure... He's all that. But he said he doesn't want a nuclear war with Russia. Hillary on
the other hand is really keen on the idea. All her MIC backers agree.
SoloLoMejor -> PostTrotskyite 9h ago
And clinton has the official endorsement of all the republican neocons who wrote and
implemented the project for the new American century which embarked your country on a series of
illegal wars in the middle east, millions of people dead, and created international terrorism. Oh
and your national debt rose to trillions and your country's Infrastructure is falling apart and
you have absolutely nothing tangible to show for it. Good luck with Hillary guys.
RememberRemember 9h ago
2016 Obama, perhaps you would like a word with 2008 Obama.
Obama: "I'm Barack Obama, running for president and I approve this message."
Announcer: "It's what's wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get
elected. Now she's making false attacks on Barack Obama.
"The Washington Post says Clinton isn't telling the truth. Obama 'did not say that he liked
the ideas of Republicans.' In fact, Obama's led the fight to raise the minimum wage, close
corporate tax loopholes and cut taxes for the middle class.
"But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote 'paid tribute' to
Ronald Reagan's economic and foreign policy. She championed NAFTA - even though it has cost
South Carolina thousands of jobs. And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for
George Bush's war in Iraq.
"Hillary Clinton. She'll say anything, and change nothing. It's time to turn the page.
Paid for by Obama for America."
calderonparalapaz 9h ago
A Hillary ad should be about Clinton Inc as the american dream. Thanks Teneo!
"Until the Friday blockbuster news that the FBI was reopening its probe into the Hillary email
server, the biggest overhang facing the Clinton Campaign was the escalating scandal involving the
Clinton Foundation, Doug Band's consultancy firm Teneo, and Bill Clinton who as a result of a
leaked memo emerged was generously compensated for potential political favors by prominent
corporate clients using Teneo as a pass-thru vehicle for purchasing influence.
In a section of the memo entitled "Leveraging Teneo For The Foundation," Band spelled out all of
the donations he solicited from Teneo "clients" for the Clinton Foundation. In all, there are
roughly $14mm of donations listed with the largest contributors being Coca-Cola, Barclays, The
Rockefeller Foundation and Laureate International Universities. Some of these are shown below
(the full details can be found in "Leaked Memo Exposes Shady Dealings Between Clinton Foundation
Donors And Bill's "For-Profit" Activities")"
the more the media hush up on Huma Abedin, the more there is to know. it was her & criminally
accused Weiner's PC which (in a folder innocuously labelled) had 650,000 emails. Abedin comments
"she did not now how the 650,000 emails got there" (sic). the US media continues to cover up this
aspect of the Trio story: Abedin-Clinton-Weiner... the fact that Weiner is buddy with Israel's
Netanyahu simply adds to this intertwined messy cover-up.
BoSelecta 9h ago
The Clintonite corruption spreads in to the Justice Department:
Shouldn't it be illegal, for Obama, a government official, to attempt to influence the
election? The Guardian already reported that Obama has been campaigning more than any sitting
president before him.
And besides, is that what he does on taxpayers' dime? Shouldn't he in general be
addressing important issues of the country?
ALostIguana -> vr13vr 9h ago
Hatch Act explicitly excludes the President and Vice-President. They can take part in
political campaigning. Most other members of the executive are constrained by the Hatch Act.
"it's also a kind of conspiracy theory that Tony Blair lied to the people about the
case for going to war in Iraq".
The words "a kind of" are being used in an extremely vague and attenuated state. Rather a large
number of people would interpret your meaning as "not in the slightest". Or are you trying to
insinuate, I would not say argue, that Tony Blair told the truth the people about the case for
going to war in Iraq?
I ask as one who supported Labour before the Iraq war, which I see as criminally dishonest to
a degree I would not have previously thought possible.
Trump shows the true face of the ruling class with no hypocrisy. He is telling us the
truth. If we have a democracy, we should have a party representing the interests of the
business class, why not.
The democrats is the party practicing hypocrisy, pretending that
they somehow representing the interest of the working class. They are the ones spreading lies
and hypocrisy and manipulating the working class everyday through their power over the media.
Their function is to appease the working class. The real obstacle for improving conditions for
the working class historically has always been the Democratic party, not the Republican party.
Polling offers some
clues . Last week, George Washington University
released the results of a survey of 1,000 adults who said they were registered and likely
to vote. Only 29% of those who said that they would vote for Clinton said their vote was intended
to stop Trump from getting to the White House. By contrast, 43% of Trump voters said their decision
was a defensive vote against Clinton.
That doesn't necessarily get us any closer to forecasting the results. It's a fact that voter
turnout will shape this election outcome but it's much harder to predict how human nature might affect
that turnout. What drives people to action more – support for a set of values or fear of the alternatives?
Love or hate?
"... The New York Times is reporting that the emails came from the FBI's investigation into the sexting habits of former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner , who was married to Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's all-purpose factotum. The idea that another hack by persons unknown has truly opened Pandora's Box for Clinton, Inc. less than two weeks before the election, seems too delicious for some Republicans to contemplate. ..."
"... It could be the long-awaited "smoking gun" that establishes serious criminality by Clinton, Inc.-or it could be more emails of Hillary discussing yoga and how to figure out the DVR. ..."
"... That said, Democrats who are wordsmithing this development and prematurely declaring that it's no big deal-or worse, some nefarious Trumpian plot-need to step back and let the FBI do its job. It seems unlikely that the Bureau will wrap this up before November 8, and since Comey has informed Congress what's going on, the FBI director won't be telling the public much either. ..."
"... Just over a year ago I predicted that EmailGate was far from over, and it remains very much alive today, despite the best efforts of Hillary Clinton, her staff, and her ardent defenders in the media. Nobody should expect that the Democratic nominee will be charged with any crimes in EmailGate: the naked interference of President Obama's Justice Department in this case demonstrates that reality. ..."
"... However, this scandal remains very much alive as a political matter, and less than two weeks before the election, politics is what matters now. Hillary has never come up with very good answers about why she strictly avoided the use of State Department email when she was the boss at Foggy Bottom, much less why her "unclassified" emails contained so much highly classified information -and she seems unlikely to, all of a sudden. ..."
"... Throughout this scandal, Friday news-dumps have been a regular feature, per well-honed Beltway bureaucratic practice. This one may be the biggest of all. ..."
Newly incriminating Clinton emails may have been found during the FBI's investigation into the
sexting habits of former NY Congressman Anthony Weiner
FBI Is Re-Opening Clinton E-Mail Investigation Oct. 28 -- The inquiry into Hillary Clinton's use
of private e-mail as secretary of state is being re-opened by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
FBI Director James Comey sent a letter to Congressional committee chairman alerting them of his decision.
Bloomberg's Margaret Talev reports on "Bloomberg Markets."
Just 11 days before our presidential election, the explosive issue of EmailGate is back in the
news, thanks to James Comey, the FBI director who
less than four months ago gave Hillary Clinton a pass on her illegal use of email and a personal
server when the Democratic nominee was secretary of state.
After weeks of damaging revelations care of Wikileaks about just how much the Clinton camp knew
about EmailGate for years, and tried to downplay its significance in the media, Comey today sent
a
letter to the chairmen of the relevant Congressional committees-including, significantly, the
House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees -- that blows EmailGate wide open all over again.
He says:
"In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email
server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony.
In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that
appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative
team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative
steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain
classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.
Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and
I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important
to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony."
Having
taken Comey to task for his serious mishandling of the FBI's year-long EmailGate investigation-particularly
how his account of what the Bureau discovered made Hillary's guilt clear, but he still declined to
ask the Department of Justice to seek prosecution-he deserves some credit for due diligence here.
It requires some political fortitude to do this practically on an election's eve.
Clearly the FBI has uncovered new emails-the mention of "connection with an unrelated case" is
intriguingly vague-that may (or may not) have relevance to the investigation. We don't yet know what
that information might be, or how it was obtained, but rumors are swirling as usual. Some are pointing
a finger at a leaker inside the U.S. Government; other rumors point to a foreign origin of these
newly discovered emails. The New York Times is reporting that the emails came from the
FBI's investigation into the sexting habits of former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner , who
was married to Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's all-purpose factotum. The idea that another hack by
persons unknown has truly opened Pandora's Box for Clinton, Inc. less than two weeks before the election,
seems too delicious for some Republicans to contemplate.
In truth, the FBI isn't reopening the EmailGate investigation because it was never actually closed.
Director Comey here is merely doing what he's legally required to: inform the relevant Congressional
committees that new information which may have relevance has been discovered, and the FBI is now
assessing its value to the on-going investigation.
Republicans shouldn't get too excited just yet, since Comey hasn't told us anything about the
provenance of these emails. It could be the long-awaited "smoking gun" that establishes serious criminality
by Clinton, Inc.-or it could be more emails of Hillary discussing yoga and how to figure out the DVR.
That said,
Democrats who are wordsmithing this development and prematurely declaring that it's no big deal-or
worse, some nefarious Trumpian plot-need to step back and let the FBI do its job. It seems unlikely
that the Bureau will wrap this up before November 8, and since Comey has informed Congress what's
going on, the FBI director won't be telling the public much either.
Just over a year ago I
predicted that EmailGate was far from over, and it remains very much alive today, despite the
best efforts of Hillary Clinton, her staff, and her ardent defenders in the media. Nobody should
expect that the Democratic nominee will be charged with any crimes in EmailGate: the naked interference
of President Obama's Justice Department in this case demonstrates that reality.
However, this scandal remains very much alive as a political matter, and less than two weeks before
the election, politics is what matters now. Hillary has never come up with very good answers about
why she strictly avoided the use of State Department email when she was the boss at Foggy Bottom,
much less why her "unclassified" emails contained
so much highly classified information -and she seems unlikely to, all of a sudden.
For Team Clinton, EmailGate remains a nightmare that they would really prefer not to talk about.
But here we are, talking about it all over again, thanks to Director Comey. Throughout this scandal,
Friday news-dumps have been a regular feature, per well-honed Beltway bureaucratic practice. This
one may be the biggest of all.
Instead, there's the very real possibility that as millennials age, they are less apt to stomach
a thing called hope. The Obama presidency did not usher in a new age of cooperation. Nancy Pelosi and
John Boehner did not announce they would be going on a nationwide concert tour performing the hits of
the Carpenters.
Racial tension, climate change, gun violence, terrorism, and poverty persist. Easy answers do
not exist, and even if they did, they wouldn't be coming from one of the two major political parties
– groups often more concerned with their own survival than practical solutions to tangible issues. As
the global situation appears to become more and more hopeless – thanks to actual horrors, plus the media
saturation that occurs after every tragedy, which amplifies our malaise – it should come as no surprise
that millennials as a group and the nation at large disagree on how to turn things around.
Consensus might just be a thing of the past; MTV is far from the unchallenged thought leader for
American youth. What this election might be remembered for is the moment when the American political
system became so ossified and incapable of solutions that we decided, at last, to junk it and start
from scratch.
Instead, there's the very real possibility that as millennials age, they are less apt
to stomach a thing called hope. The Obama presidency did not usher in a new age of
cooperation. Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner did not announce they would be going on a
nationwide concert tour performing the hits of the Carpenters.
Racial tension, climate change, gun violence, terrorism, and poverty persist. Easy
answers do not exist, and even if they did, they wouldn't be coming from one of the
two major political parties – groups often more concerned with their own survival
than practical solutions to tangible issues. As the global situation appears to
become more and more hopeless – thanks to actual horrors, plus the media saturation
that occurs after every tragedy, which amplifies our malaise – it should come as no
surprise that millennials as a group and the nation at large disagree on how to turn
things around.
Consensus might just be a thing of the past; MTV is far from the unchallenged
thought leader for American youth. What this election might be remembered for is the
moment when the American political system became so ossified and incapable of
solutions that we decided, at last, to junk it and start from scratch.
"... I think that Trump is referring to Clinton's use of her private, insecure server for confidential e-mails of which she ordered 30,000 to be deleted and had Obama intervene to stop an FBI investigation. Honest and transparent, I think not. ..."
"... In "normal" circumstances she would have been disqualified as a candidate and possibly be facing criminal proceedings. Let's face it, neither candidate is at all suitable as leader of the western world. ..."
"... The current bedrocks of the capitalist system are at breaking point. Parliamentary democracy and the nation state are crumbling under various pressures. They may be saves but I think we are entering the period when they will be replaced. I have no idea what with though. ..."
"... Remember when U.S. NGOs were "respected" bodies around the world. Now we know they were spies and subverters, now banned from all self respecting countries around the world. ..."
"... Remember how the U.S. went into Iraq for De4mocracy. Now we know it was oil and deliberate mayhem. ..."
"... Ditto Afghanistan, Libya, and their failed attempt to lay waste Syria. ..."
"... Ukraine is just a stand alone shithole created by the U.S., lied about by them, down to the downing of MH17 ..."
"... If you want lies and deceit, look at the U.S ..."
"... Not to be too critical, but most of what you mentioned was perpetrated under a single presidential administration. Cheney was dividing Iraqi oilfields way before the "invasion". Bush was just a puppet. You know, the kind of guy you would like to have a beer with. Just a good ole'boy. ..."
"... Is Hillary trying to stir up her own counter revolution in case she loses too? It seems like a fatally flawed attempt. People barely have the energy to turn out to vote for her, let alone take up arms for her. ..."
"... The DNC rigged the vote to nominate Clinton over Sanders. Why wouldn't they employ the same tricks in the election itself? ..."
"... Any individual with a shred of decency should be extremely disturbed by the actions of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. They privately discussed methods of discrediting Sanders based SOLELY on his religious affiliation. ..."
"... Despite having a tonne of shit thrown at him and the msm and big money donors squarely in Clinton's corner, Trump's still standing. Polls released today: LA Times +2 Trump; NBC +6 Clinton; Rasmussen +1 Clinton ..."
The fight over vote rigging in 2016 is a proxy war for a much deeper crisis: the legitimacy of
American democracy
Nearly 90% of Trump supporters agreed with a Rand Corporation survey statement that "people like
me don't have any say about what the government does." The irony here is that Trump voters are historically
some of the most enfranchised, with some of his strongest support coming from white protestant men.
A study done during the primaries also found that Trump backers make an average of $72,000 per year,
compared with a $61,000 average among likely Clinton voters.
... ... ...
Corporate citizens – as defined by Citizens United – now have an easier time getting a hold of
their elected representative than just about any other American. In other words, money talks in Washington,
and Super Pacs have spend just under $795m this election cycle. Because lobbying money courses through
every level of politics, the most successful candidates are the best at making friends in the Fortune
500.
Meanwhile, just
six
in 10 Americans are confident their votes will be accurately cast and counted. And unlike in
systems based on proportional representation, our winner-take-all electoral model creates some of
the highest barriers to entry for political outsiders of any democracy on earth.
Americans' distrust of politics is about more than just elections, though. Congressional approval
ratings have declined steadily
since
2009 , and now sit at just 20% – a high in the last few years. Unions – which used to cudgel
Democrats into representing working people's interests – are at their weakest point in decades, and
lack the sway they once held at the highest levels of government.
Declines in organized labor have been paired with the disappearance of steady and well-paid work,
either succumbed to automation or shipped overseas by free trade agreements. A jobless recovery from
the financial crisis has left many adrift in the economy, while executives from the firms that drove
it got golden parachutes courtesy of the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve.
On the table now are to very different responses to these crises. Using an apocryphal quote from
Frederich Engels, Rosa Luxemburg once
wrote
: "Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into
barbarism."
SmartestRs 2d ago
I think that Trump is referring to Clinton's use of her private, insecure server for confidential
e-mails of which she ordered 30,000 to be deleted and had Obama intervene to stop an FBI investigation.
Honest and transparent, I think not.
In "normal" circumstances she would have been disqualified
as a candidate and possibly be facing criminal proceedings. Let's face it, neither candidate is
at all suitable as leader of the western world.
furiouspurpose
When Mrsfuriouspurpose got a gig as a poll clerk on the EU referendum she offered everyone
who came through the door a pencil to write their cross.
Many brought their own pens and a fair few explained that they were concerned that pencil could
be rubbed out and wanted to make sure – just in case.
It ain't only the yanks who are getting suspicious about how honest our democracy has become.
davidc929 -> furiouspurpose
The current bedrocks of the capitalist system are at breaking point. Parliamentary democracy
and the nation state are crumbling under various pressures. They may be saves but I think we are
entering the period when they will be replaced. I have no idea what with though.
Kholrabi
Remember when U.S. NGOs were "respected" bodies around the world.
Now we know they were spies and subverters, now banned from all self respecting countries around
the world.
Remember how the U.S. went into Iraq for De4mocracy.
Now we know it was oil and deliberate mayhem.
Ditto Afghanistan, Libya, and their failed attempt to lay waste Syria.
Ukraine is just a stand alone shithole created by the U.S., lied about by them, down to the
downing of MH17.
If you want lies and deceit, look at the U.S.
Trump is right in his accusations. Idle chatter is just that, wasteful of time and distracting
idle chatter,
Thomas Hosking -> Kholrabi
Not to be too critical, but most of what you mentioned was perpetrated under a single presidential
administration. Cheney was dividing Iraqi oilfields way before the "invasion". Bush was just a
puppet. You know, the kind of guy you would like to have a beer with. Just a good ole'boy.
DaanSaaf -> Kholrabi
Ukraine is just a stand alone shithole created by the U.S.,
tbf, that was as much the handiwork of the EU as it ever was the US
leadale
For better or for worse, the 2016 presidential campaign was all about him.
Not about his policies. Not about calm analysis of what was wrong and how it could be fixed.
It was always about him. And now, the nation's attention is still focused on him and his peccadillos…rather
than Ms Clinton and her scams, corruptions, and Deep State flimflams.
'Remember, it's a rigged system. It's a rigged election,' said the candidate over the weekend.
Is the election really rigged? Probably not in the way Mr Trump intends listeners to believe.
But the 'system' is so rigged that the election results hardly matter.
A real conservative would shift the debate away from fanny pinching and other ungentlemanly comportment
to how it is rigged. Americans want to know. How come the economy no longer grows as it used to?
How come most Americans are poorer today than they were in 1999? How come we no longer win our
wars?
He would explain to listeners that much of the rigging took place while Hillary and Bill Clinton
were collecting more than $150 million in speaking fees, telling us how to improve the world!
Then, he would help listeners put two and two together - explaining how the fake dollar corrupted
the nation's economy…and its politics, too.
And he would offer real solutions.
As it is, nobody seems to care. Not the stock market. Not the bond market. Not commentators. Not
Hillary. Not Donald. Nobody.
Bill Bonnar - Daily reckoning
Ken Weller -> leadale
Actually, he did address those issues quite frequently, including during the debate. It's the
media that is trying to dictate what the important issues are.
Ken Weller
I recall that in previous elections, notably the 2004 presidential, progressive voices rightly
pointed to possible election rigging. I even remember DNC chair Howard Dean interviewing Bev Harris
of blackboxvoting.org about how this could be achieved. Now that Trump's people are concerned
about the issue, it's suddenly crazy.
Meanwhile, Clinton's camp has put forth there own conspiracy
theory that Russia may somehow rig it for Trump, never mind that that the voting machines are
disconnected from the internet and thus hackers.
Brett Hankinson -> Ken Weller
Is Hillary trying to stir up her own counter revolution in case she loses too? It seems like
a fatally flawed attempt. People barely have the energy to turn out to vote for her, let alone
take up arms for her.
Trump is far more effective and newsworthy because he's inciting violence during the US election
and it actually seems plausible that violence could result. He doesn't even need to win the popular
vote to wreck the place.
Whodeaux Brett Hankinson
It's win/win for Trump and his ilk. Or rather, if he wins then obviously he wins. If he loses
he can just say he won, his fanbois will take over bird sanctuaries left and right, and when FBI
and National Guard inevitably kill some of them he can screech about how Real Mericans® are being
picked on by those nasty Globalist Bankers and the Entitlement Class, those two terms being the
current dog whistles for what the John Birchers used to call Jews and Blacks.
Trump doesn't seem to realize actual people are going to be actually dead before this is all
over. One cannot untoast bread.
MountainMan23
The DNC rigged the vote to nominate Clinton over Sanders. Why wouldn't they employ the
same tricks in the election itself?
Our voting machines & tabulators are insecure - that's a known fact.
So the concern among all voters (not just Trump supporters) is real & justified.
HiramsMaxim MountainMan23
If I were a Sanders supporter I would be furious.
Hell, I'm not a Sanders supporter, and I am still furious. What matters an individual's vote,
if the outcome has already been determined by The Powers That Be?
Todd Owens HiramsMaxim
Any individual with a shred of decency should be extremely disturbed by the actions of
Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. They privately discussed methods of discrediting Sanders
based SOLELY on his religious affiliation.
"It might may (sic) no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief.
Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he
is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps
would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist," Bradley Marhsall, former CFO of the
DNC.
This is identity politics at its absolute worst.
HiramsMaxim ButtChocolate
Its a little more sophisticated than that.
In the Podesta email dumps, there is plenty of evidence of particular members of the Press
actively colluding with the Clinton campaign, and even submitting articles for review by the campaign
before publishing.
So, he is taking what are, at the very least, journalistic standards lapses, and spins it into
something larger. He takes a little fear, and makes a big story out of it. And, because these
media organisations cannot admit what they are doing, or deny the generally accepted verity of
the Wikileaks dumps, he gets a free shot.
Remember, to all the good progressives out there, Trump is not trying to appeal to you, convince
you, or make you like him. In fact, the more you hate him, the more "ideologically pure" he looks
to his supporters.
Example: Look at The Guardian reporting of the firebombing at the Republican office here in
NC. Any reasonable person would agree that firebombing is wrong. But, TG could not even use that
word. The article they published bent over backwards to minimise the action, and blame it on Trump.
Sure, that plays well to The Guardian readership. But, it just confirms (well, at least it
appears to confirm) the loud cries of media bias that Trump and his supporters rail against. The
irony is that when the same types of things happen domestically, by a Press that thinks it is
"helping" their preferred candidate, it only confirms the worst suspicions of the opposition.
And, it only taked one or two examples to give Trump room to condemn all media.
Trump has one overwhelming skill on display here. He is able to bait the media, and they cannot
resist rising to that bait. He is, for lack of a better term, a World Class Troll.
Harryy
"as his support slips"
Despite having a tonne of shit thrown at him and the msm and big money donors squarely
in Clinton's corner, Trump's still standing. Polls released today: LA Times +2 Trump; NBC +6 Clinton;
Rasmussen +1 Clinton
HiramsMaxim Harryy
It is facinating that the last two weeks of ugliness on both sides has had just about zero
effect on people.
Its as if both sides have already made up their minds, and refuse to pay attention to the Media.
Christopher Barron
Donald Trump came to this behind in the polls and reeling after weeks of negative media coverage.
He needed a big night – and he got one.
For a campaign that prides itself on its mastery of policy, Hillary spent much of the night
trying trying to get Trump to take the bait on sideshow issues.
In previous debates, Trump took the bait. Tonight, however, we saw a much more disciplined
candidate. Trump stuck to the issues and forced Hillary to talk policy and – quite frankly – she
had her worst debate performance.
Unlike previous moderators, Chris Wallace was willing to properly challenge both Trump and
Clinton. His line of questioning, particularly when it came to the Clinton Foundation, kept
Hillary off balance.
Clinton also found herself on the defensive on foreign policy, where she seemed more like a
George W Bush Republican than a Democrat.
As a result, this ended up being Trump's best debate. For far too long, the Republican candidate
has let the campaign be about the circus and not about policy. If this race is about the circus
then Hillary Clinton wins. If its about policy then Trump has a shot. It's frustrating for me, as
a Trump supporter, that it has taken this long for him to focus on where his opponent stands on
the issues.
Killary only can beg that voters hold their noses and vote for her. Guardian neoliberal presstitutes
still don't want to understand that Hillary is more dangerous then trump, Sge with her attempt that
she is more militant then male neocons can really provoke a confrontation with Russia or China.
Notable quotes:
"... War at home versus another foreign war, nothing will get through Congress, and either will get impeached...so third party all the way for me. ..."
"... Keep in mind, the election is not over and that drip, drip, drip of Hillary emails may push more people towards Trump. ..."
"... Shameless. Absolutely shameless, Guardian. This is not-even-disguised Clinton sycophancy... ..."
"... Clinton has everything going for her. The media, the banks, big business, the UN, foreign leaders, special interest lobbyists, silicon valley, establishment Republicans. How can she not win in an landslide?! ..."
"... We came, we saw, and he grabbed some pussy. ..."
"... It seems nobody wants to talk about what is really going on here - instead we are fed this bilge from both sides about 'sexual misconduct' and other fluff ..."
"... The stagnation of middle-class incomes in the West may last another five decades or more. ..."
"... This calls into question either the sustainability of democracy under such conditions or the sustainability of globalization. ..."
"... These classes of "globalization losers," particularly in the United States, have had little political voice or influence, and perhaps this is why the backlash against globalization has been so muted. They have had little voice because the rich have come to control the political process. The rich, as can be seen by looking at the income gains of the global top 5 percent in Figure 1, have benefited immensely from globalization and they have keen interest in its continuation. ..."
"... But while their use of political power has enabled the continuation of globalization, it has also hollowed out national democracies and moved many countries closer to becoming plutocracies. Thus, the choice would seem either plutocracy and globalization – or populism and a halt to globalization. ..."
The vast majority of her support comes from people that will be holding their noses as they vote
for her. Seems to me that convincing those same people that you have it in the bag will just cause
them to think voting isn't worth their time since they don't want to anyway.
I know Trump's supporters, the real ones, and the anyone-but-Hillary club will show up as well.
Funny if this backfires and he wins.
I won't be voting for either one and couldn't care less which one wins. War at home versus
another foreign war, nothing will get through Congress, and either will get impeached...so third
party all the way for me.
"Trump has to be the limit, and there has to be a re-alignment"
Trump has shown one must fight fire with fire. The days of the meek and mild GOP are over. Twice
they tried with nice guys and failed. Trump has clearly shown come out with both fists swinging
and you attract needed media and you make the conversation about you. Trump's mistake was not
seeking that bit of polish that leaves your opponent on the floor.
Keep in mind, the election is not over and that drip, drip, drip of Hillary emails may
push more people towards Trump.
Shameless. Absolutely shameless, Guardian. This is not-even-disguised Clinton sycophancy...
tugend49
For every woman that's been sexually harassed, bullied, raped, assaulted, catcalled, groped,
objectified, and treated lesser than, a landslide victory for Clinton would be an especially sweet
"Fuck You" to the Trumps of this world.
Clinton has everything going for her. The media, the banks, big business, the UN, foreign
leaders, special interest lobbyists, silicon valley, establishment Republicans. How can she not
win in an landslide?!
It might be a reaction against Trump, but it's also a depressing example of the power of the
establishment, and their desire for control in democracy. Just look at how they squealed at Brexit.
It seems nobody wants to talk about what is really going on here - instead we are fed this
bilge from both sides about 'sexual misconduct' and other fluff
There is a report from two years ago, July 2014, before the candidates had even been selected,
by the economist Branko Milanovic for Yale 'Global' about the impact of Globalisation on the Lower
Middle Classes in the West and how this was basically going to turn into exactly the choice the
American electorate is facing now
Why won't the media discuss these issues instead of pushing this pointless circus?
These are the penultimate paragraphs of the article on the report (there is a similar one for
the Harvard Business Review
here ):
The populists warn disgruntled voters that economic trends observed during the past three
decades are just the first wave of cheap labor from Asia pitted in direct competition with
workers in the rich world, and more waves are on the way from poorer lands in Asia and Africa.
The stagnation of middle-class incomes in the West may last another five decades or more.
This calls into question either the sustainability of democracy under such conditions
or the sustainability of globalization.
If globalization is derailed, the middle classes of the West may be relieved from the immediate
pressure of cheaper Asian competition. But the longer-term costs to themselves and their countries,
let alone to the poor in Asia and Africa, will be high. Thus, the interests and the political
power of the middle classes in the rich world put them in a direct conflict with the interests
of the worldwide poor.
These classes of "globalization losers," particularly in the United States, have had
little political voice or influence, and perhaps this is why the backlash against globalization
has been so muted. They have had little voice because the rich have come to control the political
process. The rich, as can be seen by looking at the income gains of the global top 5 percent
in Figure 1, have benefited immensely from globalization and they have keen interest in its
continuation.
But while their use of political power has enabled the continuation of globalization, it
has also hollowed out national democracies and moved many countries closer to becoming plutocracies.
Thus, the choice would seem either plutocracy and globalization – or populism and a halt to
globalization.
Globalisation will continue to happen. It has pulled a large part of the world population out
of poverty and grown the global economy.
Sure on the downside it has also hugely benefitted the 1%, while the western middle classes
have done relatively less well and blue collar workers have suffered as they seek to turn to other
types (less well paid) of work.
The issue is the speed of change, how to manage globalisation and spread the wealth more equitably.
Maybe it will require slowing but it cannot and should not be stopped.
"... When Hillary Clinton recently declared half of Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables", Zaitchik told another reporter, the language "could be read as another way of saying 'white-trash bin'." ..."
When Hillary Clinton recently declared half of Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables", Zaitchik
told another reporter, the language "could be read as another way of saying 'white-trash bin'."
Clinton
quickly apologized for the comment, the context of which contained compassion for many Trump voters.
But making such generalizations at a $6m fundraiser in downtown New York City, at which some attendees
paid $50,000 for a seat, recalled for me scenes from the television political satire Veep in which
powerful Washington figures discuss "normals" with distaste behind closed doors.
"... He hit on her every issue he wanted to. Repeatedly and strongly. ..."
"... On that, his taking on one of the hardest gigs in the business/political world tonight after the last few days, and dealing with it, and winning, he may have convinced a swathe of undecideds that he has what it takes. ..."
"... Sad for all Trump haters, but he demolished the incredibly boring HRC. Trump says it how it is, even if he mixes in fibs and exaggerations. ..."
"... The Guardian's view of the debate is a predictable one, considering the complete lack of objectivity in covering the election. ..."
"... There has been no questioning of the fact that Hillary has received millions of dollars, for "speeches" given to Wall st banks. And of course, no questioning of the millions spent by the Clintons as "hush money" to women, in order that they keep quiet about Bill's sexual proclivities. Yep, no objectivity and little attempt at unbiased reporting here. ..."
"... Do you want to know why Trump won tonight? It's because all Hillary has to offer is the same pre-canned answers over and over again. She comes off as less genuine than any other candidate in history and it's dispicable. ..."
"... Saddam Hussein was a leader who did not have WMDs and whose orchestrated removal and subsequent murder opened the door to the biggest infestation of mass-murderers and islamic terrorism in the history of the world; Gadaffi was a popular leader who had turned Libya into the most prosperous and the only truly independent Arab nation in Africa, and Putin is the democratically elected leader of his country with a wide national mandate. Neither of the three can hold the candle to the menagerie of tyrannical and maniacal baboons and banana republic chipmonks who paraded and goose-stepped through Obama White House over the past eight years. ..."
"... I'm no fan of the United States since their criminal actions around the globe post '9-11' but I actually feel some pity for it at this point. ..."
"... Many of us are sickened more than you may realize. The unfortunate part is the entire system in the US is rigged against its own people. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton in favour of a no-fly zone in Syria, which basically means a hot war with Russia. Now, rebels are armed by Saudi Arabia amongst others. And Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest donors Clinton Foundation. Coincidence? ..."
"... This is terrifying. Hillary might put sons and husbands of American women in harm's way on behalf of interests of Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... hillary's biggest weakness in my opinion is that she is the "goldman sachs candidate" ..."
"... Then the debate switched to other topics and Trump landed blow after punishing blow. Hillary's non-answer to the question about whether she had public positions and private ones was (for her) uncharacteristically bizarre and rambling. Trump's Honest Abe retort was gold. ..."
"... On tax issues he noted she had 30 years to do something about the tax code and did nothing. Why? Because all of her billionaire donors use the same tax loopholes she accuses Trump of using, which is also why it won't change if she is elected. ..."
"... Trump is the first non-establishment presidential candidate to get this far, and he landed lots of painful punches on Hillary during this debate. ..."
"... The current administration has repeatedly taken unrealistic positions based on ideology and clung to them until the reality on the ground made them utterly untenable to hold onto. As exhibit one, does anyone remember Obama's big speech to the nation when he announced his plan to arm moderate Syrian rebels? That turned out to be one of the most ineffective flops in history, a complete waste of time, money, and resources. ..."
"... Instead of a debate that was focused on Trump's vulgar comments, the debate was focused on policy issues, and despite all of Clinton's "preparation" when it came to the nuts and bolts of policy, Trump managed to not only go toe-to-toe with Clinton, he often got the best of her. ..."
"... Finally, finally someone actually asked the question that had to be asked on Syria, despite all the pointless hand wringing. Those rebels, what do we actually know about them, that we are willing to go to war for them? Are they islamists? How will they govern? Do they have any popular support of any kind? ..."
"... And its not even the whole of Alleppo we are talking about. 2/3rds is already in govt control, Sorry but there is the bitter truth about civil wars. IF they cant come to an agreement, then the best thing that can happen is if one part wins and the fighting stops. ..."
"... Not many people could face off against a highly skilled politician like Hillary, and win - especially when all the media and grandees have extrapolated from a "locker room" recording to woman-hater/sex pervert. ..."
"... Trump showed up HRC as unexciting and mediocre. DT could still win. ..."
"... I fear the Presidency of Hillary Clinton as I believe that she is VERY capable of initiating a nuclear war with Russia. I truly believe that for Donald Trump, this would be a last alternative and that he would insist upon speaking, rather than acting, as HRC would. ..."
"... I just can not believe a word she utters. She has proven me correct with her "one position for public, and one position for private" quote. Two-faced liar. On the other hand is Trump. There are many laws or positions he endorses which would NEVER survive the two houses of Congress needed to implement them. ..."
"... You may like or loathe Trump, but it's impressive what he achieved tonight. They had him on the ropes, it was the middle of this fight and he knocked his opponent out tonight. ..."
"... Here's why. her record! She boasts of so many sponsored bills as senator, yet when you actually look at what she ACHIEVED - 3 meaningless bills - named a museum, a road and a post office! As for her SOS "achievements" are there any? The only things we can say for certain she did, ultimately she has admitted they were mistakes - experience is meaningless if you have poor judgement, and she has prove to have terrible judgement. ..."
"... And ultimately at the end of the day, IF the will is there, Trump can be prevented from causing ANY damage. Clinton on the other hand has openly stated that she will cooperate with the republicans, thus only right wing conservative bills will get passed! ..."
"... So she has proven poor judgement, a proven record of incompetence, and is desperate to raise the stakes with the Russians! Can anyone explain to me how she is better in any way. Remember Trump is disgusting, but she is a war criminal - her actions should have put her in the hague yet alone the whitehouse! ..."
"... Hillary's tough talk against Russia and regime change in Syria scare the crap out of me. She's talking nuclear war, and she and the media lie about Russia. ..."
"... Modern politics is all about have media houses in your pocket to promote your side of the story. For the life of me i cannot believe the presidential race is still so close even though there is a clear bias against trump. ..."
"... It's been rather stunning as to how far the Guardian has gone to blanket it's news with pro-hilly propaganda. The most shameful moments came when Bernie was running in the primary. ..."
"... of the two, Hillary represents the most acute, immediate threat to humanity with her calling for a no fly zone over Syria and her neo-McCarthy Russia bashing, demonizing Putin. ..."
"... The the recent events in Syria witness this threat, with the US openly protecting (supplying) the misogynist, stoneage Al Nusra in Eastern Alleppo, bombing Syrian soldiers who are actively engaged in combat against ISIS, and now bombing bridges leading to the ISIS capital of Raqqa thus preventing the advancing Syrian army from attacking ISIS. ..."
"... She is backed by the debt slavery banksters, the planet destroying fossil fuel parasites, the fascist military industrial security prison complex and the whole corporate fascist shadow state, not to mention the MSM (including this journal). At least Trump has said this, which is much saner than any of HIlliary's comments regarding Syria, (not to mention Lybia): ..."
"... Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS. Iran is killing ISIS. And those three have now lined up together because of our weak policy," he said. ..."
Terrible summary by Tom McCarthy of the debate completely omits the main event, namely Trump promising
to prosecute Clinton should he become President. WTF.
There's a job waiting for him at the NYT, the number 1 newspaper for anyone who wants to miss
what's actually going on in this election.
Trump won this debate because Clinton wanted to make the issue personal and the fact is that even
though Trump is disgusting, she hasn't got a great record to defend. It's shameful that the Democrats
chose her and the Republicans chose him.
I agree with you to a point, but to be entirely honest, I don't think any of the politicians have
more than a surface level knowledge of any of these issues. They rely on experts and advisors
to come up with solutions to complex problems and then they make decisions after weighing the
options presented. Politicians who have been in the game a long time know all the generic buzzwords
and slogans to use, whereas Trump doesn't have the lingo down. It's actually part of his charm.
Obama had almost no real world experience with any of this stuff and especially when it comes
to foreign policy it would be hard to argue that anyone could do much worse (and Hillary was part
of his administration).
Success of debates can only be based on their effectiveness or otherwise in improving a candidate's
position. Trump`s position was almost untenable before the debate. He`s now in an election. By
any standards that is a massive win for him.
Given that the only relevant audience are undecideds (and consider the politics of people as
yet undecided about voting for Trump), Trump played a blinder. He hit on her every issue he
wanted to. Repeatedly and strongly.
On that, his taking on one of the hardest gigs in the business/political world tonight
after the last few days, and dealing with it, and winning, he may have convinced a swathe of undecideds
that he has what it takes.
I am non-partisan. But I can`t see how anybody can conclude he didn`t win that big time. His
position now V before the debate? Answers itself.
Still don`t see an electoral path to victory for him. That was monumental television. Ugly
America. But it is ugly, that`s the reality.
The Guardian's view of the debate is a predictable one, considering the complete lack of objectivity
in covering the election. Much has been made of Trump's sexist comments, yet not even a raised
eyebrow at the Clinton foundation receiving tens of millions in "donations" from Saudi Arabia,
a nation that bans women from driving, voting or having human freedoms.
There has been no questioning of the fact that Hillary has received millions of dollars,
for "speeches" given to Wall st banks. And of course, no questioning of the millions spent by
the Clintons as "hush money" to women, in order that they keep quiet about Bill's sexual proclivities.
Yep, no objectivity and little attempt at unbiased reporting here.
Not everyone is a political junky and not everyone lives in a black and white world.
Telling people they are not qualified to vote because they haven't made up their minds yet
is an elitist statement. One of the main reasons I refuse to vote for Hillary or Bernie is because
of all the elitist people who like to demean others simply because they disagree with the progressive
or neo-liberal talking points.
Do you want to know why Trump won tonight? It's because all Hillary has to offer is the same
pre-canned answers over and over again. She comes off as less genuine than any other candidate
in history and it's dispicable. It was bad in the Democratic debates and it is atrocious
in the presidential debates. Is it really so hard to just speak what she is actually thinking
that she just robots out the same rhetoric over and over again? It seems so.
I was going to vote for her but after this debate, the level of disgust with her is too much.
Be a damn person for a change instead of this thing that makes me shudder when she opens her mouth.
I just can't do it, Bernie, sorry. Trump repulses me to think of voting for but she makes me physically
sick to think about voting for. They say I will be throwing my vote away to vote for a third party
candidate but I just don't care. To throw it away is better than to cast it for someone I would
forever regret voting for the rest of my like. That goes for the both of them.
Saddam Hussein was a leader who did not have WMDs and whose orchestrated removal and subsequent
murder opened the door to the biggest infestation of mass-murderers and islamic terrorism in the
history of the world; Gadaffi was a popular leader who had turned Libya into the most prosperous
and the only truly independent Arab nation in Africa, and Putin is the democratically elected
leader of his country with a wide national mandate. Neither of the three can hold the candle to
the menagerie of tyrannical and maniacal baboons and banana republic chipmonks who paraded and
goose-stepped through Obama White House over the past eight years.
Stay on topic. This thread is about alleged Trump's camaraderie with dictators which is now
totally and permanently debunked.
It was an awful display from any conceivable point of view. There were no winners; none at all.
I'm no fan of the United States since their criminal actions around the globe post '9-11'
but I actually feel some pity for it at this point. The fact that most Americans appear not
to be completely sickened and ashamed by their farce of an election speaks volumes about how far
their country as fallen on so very many fronts.
A very sad night for the world, but none more so than for the United States and their people.
Many of us are sickened more than you may realize. The unfortunate part is the entire system
in the US is rigged against its own people. We're fucked, we know it, if we try to do anything,
they shit all over us with lies and propaganda and wave their corruption in our faces like a damn
battle flag. It won't be long before the people finally stand up to this. Trouble is, it may already
be too late...
Hillary Clinton in favour of a no-fly zone in Syria, which basically means a hot war with
Russia. Now, rebels are armed by Saudi Arabia amongst others. And Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest
donors Clinton Foundation. Coincidence?
This is terrifying. Hillary might put sons and husbands of American women in harm's way
on behalf of interests of Saudi Arabia.
hillary's biggest weakness in my opinion is that she is the "goldman sachs candidate".
and trump was able to exploit that. trump said that he was only taking advantage of the same tax
laws that hillary's campaign-financing friends take advantage of. and he said that it had been
within hillary's powers to change those laws but she wouldn't because of her friends. all hillary
has to do is declare that she will stop big tax avoidance and claw bag these avoided taxes and
she would have the bernie sanders'
Christopher R Barron is not too far off the mark in scoring this one. Trump started the debate
with the same awkward and uncomfortable manner as he finished the last one. Hillary's line of
attack about Trump being unfit to be president was delivered with maximum skill and effectiveness,
and Donald's rebuttal was a bit flat and floundering. Things were looking gloomy in Trumpville.
Then the debate switched to other topics and Trump landed blow after punishing blow. Hillary's
non-answer to the question about whether she had public positions and private ones was (for her)
uncharacteristically bizarre and rambling. Trump's Honest Abe retort was gold. He killed
her on Obamacare, a real sore spot with middle class voters, pointing out that the premiums and
deductibles are so high you have to get hit by a Mack truck before it actually pays off. Foreign
policy, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria--all he had to do was point to 8 years of Obama and her own
tenure as Secretary of State leading to the present unmitigated disaster. Our friends don't trust
us and our enemies don't fear us.
On tax issues he noted she had 30 years to do something about the tax code and did nothing.
Why? Because all of her billionaire donors use the same tax loopholes she accuses Trump of using,
which is also why it won't change if she is elected. You can argue pro or con on everything
Trump said, but there is no question that this was a much stronger debate performance from him
than the first and the final question in which he complimented Hillary actually helped soften
his image quite a bit and ended the night on a perfect note.
Trump is the first non-establishment presidential candidate to get this far, and he landed
lots of painful punches on Hillary during this debate.
Hillary hardly touched Trump.
If no more serious revelations come to light, don't be surprised if he gets a Brexit victory
in one month: Americans are sick of polished elite politicians like the Clintons and Bush's.
I disagree with everyone here, every poll I've seen has had Trump on top in that debate by a majority.
I'd like to see links to other polls, always welcome! I have read the CNN poll was a majority
Democrat demographic, which many have stated render that poll biased. I don't know if this is
still the case?
The key thing is - IS TRUMP a lesser of two evils?
Simply, in my view, YES. Because I believe a less aggressive US foreign policy is essential
for global well-being in general The current war party in the white house, whose views Clinton
clearly espoused tonight in her accusations, denigration and aggressive stance toward Russia,
can only lead one way. It is archaic, medieval and dangerous.
If there can possibly be a turnaround in attitude from the barbaric, 1980s-style foreign policy
hysterically issuing forth from US Military officials atm I would very much recommend we encourage
it.
Trump did not fudge his words regarding the middle east and ISIS. He praised Russian and Syrian
combat of ISIS, he stated he did not hate Russia, unlike his rival. His message was altogether
one of more solidarity.
I am not a Trump butt-monkey, Putinbot or an idiot. But Clinton and her War Party are openly
arming moderate rebels in Syria, fighting a two-faced phoney war in order to unseat Assad - causing
a massive humanitarian disaster out there. The moderate rebels and, at one time, ISIS (I get the
impression they've gone out of control now) are nothing more than mercenaries, paid for and armed
out of US coffers. Can we wake up to the implications of this? Russia threatened to shoot down
US aircraft in Syrian airspace the other day! Are you not alarmed by Clintons gung-ho attitude
in this climate?
This is not a perspective much agreed on in the MSM, but I happen to believe it is the single
most important thing in the world today.
"He also obviously has no idea what is going on in Syria."
He said Allepo is probably already lost. There is a reality check for you.
The current administration has repeatedly taken unrealistic positions based on ideology
and clung to them until the reality on the ground made them utterly untenable to hold onto. As
exhibit one, does anyone remember Obama's big speech to the nation when he announced his plan
to arm moderate Syrian rebels? That turned out to be one of the most ineffective flops in history,
a complete waste of time, money, and resources.
The sad thing is that I remember numerous military commentators in the media who immediately
predicted it would be an utter failure and they were right.
Instead of a debate that was focused on Trump's vulgar comments, the debate was focused
on policy issues, and despite all of Clinton's "preparation" when it came to the nuts and bolts
of policy, Trump managed to not only go toe-to-toe with Clinton, he often got the best of her.
Trump needed to win tonight to stay alive. Clinton did not. Trump won, and he lives to fight
another day. This race is far from over.
An accurate analysis.
The CNN Democrat commentators were shell-shocked after the debate and were trying to convince
themselves and the viewers that it was a tie.
Neither Richard nor Jessica have actually given an analysis of who one the debate. Both are just
rehashing their own personal opinions about Trump, and Jessica, as she usually does, threw in
some complaints about men in general. Terrible journalism.
Hillary won on temperament but Trump won on the issues. He is an awful candidate, and it sucks
that such a terrible candidate is the message bearer but that is what it is.
Finally, finally someone actually asked the question that had to be asked on Syria, despite
all the pointless hand wringing. Those rebels, what do we actually know about them, that we are
willing to go to war for them? Are they islamists? How will they govern? Do they have any popular
support of any kind?
He should have also shouted out loudly when asked what are the consequences of Alleppo falling.
The answer is none! There is nothing in Alleppo that is worth a single American life. If anything
there might be good consequences. The civil war will end, people will go back to work and rebuilding
will begin. Alleppo falling could be the best thing that happens to Syria.
And its not even the whole of Alleppo we are talking about. 2/3rds is already in govt control,
Sorry but there is the bitter truth about civil wars. IF they cant come to an agreement, then
the best thing that can happen is if one part wins and the fighting stops.
Trump is a desperately poor candidate, but you lot on the left are not making it easy to defeat
him.
And he should have shouted
Not many people could face off against a highly skilled politician like Hillary, and win -
especially when all the media and grandees have extrapolated from a "locker room" recording to
woman-hater/sex pervert.
Trump showed up HRC as unexciting and mediocre. DT could still win.
This was actually a reasonably decent debate, as far as these two candidates are concerned. Trump
maintained his composure, Clinton came close to losing hers. And yes, I DID watch it.
I fear the Presidency of Hillary Clinton as I believe that she is VERY capable of initiating
a nuclear war with Russia. I truly believe that for Donald Trump, this would be a last alternative
and that he would insist upon speaking, rather than acting, as HRC would.
I just can not believe a word she utters. She has proven me correct with her "one position
for public, and one position for private" quote. Two-faced liar.
On the other hand is Trump. There are many laws or positions he endorses which would NEVER survive
the two houses of Congress needed to implement them.
HRC, on the other hand, has the "connections" which would give her the ability to do so. That
scares me. She is someone. two-faced, who can not be trusted.
You may like or loathe Trump, but it's impressive what he achieved tonight. They had him on
the ropes, it was the middle of this fight and he knocked his opponent out tonight.
It was the "rumble in the jungle" all over again - Trump absorbed all kinds of punishment,
he absorbed it all and then ended up in triumph. "Trump bomaye! Trump bomaye! :-)
What I found amusing was her line about keeping the high ground - immediately after making several
low blows and saying he was unqualified! She claimed she never says that about other candidates,
yet said it about both Obama and Sanders - and no doubt every other opponent she has faced!
This is the fundamental problem with Clinton. Because so many people despise her, she has always
campaigned negatively, and apart from the virtually uncontested NY senate positions (bought by
her wall street donors), she has lost each time! Now you can sling all the charges at Trump, and
I will not disagree with any other them. Trump is indeed unfit to be president. However Clinton
is infinitely less qualified.
Here's why. her record! She boasts of so many sponsored bills as senator, yet when you
actually look at what she ACHIEVED - 3 meaningless bills - named a museum, a road and a post office!
As for her SOS "achievements" are there any? The only things we can say for certain she did, ultimately
she has admitted they were mistakes - experience is meaningless if you have poor judgement, and
she has prove to have terrible judgement.
And ultimately at the end of the day, IF the will is there, Trump can be prevented from
causing ANY damage. Clinton on the other hand has openly stated that she will cooperate with the
republicans, thus only right wing conservative bills will get passed!
And as for SCOTUS picks, Obama has proven there is no guarantee of progressive picks, and AGAIN
if Trump picks an awful SCOTUS judge he CAN be blocked!
So she has proven poor judgement, a proven record of incompetence, and is desperate to
raise the stakes with the Russians! Can anyone explain to me how she is better in any way. Remember
Trump is disgusting, but she is a war criminal - her actions should have put her in the hague
yet alone the whitehouse!
But this is all moot as Clinton shills simply refuse to be honest with themselves and refuse
to look at her record. I have asked elsewhere dozens of times to Clinton supporters to name a
crime / charge against Trump that cannot be said against Clinton - STILL waiting.
Frankly it matters not who you vote for as they are both ubfit, but Clinton has a proven record
of incompetence and war crimes whereas Trump has not. Personally it is way over time to stuff
the 2 party nonsense and vote 3rd party - if they get 5% they get funding next time. Personally
I
Trump today had to show that he, not the GOP leadership, was master of his base. And his base
is by far the largest component of Republican voters so he is master of the party in the month
before an election. He is not going to drop out and if the party wants to push that fight, Donald
is going to decisively win it. His base wanted Hillary's blood and he gave it to them. In that
sense he won. But winning undecideds, no. In that sense he lost.
Hillary was addressing mainly women voters according to a statistical demographic profile.
Don't confront too much, stay calm and collected, and let him have it on his 2005 tape. She saw
the debate as a means to finally move women, maybe especially white women, to her side. She absolutely
did not need to nail down her actual base, and was out to decisively pick up undecided voters.
She probably succeeded. In that sense she won. And it is by far the bigger victory. And mostly
because it was already mission accomplished in the 48 hours before the debate.
In a week we will see the polling for the tape and for the debate. Hillary is going to increase
her lead by 2 points if not more. And that includes the battlegrounds. And Trump will very definitely
still be the candidate.
Hillary's tough talk against Russia and regime change in Syria scare the crap out of me. She's
talking nuclear war, and she and the media lie about Russia.
Trump was correct to point
out that if the US really wanted to knock out ISIS, they'd have to join forces with Russia. That
was the most intelligent thing he said all night. I will not vote for either of them. Because
as much as Trump is offensive, she has a sh*t eating grin which makes me sick. I think I'll write
in Vladimir Putin, as he is 'currently' along with Xi in China working to make their countries
true super-powers with science and technology.
A "pearl" from Hilarious : "Russia (when not) is hacking our mails". Then again, she kill the
messenger, but don't say 'what' was the contents of those e-mails. Especially those of the pre-campaign
against Sanders.
Modern politics is all about have media houses in your pocket to promote your side of the
story. For the life of me i cannot believe the presidential race is still so close even though
there is a clear bias against trump. As an observer i am curious to know why?
It's been rather stunning as to how far the Guardian has gone to blanket it's news with pro-hilly
propaganda. The most shameful moments came when Bernie was running in the primary.
Guardian bias is bordering on the bizarre. There are few news sites reporting that Hillary
won. So Trump won this debate and didn't take Anderson Coopers bate..... big deal.
I think an article on how this late comeback won't help Trump at this late stage in the election
would be more interesting.
They are both disgusting human beings. Though, of the two, Hillary represents the most acute,
immediate threat to humanity with her calling for a no fly zone over Syria and her neo-McCarthy
Russia bashing, demonizing Putin.
The the recent events in Syria witness this threat, with the US openly protecting (supplying)
the misogynist, stoneage Al Nusra in Eastern Alleppo, bombing Syrian soldiers who are actively
engaged in combat against ISIS, and now bombing bridges leading to the ISIS capital of Raqqa thus
preventing the advancing Syrian army from attacking ISIS.
Then you have her history -to name just a few of her callous, inhumane, and cruel in the name
of the 1%- of starving hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children to death, her admiration of Henry
Kissinger, her recent coup of a progressive, honest and legitimate president in Honduras and its
replacement with corporate controlled puppets using death squads to kill environmentalists, journalists,
etc.
She is backed by the debt slavery banksters, the planet destroying fossil fuel parasites,
the fascist military industrial security prison complex and the whole corporate fascist shadow
state, not to mention the MSM (including this journal). At least Trump has said this, which is
much saner than any of HIlliary's comments regarding Syria, (not to mention Lybia):
""Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS. Iran is killing ISIS. And those three
have now lined up together because of our weak policy," he said.
"I think it would be great if we got along with Russia. We could fight ISIS together," Trump
had said earlier in the evening."
"... Hillary Clinton and husband Bill will turn the White House and the U.S. Government into their personal bank. ..."
"... If the American electorate selects Hillary as their commander and chief she will immediately demand a No-Fly Zone over Syria. She will impose more economic sanctions on Russia, including an increase in NATO strength on Russia's western borders, just to show she is the Queen bitch. She will give israHell carte blanche to increase and expand further abuse in the Gaza strip. She is a woman scorned. And a very dangerous one. ..."
"... [neo]Liberalism is in terminal decline, and not a moment too soon. ..."
"... Hillary does not have any creative spark at all. She, like Obama is a dud, but one thing is for sure, she is not Donald. ..."
"... These same americans should go back, for once, to his 2008 campaign to defeat first Hillary in the primaries and then the republican McCain. ..."
"... The climate was dominated by the financial meltdown, which really started in the summer of 2007 and was evident by early spring of 2008. Hillary was the candidate of Wall Street, according to Obama, the republicans were one and the same with Wall Street and all the big corporate world, he was Hope and Change. ..."
"... Hope? What hope? And even more: change, what change? There has been little change, if almost half of the nation is now ready to accept Trump as a promise of change. Obama's main financial support came in 2008 from Wall Street, hedge funds in particular, and they were right because nobody like the first Afro-American president, himself inevitably the incarnation of progressivism, could save their ass after all the criminal finance they indulged in. ..."
"... So, Obama's inheritance is a problem, and Hillary is running on Obama's inheritance. ..."
"... Robert Kagan, ringleader of the cabal of neo-cons has endorsed Hillary, who is Roberts wife? why bless me if it isn't Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland, ..."
"... Samantha Powers is a neo-con acolyte, Ashton Carter is too, the State Dept. and the council of foreign relations is riddled with their people, all the horror figures of Dubya's days are lurking there and pulling strings, ..."
"... Kerry isn't really a neo-con, but the Pentagon and CIA sabotage anything half decent he tries to do, ..."
"... Basically Hillary is as genuine, left leaning and honest as Tony Blair.... ..."
"... Also remember the lack of believability of Hillary. She is a politician that has been caught in lies so often that people just don't believe her. She pushed the soda tax in Philly until Coca-Cola complained that they gave too much money to the Foundation to be treated that way. Hillary backed off. She made millions from speaking to Big Banks. So we really believe she will go after Wells Fargo? She is beholden to them (unless Goldman Sachs gets to choose). She says raise taxes to pay fair share, but her biggest supporters are Apple, Google, and their executives that keep billions of income overseas to avoid the highest corporate income tax in the world. Do we really think she will hurt the contributors to the Foundation? And the more the email saga plays out, the longer the untrustworthy issue remains in everyone's mind. MonotonousLanguor , 2016-10-07 20:58:06 Does anyone really believe Hillary Clinton will hold anyone on Wall Street accountable??? She is bought and paid for by Wall Street, starting with all the green backs Hillary and Bill stuffed in their pockets from the those speaking fees. Obama's Justice Department motto was, Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Jail. The Democrats are not going to bite their masters on Wall Street, and of course neither will the Republicans. IanB52 -> NoctilucentGinswig , 2016-10-07 20:41:06 Prosecuting bankers, prosecuting torturers, stopping white collar crime, wars, assassinations, warrantless spying and even scheduling of Marijuana are all under the control of the Executive Branch. Find even one of these where the President did the right thing. Uncle Putin , 2016-10-07 20:26:49 This is exactly what I was thinking during the first presidential debate. Hillary is an old pro at saying all the right things, pushing all the right buttons to get the votes she needs, but can you believe much of what she says? ..."
"... This is why, despite a poor debate performance overall, I thought Trump was spot on when he simply said she was a typical politician--all talk, no action, sounds great, none of it will ever happen. He's correct. ..."
"... What Frank seldom writes of but remains extremely important to many people on the left in the US is that Obama has governed as the effective prisoner of the Pentagon and security establishment. His wars (including on whistleblowers), nuclear build-up, and confrontation with Russia have given added momentum to growing neoconservative bipartisan consensus that will likely see a new President Clinton start a war with Russia in Syria and/or Ukraine. ..."
"... The Democrats are now both so neoliberal and so neoconservative that the only thing that differentiates them from Republicans is social progressivism. Given a choice between the latter and greatly increased likelihood of nuclear war, I have to confess to preferring that Trump win. Trump has been consistent in wanting to lessen tensions with Russia. ..."
"... Not even social progressivism, so much as a set of captive client constituencies whom they name-drop and weaponize. ..."
The puzzle that is currently frustrating the pundit minds of America is this: why is Hillary
Clinton not simply clobbering Donald Trump? How is this ranting, seething buffoon still competitive
with her? Trump has now stumbled through a series of the kind of blunders that break ordinary
political campaigns – the sort of deadly hypocrisies that always kill the demagogue in old movies
– and yet this particular demagogue keeps on trucking. Why?
Let us answer that burning pundit question of today by jumping to what will undoubtedly be
the next great object of pundit ardor: the legacy of President Barack Obama. Two months from now,
when all the TV wise men are playing historian and giving their estimation on where Obama ranks
in the pantheon of the greats, they will probably neglect to mention that his legacy helped to
determine Hillary's fortunes in this election cycle.
"As a beloved figure among Democrats, for example, Obama was instrumental in securing the nomination
for her. As a president who has accomplished little since 2011, however, Obama has pretty much
undermined Clinton's ability to sell us on another centrist Democratic presidency. His legacy
has diluted her promise
…. Or take this headline from just a few days ago: "Clinton promises to hold Wells Fargo accountable".
Go get 'em, Hillary! To see a president get tough with elite bankers and with CEOs in general
– that's something we can all cheer for. But then that nagging voice piped up again: if Democrats
think it is so critical to get tough with crooked banksters, why oh why didn't Barack Obama take
the many, many opportunities he had to do so back in the days when it would have really mattered?"
Senator Elizabeth Warren pronounced on the current state of middle America as follows:
Look around. Americans bust their tails, some working two or three jobs, but wages stay
flat. Meanwhile, the basic costs of making it from month to month keep going up. Housing, healthcare,
child care – costs are out of sight. Young people are getting crushed by student loans. Working
people are in debt. Seniors can't stretch a social security check to cover the basics.
It was a powerful indictment of what Warren called a "rigged" system – except for one thing:
that system is presided over by Barack Obama, a man that same Democratic convention was determined
to apotheosize as one of the greatest politicians of all times.
The larger problem facing them is the terminal irrelevance of their great, overarching campaign
theme. Remember the "man from Hope"? "Hope is on the way"? "Keep hope alive"? Well, this year
"hope" is most assuredly dead. Thanks to Obama's flagrant hope-dealing in the dark days of 2008
– followed up by his failure to reverse the disintegration of the middle class – this favorite
Democratic cliché has finally become just that: an empty phrase.
If the American electorate selects Hillary as their commander and chief she will immediately
demand a No-Fly Zone over Syria. She will impose more economic sanctions on Russia, including
an increase in NATO strength on Russia's western borders, just to show she is the Queen bitch.
She will give israHell carte blanche to increase and expand further abuse in the Gaza strip. She
is a woman scorned. And a very dangerous one.
[neo]Liberalism is in terminal decline, and not a moment too soon. It's far past time
we redeveloped a politics of interests rather than this Christianised values sham.
Hillary will win because she is not Trump. If she wins it is another 4 Obama like years and it
is Bill's Third Term in Office. Hillary does not have any creative spark at all. She, like
Obama is a dud, but one thing is for sure, she is not Donald.
Too many americans are mesmerized by the fact that Obama is young and articulate, plays well
the presidential role, is generally speaking what is called a nice person or at least behaves
formally as if he were one, has but only of late (thanks to Hillary and Trump perhaps, by contrast)
a fairly high popularity score.
These same americans should go back, for once, to his 2008 campaign to defeat first Hillary
in the primaries and then the republican McCain.
The climate was dominated by the financial meltdown, which really started in the summer
of 2007 and was evident by early spring of 2008. Hillary was the candidate of Wall Street, according
to Obama, the republicans were one and the same with Wall Street and all the big corporate world,
he was Hope and Change.
Hope? What hope? And even more: change, what change? There has been little change, if almost
half of the nation is now ready to accept Trump as a promise of change. Obama's main financial
support came in 2008 from Wall Street, hedge funds in particular, and they were right because
nobody like the first Afro-American president, himself inevitably the incarnation of progressivism,
could save their ass after all the criminal finance they indulged in.
And Obama did save their skin, as everybody knows. Obama took on board plenty of Clinton (and
Wall Street) people, starting in June 2008, when Hillary was finished. You cannot change that
much after the financial crisis if you take Lawrence Summers as economic top advisor and you install
young Geithner at the Treasury. Paul Volcker, who inspired so many good and useful judgements
for candidate Obama, was put in the closet.
Obama is a lawyer by education and he knows who is the best customer. That's not the man or
the woman of Main Street. To them, some of them, he gave Obamacare, which is not all bad and something
of it will remain, I think, but it's not at all that major reform he has been boasting about.
By november 8 everybody will know that Obamacare has serious problems.
So, Obama's inheritance is a problem, and Hillary is running on Obama's inheritance.
nice to see the Guardian have a moment of clarity!
I do feel sympathy for Obama, he, and his family, have effectively spent 8 years held hostage
in the White House by those perfidious neo-conservatives,
they existed in Ronnie Raygun's day but he laughed at them, G H Bush referred to them as 'the
crazies in the basement' and kept close tabs on them,
they were happily meddling away during Bill Clintons era helping destroy Yugoslavia and furiously
planning their 'Project for a New American Century' PNAC basically a blueprint and justification
for every shitty thing done since,
G W Bush let loose the neo-cons of war and we know what they've done,
Barack Obama's greatest folly was to not round them up on the first day of his presidency,
put them in a sack with a brick and throw them in the river,
they have infested his government and followed their own agenda whilst laughing at him, so
the story goes, at a private dinner party Barack was asked why he wasn't doing anything to thwart
these shits and his reply was 'you saw what they did to MLK'
now at the transition to Clinton these neo-cons are actively endorsing her, they consider her
'their girl' Clinton may well turn out to be George 'Dubya' with tits,
Robert Kagan, ringleader of the cabal of neo-cons has endorsed Hillary, who is Roberts
wife? why bless me if it isn't Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland,
Samantha Powers is a neo-con acolyte, Ashton Carter is too, the State Dept. and the council
of foreign relations is riddled with their people, all the horror figures of Dubya's days are
lurking there and pulling strings,
Kerry isn't really a neo-con, but the Pentagon and CIA sabotage anything half decent he
tries to do,
Elizabeth Warren as VP would have given Hillary great credibility but she is explicitly not
a neo-conservative,
Basically Hillary is as genuine, left leaning and honest as Tony Blair....
and people wonder why they pin their last tatter of hope Donald 'Mr Bombastic' Trump?
much as I find Trump and his hardcore supporters loathsome I have to point out that he has:
expressed interest in talking with and working with Putin as opposed to starting WW3
accepted the concept of climate change (massive move for a Republican) but pointed out nuclear
war is an even greater and more immediate threat,
pointed out the expenditure of 5-6 Trillion dollars on pointless wars whilst the country crumbles
to ruins, basically a third of the US national debt run up in 15 years,
the fact he wants to make America great again is because he acknowledges that it isn't great
atm,
he's pointed out that Hillary makes all these pledges but has been in a position of power for
decades and has done sod all about it,
and the establishment , especially the neo-cons absolutely hate him...
if you're going to hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil maybe chauvinism and casual
racism are those lesser evils,
LGBT rights will not defend you from nuclear bombs, the heat flash that vaporises you is fairly
indifferent to skin colour or religion,
Also remember the lack of believability of Hillary. She is a politician that has been caught
in lies so often that people just don't believe her. She pushed the soda tax in Philly until Coca-Cola
complained that they gave too much money to the Foundation to be treated that way. Hillary backed
off.
She made millions from speaking to Big Banks. So we really believe she will go after Wells
Fargo? She is beholden to them (unless Goldman Sachs gets to choose).
She says raise taxes to pay fair share, but her biggest supporters are Apple, Google, and their
executives that keep billions of income overseas to avoid the highest corporate income tax in
the world. Do we really think she will hurt the contributors to the Foundation?
And the more the email saga plays out, the longer the untrustworthy issue remains in everyone's
mind.
Does anyone really believe Hillary Clinton will hold anyone on Wall Street accountable??? She
is bought and paid for by Wall Street, starting with all the green backs Hillary and Bill stuffed
in their pockets from the those speaking fees.
Obama's Justice Department motto was, Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Jail. The Democrats are not
going to bite their masters on Wall Street, and of course neither will the Republicans.
Prosecuting bankers, prosecuting torturers, stopping white collar crime, wars, assassinations,
warrantless spying and even scheduling of Marijuana are all under the control of the Executive
Branch. Find even one of these where the President did the right thing.
This is exactly what I was thinking during the first presidential debate. Hillary is an old
pro at saying all the right things, pushing all the right buttons to get the votes she needs,
but can you believe much of what she says?
This is why, despite a poor debate performance overall, I thought Trump was spot on when
he simply said she was a typical politician--all talk, no action, sounds great, none of it will
ever happen. He's correct.
Hillary is promising all sorts of things that she knows will never come to fruition. I voted
for Obama twice, but I'm chomping at the bit to vote for Trump, for no other reason then the fact
that he is the true outsider here. It's a gamble for sure, but with the right advisors he could
potentially institute some major changes that will never happen under a cautious Hillary who will
be obsessed with re-election the minute she starts her first term.
What Frank seldom writes of but remains extremely important to many people on the left in
the US is that Obama has governed as the effective prisoner of the Pentagon and security establishment.
His wars (including on whistleblowers), nuclear build-up, and confrontation with Russia have given
added momentum to growing neoconservative bipartisan consensus that will likely see a new President
Clinton start a war with Russia in Syria and/or Ukraine.
The Democrats are now both so neoliberal and so neoconservative that the only thing that
differentiates them from Republicans is social progressivism. Given a choice between the latter
and greatly increased likelihood of nuclear war, I have to confess to preferring that Trump win.
Trump has been consistent in wanting to lessen tensions with Russia.
As a voter, of course, I could vote for neither, and so am voting for Jill Stein.
Kathleen Lake
9m ago
1
2
Hillary, we believe Assange not you and you have earned
out contempt. It's sickening to know isn't it, that
almost ANY anonymous hacker has more credibility than
she who pretends to the throne (and in Clinton's case
it is a monarchy not a democracy as thev"line of
succession" was determined long before even one vote
was cast). Thanks for allowing your (lack of) character
to give us one more entry into you litany of lies,
corruption, deceit and infamy.", hillary. I will not
vote for corruption, lies and oil wars, so I will not
vote you... ever.
David Stalker
11m ago
0
1
Well what with Bill Clinton gaining the presidency and
Hillary the secretary of state position along with the
wealth they have generated how could they be none other
than establishment for those not familiar with that
phrase. and i quote from wikipedia. The Establishment
generally denotes a dominant group or elite that holds
power or authority in a nation or organization. The
Establishment may be a closed social group which
selects its own members or specific entrenched elite
structures, either in government or in specific
institutions. And as such my view is she will get the
job as President.
eldudeabides
14m ago
1
2
In public we hear her yarn about being against TTIP.....in
private, the opposite.
....In April 2015 the New York Times published a
story about a company called "Uranium One" which was
sold to Russian government-controlled interests,
giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all
uranium production capacity in the United States.
Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with
implications for the production of nuclear weapons,
the deal had to be approved by a committee composed
of representatives from a number of US government
agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed
off the deal was the State Department, then headed
by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises,
among others, the secretaries of the Treasury,
Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.
As Russian interests gradually took control of
Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the
Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from
individuals directly connected to the deal including
the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although
Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White
House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton
Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of
Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the
Clintons.
sblejo
1h ago
3
4
How can anyone trust Clinton and CO. when they
undermined Bernie Sanders, of their own party, because
he was winning??? Despicable, disreputable, dishonest,
power hungry, corrupt. What else can be said about her
and her ilk. And then they blame Russia for exposing
the treachery, Americans, so easily led, ignored the
truth of the situation. Americans, still do not admit
the ugly truth, voting for power rather than ethics.
Incredible, she is the other side of the Trump coin.
Confucion
2h ago
3
4
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue
and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters,"
Trump said at a campaign rally here.
No difference between Trump and Hillary. They are
pathological liars, sociopath and extremely sick minds.
They can be caught constantly in their bad deeds but
yet they still US presidential candidates.
Time ago people will reject slavery, injustice and
abuse. Today it is laissez faire, laissez passer
because US people became zombies. Hopeless of hopeless.
europeangrayling
2h ago
8
9
It does not matter, people who support Hillary they
support Hillary. Does not matter, either they don't
believe it, it's right wing conspiracy, or it's OK,
nothing wrong with it.
She has a 'private and public position', that's
Hillary, she is so smart and experienced. She is for
TPP, then against TPP in the primary, now we see 'her
private position' is as many 'free trade' deals as we
can, they are fine with it. There was survey that says
over 70% of Americans don't know what the TPP is, so
that makes sense. She even said she supports cutting SS
and raising retirement age in a speech, called it
'sensible'.
Hillary's support for the Iraq war, Libya,
supporting the Saudis in Yemen and Syria, LIkud in
Israel, the Honduras coup of a democratic government
helped greatly by the US, that she admitted and
advocated for in her book, but then took it out in the
new paper back version.
Where now environmental Native American activists
and regime critics are being killed by the new regime,
and there's a lot more violence in general, but the new
regime is friendly' to western corporate interests and
Hillary donors, so Hillary loves it, still says there
was no coup at all. Even as the EU and our ambassador
to Honduras said it was a coup.
I don't know why, but that Honduras thing really hit
me, and Berta Cáceres's murder. I mean Hillary is
ruthless, or is so detached from reality of life and
what these policies and politics do to regular people,
I don't know. Just like Cheney, so it makes sense that
Wolfowitz and the neocons support her too. But the
Honduras things alone, I can't vote for all that.
"... The Military Industrial Complex with the Saudi/Qatari/Gulf Mafia in cahoots with The Religious Cult We're No Longer Allowed To Mention, have it in the bag. ..."
"... Expect another war in the Middle East shortly after she's crowned. ..."
"... Oh please. Yeah I'd sooner eat a cyanide sandwich than vote for that corrupt witch. ..."
"... It's amusing to see the Guardian claim that it has "no bias", like when Marxists argue that their doctrine is a 'science' instead of a set of political beliefs. ..."
"... Do the 1%ers and biased media believe that even if Clinton wins that the Trump supporters will just shrug their shoulders? Not a chance. ..."
"... 2020 is going to be the most epic fought POTUS election in the history of America, that's if CLinton can stay upright and read the teleprompter for 4 years. ..."
"... The only winner here will be globalist bankers and mega multinationals, the losers will, as usual, be all of the common people. ..."
"... The Guardian will be 3 times a loser, despite it's supersonic propaganda campaign. 1) Brexit vote 2) Corbyn re-elected 3) Trump will win ..."
"... In terms of comparing how much they are working Trump is simply working harder. He was campaigning yesterday and is today as well. It shows how dedicated he is for this whilst Hillary is in hiding and no doubt will be until Sunday !!! ..."
"... At a townhall two days ago in Pennsylvania the Hillary Clinton campaign used a child actor, a daughter of a democrat state senator from Pennsylvania, to further her narrative. ..."
"... The American people are like a sleeping elephant, sedated by a tame and corrupt media, yet when awoken with the truth they will trample everything in their path. Clinton is running out of tranquilisers. ..."
The Military Industrial Complex with the Saudi/Qatari/Gulf Mafia in cahoots with The Religious
Cult We're No Longer Allowed To Mention, have it in the bag.
The Guardian is an independent voice in this year's election. That means no bias
It's amusing to see the Guardian claim that it has "no bias", like when Marxists argue
that their doctrine is a 'science' instead of a set of political beliefs.
Do the 1%ers and biased media believe that even if Clinton wins that the Trump supporters
will just shrug their shoulders? Not a chance.
2020 is going to be the most epic fought
POTUS election in the history of America, that's if CLinton can stay upright and read the teleprompter
for 4 years.
Trump and Sanders supporters are just getting started.
In terms of comparing how much they are working Trump is simply working harder. He was campaigning
yesterday and is today as well. It shows how dedicated he is for this whilst Hillary is in hiding
and no doubt will be until Sunday !!!
At a townhall two days ago in Pennsylvania the Hillary Clinton campaign used a child actor,
a daughter of a democrat state senator from Pennsylvania, to further her narrative.
Unfortunately all about Hillary is fake and as the media don't even pretend to practice journalism
concerning Hillary Clinton, citizen researchers have to do the media's job. Here is a video explaining
what took place.
The American people are like a sleeping elephant, sedated by a tame and corrupt media, yet
when awoken with the truth they will trample everything in their path. Clinton is running out
of tranquilisers.
The other European referendum,
soon to be known as the Italian Job. Interesting the way the article touches on
the issue of
the elite against the people.
Guardian is firmly in Hillary camp. Neoliberal media defends neoliberal candidate. What can
you expect?
Notable quotes:
"... "Some people insist on disguising this Great Satan as the savior angel." -- Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei, referring to the United States, 2015. ..."
"... The US has already been doing that for a long time. Your country is currently allied with al Qaeda in Syria and other so called moderates whose intention is to create a sharia law fundamentalist society as aopposed to Assad who is euro centric and secular. ..."
"... From the article: We know from Wikileaks that she believed privately in the past that Saudi Arabia was the largest source for terrorist funding worldwide, and that the Saudi government was not doing enough to stop that funding. ..."
"... and yet the Clinton Foundation benefits massively from KSA donations ..."
"... I heard that Donald Trump speaks out against the USA funding extremists to overthrow leaders like Assad, while they couldn't care about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. Tourists are being shot in Tunisia from extremists in Libya since we became involved in killing Gaddafi. ..."
"... The USA armed and trained extremists in Afghanistan to get one over on Russia, and despite more British troops and civilians being killed by USA friendly fire than the 'enemy' our media never make the same fuss about the USA. ..."
"... The USA didn't care for years when the government they helped implement in Afghanistan made women walk around in blue tents and banned them from education. ..."
"... Different political systems; two people who come from very different backgrounds with different views and experiences. Ahmadinejad was a social conservative with a populist economic agenda. Trump is all over the map, but in terms of his staff and advisers and his economic plans he's much more of a conventional Republican. David Duke's admiration is the main thing the two have in common. ..."
"... Clinton is tripe. She, and her kin, have a ponderous history of talk, and either inaction, or actions that generate disastrous results. Zero accomplishments across the board. Those who'd vote for Hillary must have a "horse" in this race. ..."
"... Yawn... The Guardian has Trump and Putin bashing on the brain. ..."
"... John Bolton as possible Secretary of State? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/john-bolton-no-regrets-about-toppling-saddam/article/2564463 Unless you're not talking about the guy who looks like a dead ringer for Mr Pastry that is a really terrifying proposition. ..."
"... USA and Britain are very directly responsible for Iran being ruled by the Islamic mafia which has been in power in Iran since 1979. Iran had a democratic government which for the benefit of its people and against the stealing of its oil by Britain, nationalised the oil. Britain then, desperate to carry on stealing the Iranian oil persuaded USA to collaborate with it to covertly organise a coup by MI5 and CIA to topple the legitimate democratic government and install a puppet dictatorship. ..."
"... All that happened in 1953, and Britain and USA totally admitted to all that 30 years later when the official secrets were declassified. ..."
"... ..., forgot to mention, Jimmy C1arter recently admitted that while he was the president, they contributed to the funding of the Khomeini gang against their own installed ally, the Shah in 1979 to topple him ..."
"... Trump makes George W Bush seem like an intellectual heavyweight and Hillary Clinton makes Bush seem as honest and truthful as a Girl Scout! ..."
"... What a shitty choice Americans have to make this time round. A compulsive liar warmonger or an ignorant buffoonish bigot.... ..."
"... US hatred for Iran is hard to fathom. Other adversaries have been forgiven: Germany, Italy, Japan, Vietnam, China. Iran is an outlier. ..."
"... I think it's mainly to keep US allies happy. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel regard Iran as their greatest enemy and the Syrian Civil War is largely a proxy conflict between the Saudis and the Iranians over their respective oil supplies, regional clout and religious affinity. ..."
"... Vote Clinton and absolutely nothing changes or improves. Hillary might as well take golf lessons from Barack, and saxophone lessons from bonking Bill, every day of her presidency. ..."
"... I wouldn't be at all surprised if the CIA and/or the US Armed Forces do that sort of thing too actually! The CIA, after all, toppled the then democratically elected PM of Iran in 1953, forcibly installing the Shah in his place, the CIA helped bring the Taliban and Saddam to power in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively in the first place, unleashing decades of death and destruction on the peoples of those two countries ..."
"... When the Iraqi people rose up against Saddam's brutal dictatorship back in 1991, the US actually helped him crush the rebellion, thus ensuring he stayed in power. ..."
"... One of Trump's top advisors John Bolton wrote an article for the New York Times titled "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran" calling for a joint US-Israel strike on Iran, including regime change. He could well end up being Sec. Of State if Trump wins. ..."
"... Meanwhile Clinton is on record as saying that Iran are the world's main sponsor of terrorism and that if she became president she would obliterate Iran if they attacked Israel. Given that Hezbollah are always involved in tit for tat encounters with Israel, and Clinton feels Hezbollah is effectively the state of Iran, it wouldn't take much. ..."
"... Bolton is a vile neocon of the lowest order, what a charade if he gets a senior post and they call Hillary a warmonger? Just wait for Bolton, you mugs ..."
"... Let's hope the Saudis defeat the Houthi uprising and support the internationally recognised government of Yemen. Oh, sorry this is the Guardian: let's hope the Russians defeat the Sunni uprising and support the internationally recognised government of Syria... ..."
"... Yes. Trump is going to steal ISIS's oil. Only slight hole in that theory is that ISIS doesn't own any phucking oil. They aren't a nation state, just thieves. Stealing a thief's stolen goods is still stealing. ..."
"... I've never understood why we're allied to Saudi. They were complicit in 9/11, they hate the west and despise us. ..."
"... >I've never understood why we're allied to Saudi. Oil. Oil. And more Oil. ..."
"... There's nothing bizarre about working with Russia on Middle Eastern issues unless you're married to the idea of a new Cold War. Why Washington is so hell-bent on making Russians the enemies again is beyond me. ..."
"... Russia - does it really need all that land? Wouldn't it be better if Vladivostok was Obamagrad and Ekaterinburg was Katemiddletown? ..."
"... What exactly is the US now? a supplier of sophisticated weaponary to "rebels" or rather terrorists that the legitimate governnent ( with Russian help thankfully) is trying to defeat... ..."
"... There is no moral equivalence here. Once you look at what western intel has been upto all these decades, nowhere could Russia be close to the evil that the US and UK are. ..."
Donny is the best chance for the lasting world peace and stability because he is more likely
to work with Russians on key geopolitical issues.
Hillary is the best chance for ww3 and nuclear anihilation of the mainland American cities
because she is russophobic, demonizer of Russia, hell bent on messing with them and unexplicably
encouraged to do so by supposedly "normal" people in mainstream media.
The US has already been doing that for a long time. Your country is currently allied with
al Qaeda in Syria and other so called moderates whose intention is to create a sharia law fundamentalist
society as aopposed to Assad who is euro centric and secular.
From the article: We know from Wikileaks that she believed privately in the past that Saudi
Arabia was the largest source for terrorist funding worldwide, and that the Saudi government was
not doing enough to stop that funding.
You know who else believes that about the KSA? Joe Biden.
I heard that Donald Trump speaks out against the USA funding extremists to overthrow leaders
like Assad, while they couldn't care about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. Tourists are being
shot in Tunisia from extremists in Libya since we became involved in killing Gaddafi.
The USA armed and trained extremists in Afghanistan to get one over on Russia, and despite
more British troops and civilians being killed by USA friendly fire than the 'enemy' our media
never make the same fuss about the USA. It wasn't long ago that many doctors were killed
in a hospital by a USA bomb, but I only found out about it on the Doctors Without Borders facebook
page.
The USA didn't care for years when the government they helped implement in Afghanistan
made women walk around in blue tents and banned them from education.
The Ahmadinejad - Trump comparison is a weak comparison.
Different political systems; two people who come from very different backgrounds with different
views and experiences. Ahmadinejad was a social conservative with a populist economic agenda.
Trump is all over the map, but in terms of his staff and advisers and his economic plans he's
much more of a conventional Republican. David Duke's admiration is the main thing the two have
in common.
Clinton is tripe. She, and her kin, have a ponderous history of talk, and either inaction,
or actions that generate disastrous results. Zero accomplishments across the board. Those who'd
vote for Hillary must have a "horse" in this race.
I won't be specific, but that horse, or horses, are generally the disenfranchised ones. What
to say: I get their plight. But Hillary? Elected, she only make sure they stay that way so she'll
be elected again. Time to wake up. There ain't no "pie in the sky", but with perserverance, all's
possible, and likely. Trump's the guy.
USA and Britain are very directly responsible for Iran being ruled by the Islamic mafia which
has been in power in Iran since 1979. Iran had a democratic government which for the benefit of
its people and against the stealing of its oil by Britain, nationalised the oil. Britain then,
desperate to carry on stealing the Iranian oil persuaded USA to collaborate with it to covertly
organise a coup by MI5 and CIA to topple the legitimate democratic government and install a puppet
dictatorship.
All that happened in 1953, and Britain and USA totally admitted to all that 30 years later
when the official secrets were declassified. One of the consequences of that criminal act
was that it lead to the Islamic revolution which brought the Islam clergy to power which turned
this most strategically, economically, and culturally important country of the region into an
enemy of the west, supporter of terrorism, human rights abuser, arch enemy of Israel, total economic
ruin, and eternal nuclear threat to the region- not to mention the Shia-Sunni sectarian division
that it has perpetrated which to the large extent has contributed to the mighty mess that the
Middle East is in now and potentially spreading to the outside of the region.
..., forgot to mention, Jimmy C1arter recently admitted that while he was the president, they
contributed to the funding of the Khomeini gang against their own installed ally, the Shah in
1979 to topple him
I think it's mainly to keep US allies happy. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel regard Iran as their
greatest enemy and the Syrian Civil War is largely a proxy conflict between the Saudis and the
Iranians over their respective oil supplies, regional clout and religious affinity.
Though the continuance of PNAC's schema shouldn't be discounted either. US policy hawks close
to both Clinton and Trump still aim for dominance in Central Eurasia. I expect if they could press
a button and magically summon up a new Shah for Iran they'd jump at the chance.
Cuba spent over half a century living beneath the shadow of American wrath too for different
reasons. Though perhaps burning revenge at the loss of a compliant puppet also played a role.
Vote Clinton and absolutely nothing changes or improves. Hillary might as well take golf lessons
from Barack, and saxophone lessons from bonking Bill, every day of her presidency.
Vote Trump and things are going to change in America. No more pussyfooting around.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the CIA and/or the US Armed Forces do that sort of thing
too actually! The CIA, after all, toppled the then democratically elected PM of Iran in 1953,
forcibly installing the Shah in his place, the CIA helped bring the Taliban and Saddam to power
in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively in the first place, unleashing decades of death and destruction
on the peoples of those two countries.
When the Iraqi people rose up against Saddam's brutal dictatorship back in 1991, the US
actually helped him crush the rebellion, thus ensuring he stayed in power. So the US is arguably
at least partly responsible for the crimes Saddam and the Taliban committed (in the case of Iraq,
as well as murdering at least hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the US is probably also partly
responsible for Saddam's DRAINING OF THE MARSHLANDS OF SOUTHER IRAQ).
One of Trump's top advisors John Bolton wrote an article for the New York Times titled "To
Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran" calling for a joint US-Israel strike on Iran, including regime change.
He could well end up being Sec. Of State if Trump wins.
Meanwhile Clinton is on record as saying that Iran are the world's main sponsor of terrorism
and that if she became president she would obliterate Iran if they attacked Israel. Given that
Hezbollah are always involved in tit for tat encounters with Israel, and Clinton feels Hezbollah
is effectively the state of Iran, it wouldn't take much.
Let's hope the Saudis defeat the Houthi uprising and support the internationally recognised
government of Yemen. Oh, sorry this is the Guardian: let's hope the Russians defeat the Sunni
uprising and support the internationally recognised government of Syria...
Yes. Trump is going to steal ISIS's oil. Only slight hole in that theory is that ISIS doesn't
own any phucking oil. They aren't a nation state, just thieves. Stealing a thief's stolen goods
is still stealing.
There's nothing bizarre about working with Russia on Middle Eastern issues unless you're married
to the idea of a new Cold War. Why Washington is so hell-bent on making Russians the enemies again
is beyond me.
What exactly is the US now? a supplier of sophisticated weaponary to "rebels" or rather terrorists
that the legitimate governnent ( with Russian help thankfully) is trying to defeat...
Both America and Russia have been supplying arms to terrorists or to destabilise elected Govts.
Since the end of WW2. Neither country has a right to take the moral high ground especially not
Russia at this time with the revelations coming out about shooting down passenger aircraft. You're
both as bad as each other.
There is no moral equivalence here. Once you look at what western intel has been upto all
these decades, nowhere could Russia be close to the evil that the US and UK are.
Common painkillers such as ibuprofen used by millions of people in the UK are linked
to an increased risk of heart failure, experts have said.
Non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
(NSAIDs) could increase the risk of
being admitted to hospital. Previous studies have linked the drugs to abnormal heart rhythm –
which can cause heart failure – and an increased risk of heart attack and stroke if taken
regularly.
ADVERTISING
The drugs, together with a subgroup of anti-inflammatories known as selective COX-2
inhibitors, are used to control pain and inflammation and are commonly taken by people with
arthritis.
The study, published in the British Medical Journal, used data for almost 10 million
NSAIDs users from the UK, the Netherlands, Italy and Germany, who started treatment between
2000 and 2010. Overall, 92,163 hospital admissions for heart failure were identified among the
group.
The study found that people who had taken any NSAID in the previous 14 days had a 19%
increased risk of hospital admission for heart failure compared with people who had used
NSAIDs at any point in the past. The BMJ research was led by a team from the University of
Milano-Bicocca in Italy.
The risk of admission for heart failure increased for seven traditional NSAIDs (diclofenac,
ibuprofen, indomethacin, ketorolac, naproxen, nimesulide, and piroxicam) and two COX 2
inhibitors (etoricoxib and rofecoxib). The increased risk of hospital admission ranged from
16% for naproxen to 83% for ketorolac.
Researchers also found the risk of heart failure doubled for diclofenac, etoricoxib,
indomethacin, piroxicam, and rofecoxib used at very high doses, although they stressed this
should be interpreted with caution.
Even medium doses of indomethacin and etoricoxib were associated with increased risk,
the study said, but there was no evidence that celecoxib increased the risk of admission for
heart failure at commonly-used doses.
The experts said their study "offers further evidence that the most frequently used
individual traditional NSAIDs and selective COX 2 inhibitors are associated with an increased
risk of hospital admission for heart failure. Moreover, the risk seems to vary between drugs
and according to the dose."
In an accompanying editorial, two Danish health researchers said that because of the
widespread use of NSAIDs, "even a small increase in cardiovascular risk is a concern for
public health".
Advertisement
They said the fact they can be bought over the counter in supermarkets "further fuels
the common misconception that NSAIDs are harmless drugs that are safe for everyone".
Professor Peter Weissberg, medical director at the
British
Heart Foundation
, said: "This large observational study reinforces previous research
showing that some NSAIDs, a group of drugs commonly taken by patients with joint problems,
increase the risk of developing heart failure. It has been known for some years now that such
drugs need to be used with caution in patients with, or at high risk of, heart disease. This
applies mostly to those who take them on a daily basis rather than only occasionally.
"Since heart and joint problems often co-exist, particularly in the elderly, this
study serves as a reminder to doctors to consider carefully how they prescribe NSAIDs, and to
patients that they should only take the lowest effective dose for the shortest possible time.
They should discuss their treatment with their GP if they have any concerns."
Figures from NHS Digital show that in 2015 there were 14,605,791 prescription items
dispensed in England for NSAIDs.
The Proprietary Association of Great Britain, the UK trade association representing
manufacturers of branded over-the-counter medicines, stressed that the people in the study
were given NSAIDs on prescription. Chief executive John Smith said: "This observational study
analysed prescription-only NSAIDs, used long-term by people with an average age of 77 years to
treat conditions such as arthritis.
"Prescribed NSAIDs contain a higher dosage than medicines available over the counter,
which the authors acknowledge would typically be used by younger people, at lower doses and
for shorter durations than those prescribed.
"The authors admit that the study has several limitations. The study does not provide
data on absolute risk, therefore the probability of these people developing heart failure
without the use of NSAIDs is unknown."
Springsteen, who has dramatised the plight of working-class Americans in his music, said he
understands how Trump could seem "compelling" to people who are economically insecure.
"The
absurdity is beyond cartoon-like. But he's gotten close enough [to the White House] so it can
make you nervous," he told the talk show Skavlan.
"I don't think he's going to win, but even him running is a great embarrassment if you're
an American," he said.
Trump knows how to tell voters "some of the things they want to hear," he added, including
to people "uncomfortable with the 'browning' of America."
"We have certain problems in the United States – tremendous inequality of wealth
distribution. That makes for ripe ground for demagoguery," Springsteen said.
"He has a very simple answer to all these very, very complex problems."
Springsteen recorded the interview with the talk show ahead of next week's release of his
memoir, Born to Run, which describes his childhood in New Jersey and rise to fame.
The singer, famous for his onstage stamina, has drawn a diverse field of devoted fans for
decades, including New Jersey governor Chris Christie, one of Trump's most public backers.
Springsteen insisted for years that he would let his music speak for him but has been more
openly political since the election in 2004, when he campaigned for John Kerry in his
unsuccessful bid to win the White House from George W Bush.
One hit wonder boy who climbed to fame on the back of his jingoistic melody 'Born in the
USA.' What he knows about politics could be written on a stamp!
I don't know too about Hilary being the ebb and flow of this countrys future. She outspent
Trump 3 to 1. She spent a wooping 360 million dollars on this campaign alone. The
Libertarian party also spent it up up to 7 million for their parties choice of President.
Some are saying that Hilary is not so popular with the vulture class. Those who feel
that her 300,000 a plate dinners to raise huge wads of cash could be spent on the poor.
1. Springsteen is eminently qualified to comment on being in a moronic state. (Huh?)
2. The issue doesn't revolve around the candidates' intelligence , but rather the ability
to make sound, timely and balanced judgments on many things with which you may or may not
have requisite familiarity. THOSE DECISIONS MUST BE MADE WITH COURAGE and sometimes almost
instantly.
3. Then, there is there are the issues of Trust, Honesty, Openness and the SECURITY OF THE
UNITED STATES.
But, then, I'm a Yank. (I hold 2 MBA's, I'm a Senior, a former executive with a major
international corporation, a father and grandfather, and a Veteran.), so what do I know?
against Sanders (who gave up far too soon) neither Hillary nor Trump would have a chance.
But the DNC, in its corrupt establishment wisdom, cf. Mme Wassermann-Schultz... undermined
his fair chances of raising real questions of why America is slipping economically,
socially, morally.
Who of the two is going to be less destructive for the US and the world ?
Well , I am not ready to say the lady is.
A professional politician and a non professional one. By the look of what the present has
to offer, I would be inclined to go for the non professional.
Goldman Sachs made Hillary's tie? Does she even wear a tie?
===============
$675,000.00 says Goldman Sachs has her tied around their chubby greedy finger.
Springsteen and Trump are alike in that they are both cowards when it came time for them to
do their duty in Vietnam. Springsteen told his draft board he was homosexual (funny he
hasn't been acting homosexual), whereas Trump got deferments for heel spurs. Dick Cheny is
like Springsteen and Trump as well in this regard.
I thought you Americans had finally decided that the Vietnam campaign was a bad error of
political judgement. Nothing cowardly about saying "no" to a draft that included, inter
alia, carpet bombing of innocents and applications of agent orange where the fall out is
still happening.
TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that
exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal
representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving
the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class;
it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president
candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton
will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped
once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election
if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations.
"... Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game? ..."
"... The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US. ..."
"... And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture? ..."
"... "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development. ..."
"... And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits. ..."
"... They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional. ..."
"... "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help. ..."
"... Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation. ..."
"... "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid. ..."
"... I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. ..."
"... The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn. ..."
"... By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight. ..."
"... a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well ..."
"... Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government. ..."
"... America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced ..."
"... The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well. ..."
"... "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man". ..."
"... The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity. ..."
"... It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of. ..."
"... Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia. ..."
"... Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations". ..."
"... Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy. ..."
"... Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines ..."
"... China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum. ..."
"... TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations. ..."
"... Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes. ..."
"... Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip .... ..."
"... They tell their employers what they want to hear. ..."
"... Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering? ..."
"... The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course. ..."
"... What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football. ..."
"... Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power. ..."
"... Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US. ..."
"... Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. ..."
"... China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony. ..."
"... The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China. ..."
"... The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US. ..."
Before the pivot could even get underway the Saudis threw their rattle out of the pram and drew
US focus back to the Middle East and proxy war two steps removed with Russia. Empires don't get
to focus, they react to each event and seek to gain from the outcome so the whole pivot idea was
flawed.
Obama's foreign policy has been clumsy and amoral. It remains to be seen whether it will become
more so in an effort to double down. Under Clinton it definitely will, under Trump who knows but
random isn't a recommendation.
Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different
game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't
that the Neoliberal end game?
So the Rand Think Tank would sooner have war now than later. Who wouldda guessed that.
The Chinese want to improve trade and business with the rest of the world. The US answer? destroy
China militarily. so who best to lead the world. I think the article answers that question unintentionally.
The rest of the world has had it up to the ears with American military invasions, regeime changes,
occupations and bombing of the world. They are ready for China´s approach to international relations.
it is about time the adults took over the leadership of the world. Europe and the USA and their
offspring have clearly failed.
China has been handed everything it needs to fly solo: money, factories, IP, etc. Fast forwarding
into the western civic model limits (traffic, pollution, etc.), its best bet is to offload US
"interests" and steer clear.
No clear sign India's learned/recovered from British occupation, as they let tech create more
future Kanpurs.
The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner
of Europe and the US.
Was it really worth expanding NATO to Russia's borders instead of offering neutrality to former
Soviet States and thus retain Russia's confidence in global matters that far out weigh the interests
of the neo-cons?
neutrality? Russia invaded non-NATO members Georgie, Ukraine, and Moldavia, and created puppet-states
on their soil.
The Jremlin-rules are simple: the former Sovjet states should be ruled by a pro-Russian dictator
(Bella-Russia, Kazachstan, etc. etc...). Democracies face boycots, diplomatic and military support
of rebels, and in the end simply a military invasion.
The only reason why the baltic states are now thriving democracies, is that they are NATO members.
And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently
bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with
their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong
with this picture?
When Obama took office his first major speech was in Cairo - where he said
"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around
the world," US President Barack Obama said to the sounds of loud applause which rocked not
only the hall, but the world. "One based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based
upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead,
they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and
the dignity of all human beings."
He displayed a dangerous mix of innocence, foolishness, disregard for the truth and misunderstanding
of the nature of Islamic regimes - does the West have common values with Lebanon which practices
apartheid for Palestinians, Saudi, where women cannot drive a car, Syria, where over 17,000 have
died in Assad's torture chambers, we can go on and on.
And on China - Trump has it right - China has been manipulating its currency exchange rate
for years, costing western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits and something
needs to be done about it.
" America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap,
and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of
all human beings. "
He spoke about the whole of Islam, not specific " Islamic regimes ". And he is correct
on it. All religions share a great deal of values with the USAmerican constition and even each
other .
The overwhelming majority of USAmerican muslims have accepted the melting pot with their whole
heart, second generation children have JOINED its fighting forces to protect the interest of the
USA all over the world. Normally this full an integration is reached with the third generation.
The west has won against those religious fanatics. How else to explain that exactly the people
those claim to speak turn up with us?
And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones
who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force,
e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They
are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits.
They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American
corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have
to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional.
"These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing
US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help.
Interesting in particular to see RAND is still in its Cold War mindset. There's famous footage
of RAND analysts in the 60s (I think) discussing putative nuclear war with the USSR and concluding
that the US was certain of 'victory' following a missile exchange because its surviving population
(after hundreds of millions of deaths and the destruction of almost all urban centres) would be
somewhat larger.
China's island claims are all about a broader strategic aim- getting unencumbered access to
the Pacific for its growing blue water navy. It's not aimed at Taiwan or Japan in any sort of
specific sense and, save for the small possibility of escalation following an accident (ships
colliding or something), there's very little risk of conflict in at least the medium term.
It's crucial to remember just how much China and the US depend upon each other economically.
The US is by far China's largest single export market, powering its manufacturing economy. In
return, China uses the surplus to buy up US debt, which allows the Americans to borrow cheaply
and keep the lights on. Crash China and you crash the US- and vice versa.
For now, China is basically accepting an upgraded number 2 spot (along with the US acknowledging
them as part of a 'G2'), but supporting alternative governance structures when it doesn't like
the ones controlled by the US/Japan (so the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS etc.).
This doesn't mean that the two don't see each other as long term strategic and economic rivals.
But the risks to both of rocking the boat are gigantic and not in the interest of either party
in the foreseeable future. Things that could change that:
a. a succession of Trump-like US presidents (checks and balances are probably sufficient to
withstand one, were it to come to that);
b. a revolution in China (possible if the economy goes South- and what comes next is probably
not liberal democracy but anti-Japanese or anti-US authoritarian nationalism);
c. an unpredictable chain of events arising from N Korean collapse or a regional nuclear race
(Japan-China is a more likely source of conflict than US-China).
"The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would
be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries
mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to
the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US
is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid.
The writing is on the wall: the future is with China. All the US can do is make nice or reap the
dire consequences. If China can clean up its human rights record, I would be happy to see them
supplant or rival the US as a global hegemon. After all, looked at historically, haven't they
earned it? - An American, born and bred, but no nationalist
Well, that is naïve. Look at China and how the Chinese people are governed. Look at the US. And
please don't tell me you don't see a difference. I'll take a world with the US as the global hegemon
any day.
A regional counter balance is needed. Cooperation is hindered by Japan. They should be the center
point of a regional alliance strong enough to contain China with US help, but it doesn't work:
whilst everybody fears China, everybody hates Japan.
The reason is they failed miserably to rebuild trust after WWII, rather than going cap in hand,
acknowledging respondibility for atrocities and other crimes and injustice, and compensate victims,
they kept their pride and isolation. They are now paying the price - possibly together with the
rest of us.
Maybe a full scale change after 7 decades of to-little-to-late diplomacy can still achieve
sth.
The ass the US should kick sits in Tokyo - something they failed to do properly after WWII,
when they managed it well in West Germany (ok - they had help from the Brits there, who for all
their failings understand foreign nations far better), where it facilitated proper integration
into European cooperation.
I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil.
Countries that do well don't need to crack down on dissidents to the point of kidnappings
or spend millions of stupid man made islands that pisses everyone off but have all the military
value of a threatening facial tattoo. The South China Sea tactics is partially Chinese "push until
something pushes back" diplomacy but also stems from the harsh realisation that their resources
can be easily choked of and even the CPC knows it can't hold down a billion plus Chinese people
once the hunger sets it.
China is facing the dilemna that as it brings people out of poverty it reduces the supply of
the very cheap labor that makes it rich. You can talk about Lenovo all you want, no one is buying
a Chinese car anytime soon. Nor is any airline outside of China going to buy one of their planes.
Copyright fraud is one thing the West can retaliate easily upon and will if they feel China has
gone too far. Any product found in a western court to be a blatant copy can effectively be banned.
The next step is to refuse to recognize Chinese copyright on the few genuine innovations that
come out of it.
Plus the deal Deng Xiaoping made with the urban classes is fraying. It was wealth in exchange
for subservience. The people in the cities stay out of direct politics but quality of life issues,
safety, petty corruption and pollution are angering them and scaring them hence the vast amount
of private Chinese money being sunk into global real estate.
The military growth and dubious technobabble is just typical Chinese mianzi gaining. If you
do have a brand new jet stealth jet fighter, you don't release pictures of it to the world press.
They got really rattled when Shinzo Abe decided the JSDF can go and deliver slappings abroad to
help their friends if needed. Because an army that spends a lot of time rigging up Michael Bayesque
set maneuvers for the telly is not what you want to pit against top notch technology handled by
obsessive perfectionists.
No one plays hardball with China because we all like cheap shit. But once that is over then
China is a very vulnerable country with not one neighbour they can call a friend. They know it.
Obama hasn't failed.. It's the histrionics that prove it not the other way round.
The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing
up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China
and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly
the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys
totalled almost 3bn.
No-one is buying a Chinese car? Check the sales for Wuling. They produce the small vans that
are the lifeblood of the small entrepreneur. BYD are already exporting electric buses to London.
The likes of VW, BMW, Land Rover, are all in partnership with Chinese auto-makers and China is
the largest car market in the world.
Corruption has been actively attacked and over a quarter of a million officials have been brought
to book in Xi's time in office. The pollution causing steel and coal industries are being rapidly
contracted and billions spent on re-training.
Plus the fact that while the Chinese are mianzi gazing, the last thing they think about is
politics. They simply don't want to know.
By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has
just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight.
The conclusion is that bi-lateral talks, not US led pissing contests are the way forward.
"What has happened is the ICA has ruled against China in the SCS..." Nothing new. The UN Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf had also ruled against the
UK and the International Court of Justice had ruled against the US.
Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling
of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for
all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government.
Just look at how gobsmacked the US Military & President were over such a stupidly undertaken
sale by the LNP. This diplomatically lunatic sell off by the LNP of such a vital national asset
has effectively taken-out any influence or impact Australia may have, or exert, over critical
issues happening on our northern doorstep.
If there was ever a case for buying back a strategic national asset, this is definitely the
one. Oh, if folks are worried about the $Billions in penalties incurred, simple solution - just
stop the $Billions of Diesel Fuel Rebates gifted to Miners for, say, 10 years..... Done!
America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch,
a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent
and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a
far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli
occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria,
Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced.
Europe
is under siege by endless tides of refugees that are the direct consequence of America's neo-Conservative
and militant foreign policy. Meanwhile, America's neo-liberal economic and trade policies have
not only decimated her own manufacturing base and led to gross inequality but also massive dislocations
in South America, Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Tired, irritated, frustrated,
exhausted, cynical, violent, moral-less, deeply corrupt, and rudderless, America is effectively
bankrupt and on the verge of becoming another Greece, if not for the saving grace of the petro-Dollar.
Europe would be well-advised to keep the Yanks at arm's length so as to escape as much as possible
the fallout from her complete collapse. As for Britain, soon to be divorced from the EU, time
draws nigh to end the humiliating, one-sided servitude that is the 'Special Relationship' and
forge an independent foreign policy. The tectonic plates of history is again shifting, and there
nothing America can do to stop it.
I don't know America probably occupies the most prime geographical spot on the planet, and buffered
by two oceans. It doesn't have to worry about refugees and the other problems and ultimately they
can produce enough food and meet all of its energy needs domestically. And it's the third most
populous nation on earth and could easily grow its population with immigration.
The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations
except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other
nations including the UK is as well.
Given the facts it would be daft a write off America. Every European nation have lost their
number one spot in history and they seem to be doing just fine. Is there some reason why this
can't be America's destiny as well? Does it really have to end in flames?
"China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia."
These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle
Sam's "yes man".
The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with
their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using
force is beyond stupidity.
Pivot to Asia is about one thing only, sending more war ships to encircle China. But for what
purpose exactly? It does one thing though, it united china by posing as a threat.
Those blaming Obama most stridently for not keeping China in its box are those most responsible
for China's rise. American and Western companies shafted their own people to make themselves more
profit. They didn't care what the consequences might be, as long as the lmighty "Shareholder Value"
continued to rise. Now they demand that the taxes from all those people whose jobs they let go
be used to contain the new superpower that they created. As usual, Coroporate America messes
things up then demands to know what someone else is going to do about it
Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world
would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia.
Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior
would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war,
banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations".
Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not
surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy.
fuck his pivot.....this ain't syria.....having destroyed the middle east it was our turn.....this
is americas exceptionalism........stay #1 by desabilising/destroying everyone else.....p.s. shove
the TPP also..........
The real question is why should not China be more dominant in Asia... i understands the USA tendency
especially since the fall of the soviet union at seing themselves as the only world superpower.
And i understand why China would like to balance tbat especially in her own neighborhood.
Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico
or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely
across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines,... and considering that the
chinese have a long memory of werstern gunboat diplomacy and naval for e projection, if i was
them i would feel a little uncomfortable at how vulnerable my newfound trade is... especially
when some western politician so clearly think that china needs to be contained...
China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth.
In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's
$60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum.
Much of this money has been funnelled into 'investments' that will never yield a return. The most almighty crash is coming. Which will be interesting to say the least.
Now that is interesting but odd. They are buying phuqing HUGE swathes of land in Africa, investing
everywhere they can on rest of the planet. All seemingly on domestic debt then.
Yes. The Japanese went on a spending spree abroad in the 1980s, while accumulating debt at home,
and when that popped the economy entered 20 years of stagnation, as bad debts hampered the financial
system.
The Chinese bubble is far larger, and made worse by the fact that much of the debt has been
taken on by inefficient state owned enterprises and local government, spending not because the
figures make sense but to meet centrally-dictated growth targets. Much of the rest has been funnelled
into real estate, which now makes up more than twice the share of the Chinese economy than is
the case in the UK. Property prices in some major Chinese cities have reached up to 30 times local
incomes, making London look cheap in comparison.
TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit
every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations
and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests
of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly
opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There
is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even
consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the
issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does.
As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations.
Don't believe for a second Hillary won't ram through a version of the TPP/IP if she wins. What
she's actually said is that she's against it in its current form
Remember she is part of an owned by the 0.1% that stand to benefit from the agreement, she
will do their bidding and be well rewarded. A few cosmetic changes will be applied to the agreement
so she can claim that she wasn't lying pre-election and we'll have to live with the consequences.
Well done all you globalists for failing to spot the bleedin obvious...that millions of homes
worldwide full of 'Made In China' was ultimately going to pay for the People's Liberation
Army. Still think globalisation is wonderful ?
Quite. How can you believe in a liberal, global free market and then do business with the Socialist
Republic of China, that is the antithesis of free markets. The name is above the door, so there's
no use acting all surprised when it doesn't pan out the way you planned it.
Anything good can be made evil, including globalization. Imagine fair trade completely globalized
so very nation relies on every other nation for goods. That type of shared destiny is the only
way to maintain peace because humans are tribalist to a fault. We evolved in small groups, our
social dynamics are not well suited to large diverse groups. If nation has food but nation B does
not, nation B will go to war with nation A, so hopefully both nations trade and alleviate that
situation. Nations with high economic isolation are beset by famines and poverty. Germany usually
beats China in total exports and Germany is a wonderful place to live. It's not globalization
that is the problem, it's exploitation and failure of our leaders to follow and enforce the Golden
Rule.
Roll out the barrel.....
Well said and you are so right.
15 years ago, I had a conversation in an airport with an American. I remarked that, by outsourcing
manufacturing to China the US had sold its future to an entity that would prove to be their enemy
before too long. I was derided and ridiculed. I wonder where that man is and whether he remembers
our conversation.
Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one
police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won
freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a
moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes.
I despair of "normalcy bias" and the insulting term "conspiracy theorist". People have lost
the ability to work things out for themselves and the majority knows nothing about Agenda 21 aka
Sustainable Development Goals 2030, until the land grabs start and private ownership is outlawed.
... the study also suggests that, if war cannot be avoided, the US might be best advised to
strike first, before China gets any stronger and the current US military advantage declines further
..
Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip ....
Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is
madness.
I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts
to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering?
1. With respect, Mr Tidsall is badly off track in painting China as the one evil facing an innocent
world.
2. The fact is that US' belief in and repeated resort to force has created a huge mess in the
Middle East, brought true misery to millions, and truly thrown Europe in turmoil in the bargain.
3. Besides this Middle East mess, the US neoliberal economic policies have wreaked havoc, culminating
in an unprecedented financial and economic crisis that has left millions all over the world without
any hope for the future
4. Hence Mr Tidsall's pronouncement:
This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive China without compromising
or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.
Ought to read:
This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive United States
without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.
5. US would be better advised to focus on its growing social problems, evident in the growing
random killings, police picking on blacks, etc, and on its fast decaying infrastructure. We now
read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and
kills all over the world.
6. Mr Tidsall, may I request that you kindly focus on realities rather than come up with opinion
that approaches science fiction
I agree that Mr Tisdall's treatment of the US is somewhat naive and ignorant. However couldn't
it be that both countries are capable of aggression and assertiveness? The US's malign influence
is mainly focussed on the Middle East and North Africa region, while China's is on its neighbours.
China's attitude to Taiwan is pure imperialism, as is its treatment of dissenting voices on the
mainland and in Hong Kong. China's contempt for international law and the binding ruling by the
UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal is also deeply harmful to peace and justice in the region and worldwide.
We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just
kills and kills all over the world.
Very superficial indeed - compare, just as one example, the number of Nobel prizes won by American
scientists recently with those by Chinese. The US is still, in general, far ahead of China in
terms of scientific research (though China is making rapid progress). (That is not intended to
excuse US killing of course.)
The US follows the USSR path of increasingly ignoring the needs of its own population in order
to retain global dominance. It will end the same as the USSR. That which cannot continue will
not continue.
Xi is not looking for a fight. His first-choice agent of change is money, not munitions.
According to Xi's "One Belt, One Road" plan, his preferred path to 21st-century Chinese hegemony
is through expanded trade, business and economic partnerships extending from Asia to the Middle
East and Africa. China's massive Silk Road investments in central and west Asian oil and gas
pipelines, high-speed rail and ports, backed by new institutions such as the Asia Infrastructure
Investment Bank, are part of this strategy, which simultaneously encourages political and economic
dependencies. Deng Xiaoping once said to get rich is glorious. Xi might add it is also empowering.
The most realistic assessment on Xi and China.
The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to
have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two
spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course.
A Grim and over-paranoid predicament: US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition";
China is well aware it remains a poor nation compared to developed world and is decades behind
of US in military, GDP per capital and science, that is not including civil liberty, citizen participation,
Gov't transparency and so on. China is busy building a nation confident of its culture and history,
military hegemony plays no part of its dream.
US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"
Oh come on, $20 Trillion in debt and with Social Security running out of money, there will
be no more to lend the government.
China has forged an agreement with Russia for all its needs in oil ( Russia has more oil than
Saudi Arabia) and payment will not be in US dollars. Russia will not take US$ for trade and the
BRICS nations will squeeze the US$ out of its current situation as reserve currency. When the
dollars all find their way back to the USA hyperinflation will cause misery.
Before the Chinese or anyone else gets any ideas, they should reflect on the size of the US defence
budget, 600 billion dollars in 2015, and consider what that might imply in the event of conflict.
a third of that budget goes in profit for the private companies they employ to make duds like
the F35 - so you can immediately reduce that to 400 billion. The US have been fighting third world
countries for 50 years, and losing, their military is bloated, out of date and full of retrograde
gear that simply wont cut it against the Russians. Privately you would find that most top line
military agree with that statement. They also have around 800 bases scattered world wide, spread
way too thin. Its why theyve stalled in Ukraine and can't handle the middle east. The Russians
spend less than $50 billion but have small, highly mobile forces, cutting edge missile defence
systems (which will have full airspace coverage by 2017). The Chinese policy of A2D/AD or access
denial has got the US surface fleet marooned out in the oceans as any attempt to get close enough
to be effective would be met with a hail of multiple rocket shedding war heads. The only place
where it is probable (but my no means certain) that the US still has the edge is in submarine
warfare, although again if the Russians and Chinese have full coverage of their airspace nothing
(or little) would get through.
Two theorys are in current operation about the election and the waring factions in the NSA and
the CIA 1) HRC wins but is too much of a warmonger and would push america into more wars they
simply cannot win 2) there is a preference for Trump to win amongst the MIC because he would (temporarily)
seek 'peace' with the Russians thus giving the military the chance to catch up - say in 3 or 4
years - plus all the billions and billions of dollars that would mean for them.
Overwhelming fire power no longer wins wars, the US have proved that year in year out since
the end of the second world war, theyve lost every war theyve started/caused/joined in. Unless
you count that limited skirmish on British soil in Grenada - and I guess we could call Korea a
score draw. The yanks are bust and they know it, the neocons are all bluster and idiots like Breedlove,
Power and Nuland are impotent because they don't have right on their side or the might to back
it up. The US is mired in the middle east, locked out of asia and would grind to halt in Europe
against the Russians. (every NATO wargame simulation in the last 4 years has conclusively shown
this) Add to that the fact that the overwhelming majority of US citizens dont have the appetite
for a conventional war and in the event of a nuclear war the US would suffer at least as much
as Europe and youve got a better picture of where we are at.
Well it is just ABOUT money.Also during Vietnam and Iraq war US was biggest spender.
Nobody in US still thinks that Vietnam war was a good idea and the same applies to Iraq.Iraq war
will be even in history books for biggest amount spend to achieve NOTHING.
Chinese military spending is at least on a par with American. A huge part of American military
money goes to personnel salary while China does NOT pay to Chinese soldiers for their service
as China holds a compulsory military service system.
This article assumes China is evil and the US is the righteous protector of all nations in the
SE Asian region against the evil China which is obviously out to destroy the hapless SE Asian
nations. This assumption is obviously nonsense. The US itself is rife with racial problems. Everybody
has seen what it had done to Vietnam. Nobody believes that a racist US that cares nothing for
the welfare of its own black, Latino and Asian population will actually care for the welfare of
the same peoples outside of the US and especially in SE Asia.
The truth is China is not the evil destroyer of nations. The truth is the US is the evil destroyer
of nations. The US has brought nothing but bloodshed and destruction to the SE Asian regions for
the last 200 years. The US had killed millions of Filipinos during it colonial era. The US had
killed millions of Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. The US had incited pogroms against the ethnic
Chinese unceasingly. The May 13 massacre in Malaysia, the anti-Chinese massacres in the 1960's
and the 1990's in Indonesia, and many other discrimination and marginalization of ethnic Chinese
throughout the entire SE Asia are all the works of the US. It is the US that is the killer and
destroyer.
Therefore, it is a good thing that the evil intents of the US had failed. With the all but
inevitable rise of China, the influence of the Japanese and the americans will inevitably wane.
The only danger to China is the excessive xenocentrism of the Dengist faction who is selling out
China to these dangerous enemies. If the CPC government sold out China's domestic economy, then
China will become a colony of the Japanese and americans without firing a single shot. And the
Chinese economy will slide into depression as it had done in the Qing Dynasty and Chinese influence
in the SE Asian region will collapse.
Therefore, the task before the CPC government is to ban all foreign businesses out of China's
domestic economy, upgrade and expand China's education and R&D, urbanize the rural residents and
expand the Chinese military, etc. With such an independent economic, political and military policies,
China will at once make itself the richest and the most powerful nation in the world dwarfing
the Japanese and American economies and militaries. China can then bring economic prosperity and
stability to the SE Asian region by squeezing the evil Japanese and americans out of the region.
Lets be honest what has Obama achieved,he got the Nobel peace prize for simply not being George
Bush Jr he has diplayed a woeful lack of leadership with Russia over Syria Libya and the Chinese
Simply being the first African American president will not be a legacy
Do you know of one Leninist state that ever built a prosperous modern industrial nation? Therein
lies the advantage and the problem with China. China is totally export dependant and therefore
its customers can adversely affect its economy - put enough chinese out of work and surely political
instability will follow. A threatened dictatorship with a large army, however, is a danger to
its neighbors and the world.
China are now net consumers. You need to read up on whats happening, not from just the western
press. They are well on their way to becoming the most powerful nation on earth, they have access
(much like Russia) to over two thirds of the population of the worlds consumers and growing (this
is partially why sanctions against Russia have been in large part meaningless) China will never
want for buyers of their products (the iphone couldnt be made without the Chinese) with the vast
swaithes of unplumbed Russian resources becoming available to them its hard to see how the west
can combat the Eurasians. The wealth is passing from west to east, its a natural cycle the 'permanant
growth' monkies in the west have been blind to by their own greed and egotism. Above all the Chinese
are a trading nation, always seeking win/win trading links. The west would be better employed
trading and linking culturally with the Chinese rather than trying to dictate with military threats.
The west comprises only 18% of the global population and our growth and wealth is either exhausted
or locked away in vaults where it is doing no one any good. Tinme to wise up or get left behind.
Tisdall...absolute war-monger and neo-con "dog of war". Is this serious journalism? The rise of
China was as inevitable as the rise of the US in the last century..."no man can put a stop to
the march of a nation". It's Asias century and it's not the first time for China to be the No
1 economy in the world. They have been here before and have much more wisdom than the west...for
too long the tail has wagged the dog...suck it up Tisdall!
The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system
excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea
was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.
It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value- the largest
economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years.
IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as
much reason to be afraid of China as the US do and have a pretty capable army. If the US patched
things up with the Russians, firstly it could redeploy forces and military effort away from the
Middle East towards Asia Pac and secondly it would give the US effective leverage over China-
with the majority of the oil producing nations aligned with the US, China would have difficulty
in conducted a sustained conflict. It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony-
similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans
coming with the knife.
America is reaping the fruits of what they sowed during the time of Reagan. It was never a good
idea to outsource your entire manufacturing industry to a country that is a dictatorship and does
not embrace western liberal democratic values. Now the Americans are hopelessly dependent on China
- a country that does not play by the rules in any sphere - it censors free speech, it blatantly
violates intellectual property, it displays hostile intent towards nearly all South East Asian
countries, its friends include state sponsors of terror like Pakistan and North Korea, it is carefully
cultivating the enemies of America and the west in general.
In no way, shape or form does China fulfill the criteria for being a trustworthy partner of
the west. And yet today, China holds all the cards in its relationship with the west, with the
western consumerist economies completely dependent on China. Moral of the story - Trade and economics
cannot be conducted in isolation, separate from geopolitical realities. Doing so is a recipe for
disaster.
Mr Tisdall should declare his affiliation, if any, with the military-industrial complex.
It is surprising coming from a Briton which tried to contain Germany and fought two
wars destroying itself and the empire. War may be profitable for military-industrial complex
but disastrous for everyone else. In world war 2, USA benefited enormously by ramping
up war material production and creating millions of job which led to tremendous
prosperity turning the country around from a basket case in 1930s to a big prosperous power
which dominated the world till 2003.
US insistence on being top cat in a changing world will end up by dragging us all into a WW III.
Why can't the US leave the rest of the world alone? Americans do not need a military presence
to do business with the rest of the world and earn a lot of money with such trade. And they are
too ignorant, too unsophisticate and too weak to be able to impose their will on the rest of us.
The (very) ugly Americans are back and all we want is for them to go back home and forever remain
there... The sooner the better...
The world is going to look fantastically different in a hundred years time.
Points of world power will go back to where they was traditionally; Europe and Asia. America
is a falling power, it doesn't get the skilled European immigrants it use to after German revolution
and 2 world wars. And it's projected white population will be a minority by 2050. America's future
lies with south America.
Australia with such a massive country but with a tiny population of 20million will look very
attractive to China. It's future lies with a much stronger commonwealth, maybe a united military
and economic commonwealth between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Even without the EU, Europe is going to have to work together, including Russia to beat the
Chinese militarily and economically. America will not be the same power in another 30-50 years
and would struggle to beat them now.
China are expansionists, always have been. War is coming with them and North Korea sometime
in the future.
From the article above, it is clear who is the more dangerous power. While China is aiming to
be the hegemon through economic means like the neo silk road projects, the US is aiming to maintain
its hegemon status through military power. The US think thank even suggest to preemptive strike
against China to achieve that. This is also the problem with US pivot to Asia, it may fail to
contain China, but it didn't fail to poison the atmosphere in Asia. Asia has never been this dangerous
since the end of cold war, all thanks to the pivot.
Obama is trying to maintain the status quo. China and N. Korea are the ones pushing military intimidation.
The key to the US plan is to form an alliance between countries in the region that historically
distrust each other. The Chinese are helping that by threatening everybody at the same time. Tisdall
sees this conflict strictly as between the US and China. Obama's plan is to form a group of countries
to counter China. Japan will have a major role in this alliance but the problem is whether the
other victims of WW2 Japanese aggression will agree to it.
The US's disastrous foreign policy since 9/11 which has unleashed so much chaos in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc etc... is not exactly a commendation for credibility these days.
A useful summary of the state of play in the Pacific and SCS. It is somewhat hawkish in analysis,
military fantasists will always be legion, they should be listened to with extra large doses of
salt, or discussion of arguments which favour peaceful cooperation and development, such as trade,
cultural relations, and natural stalemates. American anxiety at its own perception of decline,
is at least as dangerous for the world as the immature expression of rising Chinese confidence.
But the biggest problem it seems we face, is finding a way to accommodate and translate the aspirations
of rising global powers with the existing order established post-45, in incarnated in the UN and
other international bodies, in international maritime law as in our western notions of universal
human rights. Finding a way for China to express origination of these ideas compatible with its
own history, to be able to proclaim them as a satisfactory settlement for human relations, is
an ideal, but apparently unpromising task.
Perhaps Samuel P Huntingdon was broadly correct when he wrote "The Clash of Civilizations" in
the late 90's. He was criticized for his work by neo-liberals who believed that after the Cold
War the rest of the world would follow the west and US in particular.
The problem with the neo-liberal view is that only their opinions on issues are correct, and
all others therefore should be ridiculed. What has happened in Ukraine is a prime example. Huntingdon
called the Ukraine a "cleft" country split between Russia and Europe. The EU and the US decided
to stir up trouble in the Ukraine to get even with Putin over Syria. It was never about EU or
NATO membership for the Ukraine which is now further away than ever.
A Trump presidency is regarded with fear. The Obama presidency has been a failure with regard
to foreign policy and a major reason was because Clinton was Secretary of State in the 1st four
years. In many ways a Clinton presidency is every bit as dangerous as a Trump presidency.
Certainly relations with Russia will be worse under Clinton than under Trump, and for the rest
of the world that is not a good thing. To those that believe liek Clinton that Putin is the new
Hitler, then start cleaning out the nuclear bunkers. If he is then WW3 is coming like it or not
and Britain better start spending more on defence.
What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah.
ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals
like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football.
Never mind that a general, high-intensity war in Northern Asia would be disastrous for all involved,
whatever the outcome.
Never mind that much of the discussion about containing China is by warmongers urging such
a conflict.
Never mind that very little depth in fact lies behind the shell of American and Japanese military
strength, or that a competently-run Chinese government is well able to grossly outproduce "us"
all in war materiel.
Never mind that those same warmongers and neocons drove and drive a succession of Imperial
disasters; they remain much-praised centres of attention, just as the banksters and rentiers that
are sucking the life from Americans have never had it so good.
Never mind that abbott encouraged violence as the automatic reaction to problems, while his
Misgovernment was (while Turnbull to a lesser extent still is) working hard to destroy the economic
and social strengths we need to have any chance of surmounting those problems.
Yes, it is a proper precaution to have a military strength that can deny our approaches to
China. Unfortunately that rather disregards that "we" have long pursued a policy of globalisation
involving the destruction of our both own manufacturing and our own merchant navy. Taken together
with non-existent fuel reserves, "our" military preparations are pointless, because we would have
to surrender within a fortnight were China to mount even a partial maritime blockade of Australia.
What I don't quite understand is how all this comes as any surprise to those in the know. China
has been on target to be the #1 economic power in the world in this decade for at least 30 years.
And who made it so? Western capitalists. China is now not only the world's industrial heartbeat,
it also owns a large proportion of Western debt - despite the fact that its differences with the
West (not least being a one-party Communist state) couldn't be more obvious - and while I doubt
it's in its interests to destabilise its benefactorrs at the moment, that may not always be the
case.
It also has another problem: In fifty or sixty years time it is due to be overtaken by India,
which gives it very little time to develop ASEAN in its own image; but I suspect that it's current
"silk glove" policy is far smarter and more cost-effective than any American "iron fist".
The US is just worried about losing out on markets and further exploitation. They should have
no authority over China's interest in the South China Sea. If China do rise to the point were
they can affect foreign governments, they will unlikely be as brutal as the United States. [Indonesia
1964, Congo 1960s, Brazil 1964, Chile 1973, Central America 1980s, Egyptian military aid, Saudi
support, Iraq 2003, the Structural Adjustments of the IMF]
Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire
similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially
in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and
also become global military power.
While many Europeans and others including our current GOP party
thinks we are the global empire and we should stick our nose everywhere, our people doesn't we
are an empire or we should stick our nose in every trouble spot in the world spending our blood
and treasure to fight others battles and get blame when everything goes wrong. President Obama
doesn't think of himself as Julius Ceaser and America is not Rome.
He will be remembered as one
of our greatest president ever setting a course for this country's foreign policy towards trying
to solve the world's problems through alliances and cooperation with like minded countries as
the opposite of the war mongering brainless, trigger happy GOP presidents. However when lesser
powers who preach xenophobia and destabilize their neighborhood through annexation as the Hitler
like Putin has, he comes down with a hammer using tools other than military to punish the aggressor.
All you need to do is watch what is happening to the Russian economy since he imposed sanctions
to the Mafiso Putin.
This article is completely misleading and the author is constricting himself in his statement
that Obama's pivot to Asia is a failure. Since China tried to annex the Islands near the Philippines,
countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, India, etc. has ask the US for more cooperation
both military and economically these countries were moving away from US under Bush and others
so I think this is a win for Obama not a loss. Unlike the idiotic Russians, China is a clever
country and is playing global chess in advancing her foreign policy goals. While the US cannot
do anything with China's annexation of these disputed Islands has costs her greatly because the
Asian countries effected by China's moves are running towards the US, this is a win for the US.
China's popularity around her neighborhood has taken a nose dive similar to Russian's popularity
around her neighborhood. These are long term strategic wins for the US, especially if Hillary
wins the white house and carry's on Obama's mantel of speaking softly but carry a big stick. Obama
will go down as our greatest foreign policy president by building alliances in Europe to try stop
Mafioso Putin and alliances in Asia to curtail China's foreign policy ambitions. This author's
thesis is pure bogus, because he doesn't indicate what Obama should have done to make him happy?
Threaten Chine military confertation?
All you have to do is go back 8 years ago and compare our last two presidents and you can see
where Obama is going.
For the allusion to Rome, I think they act like the old empire when they had to send their army
to keep the peace....and it is an empire of the 21 first century, not like the old ones (Assange).
China needs western consumerism to maintain its manufacturing base. If China's growth impacts
the ability of the West to maintain its standard of consumerism, then China will need a new source
of affluent purchaser. If China's own citizens become affluent, they will expect a standard of
living commensurate with that status, accordingly China will not be able to maintain its manufacturing
base.
So the options for China are:
a) Prop up western economies until developing nations in Africa and South America (themselves
heavily dependent on the West) reach a high standard of consumerism.
b) Divide China into a ruling class, and a worker class, in which the former is a parasite
on the latter.
The current tactic seems to be to follow option b, until option a becomes viable.
However, the longer option a takes to develop, and therefore the longer option b is in effect,
the greater the chances of counter-revolution (which at this stage is probably just revolution).
The long and the short of it, is that China is boned.
Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments'
priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to
leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US.
It's got it's hands full
at home. As long as the West doesn't try to get involved in what China sees as its historical
territory (i.e. The big rooster shaped landmass plus Hainan and Hong Kong and various little islands)
there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage
the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any
pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. There is absolutely nothing
exceptional about a power not admitting publicly what is known to many,see the outpourings of
the British elites during the end of its empire.
As usual the Guardian is on its anti-China horse. Look through this article and every move China
has made is "aggressive" or when it tries to expand trade (and produce win win economic conditions)
it is "hegemonic" while the US is just trying to protect us all and is dealing with the "Chinese
threat" -- a threat to their economic interests and global imperial hegemony is what they mean.
The US still maintains a "one China" policy and the status quo is exactly that "one China"
It would be great for someone in the west to review the historical record instead of arming Taiwan
to the teeth. Additionally, before China ever started its island construction the US had already
begun the "pivot to Asia" which now is huge with nuclear submarines patrolling all around China,
nuclear weapons on the - two aircraft carrier fleets now threatening China - very rare for the
US to have two aircraft carrier fleets in the same waters - the B-1 long range nuclear bombers
now in Australia, and even more belligerent the US intends to deploy THAAD missals in South Korea
- using North Korea as an excuse to further seriously threaten China.
China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with
whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony.
Just look around the world - where are the conflicts - the middle east and Africa - who is
there with military and arms sales and bombing seven countries -- is it China?
The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the
nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries
for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China.
The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total
global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions
of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin
they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial
US.
I will never miss George Dubya Bush. It was truly scary to realise that the institutions of the
US were so broken that a complete moron like that could become President because his daddy was.
Then, just as Obama's election seemed to put things back on an even keel, here in Britain we elected
Dave Cameron, an aristocratic ignoramus probably more out of touch with reality than Dubya ever
was - and not a whole lot smarter.
Pretty straightforward unless you were an Iraqi with god knows how many tons of depleted uranium
dropping on your children's heads. Or an innocent Afghan being tortured in one of the CIA's black
sites.
Bush is a war criminal who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent
people.
He represents the worst of humanity and although Trump appears worse - we will have to wait
to see what his legacy will be if he wins. As it stands Bush is the one who already has a disastrous
and murderous legacy.
Considering he inherited the war Bubba Bush and Darth Bugsey Cheney started, you are correct.
The fact they disbanded the Iraqi military, they provided skilled military leaders and troops
to ISIL.
That excuse is a bit hard to swallow 8 years later. Even Guantanamo Bay remains in use, as it
ever was. As it turns out it was easier for Obama to provide weapons to rebel\terrorist groups
in Libya and Syria than it was to give prisoners a fair trial under the American justice system
and end torture. He's also cracked down on whistleblowers like Manning and Snowden in a way that
Bush never did.
Bush signed agreement for a deadline to withdraw troops from Iraq. Obama tried to bully Iraq into
disregarding that agreement. They refused. He then simply rechristened the troops 'advisors.'
Obama never ended the war there, or anywhere. He's extended Bush's wars into several more countries
throughout MENA.
Please stop lying about Obama's record. He has pushed for never-ending, ever-expanding wars,
and that's just what he's delivered.
The nightmare Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld & company left due to their manipulating lies and misinformation
to ensure the USA bomb
Iraq (thus destabilizing the ME) will
at minimum bring a generation of leaders great misery.
Each US leader will experiment with the
possibilities to decrease terrorism, many more mistakes will be endured. No one seems to knows
how to stop the hatred which underlies the destruction pledged
by these sociopathic murderers.
Obama promoted the same aggressive American policy as Bush, despite the early promise. Perhaps
it makes little difference who is in power. To ignore the last 8 years of more bloodshed is a
thing many round the world do not have the luxury you do.
We call Obama a war monger because he has brought the American war effort to seven nations just
this year. Brought war to Ukraine. Libya. Syria. Yemen. Honduras.
Obama's Military is in over 150 nations on this planet.
Obama continue expanded the Bush/Cheney doctrine. He campaigned for office pledging to reverse
it. He's now been president for nearly eight years; it's reasonable to hold him accountable for
what he's done and stop pretending he bears no responsibility for what's happened under his watch
as commander-in-chief.
Every leader including Obama carries the responsibility for their choices. Bush/Cheney
violated and abused the trust of leaders and
the public in many nations by misinforming,
lying, and manipulative means to bomb
a nation who had no dealings with the terrorism of 9/11. The USA is now in a war tangle in which
every leader hence will be targeted negatively until the ME conflicts
have no more US armed forces involved in the killings. Terrorism will plague many nations for
the next generation at minimum.
'Mission Accomplished' should be the name of the jail cells for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld convicted
as war criminals.
This picture kind of sums up why a whole load of people are voting Trump. Two apparently opposing
politicians who ultimately led the US in the same self destructing direction. The illusion of
democracy could never be clearer.
Afraid I would find it impossible to hug the president who with Blair has destabilised the Middle
East for years to come...mind you the UK's history ain't so hot. Maybe I should stop going around
hugging my fellow countrymen and women.
Far more so than many think with superficial consideration.
Both men did nothing for their people while spending unbelievable amounts of money on obscene
mass killing abroad.
They also share behaviors in the economic sphere. The 2008 Financial collapse happened under
George Bush owing to a lack of adequate oversight of financial institutions and practices, a titanic
financial equivalent to Bush's lackadaisical performance in New Orleans' Hurricane Katrina.
The Obama response during eight years in office has been to avoid making any changes to correct
the situation and prevent future occurrences, and he has done nothing but have vast quantities
of money printed to keep the economy afloat.
Actually, while Obama is more intelligent than Bush, he too is a weak and ineffective figure.
He has marched without pause to the drumbeat of the Pentagon and CIA
He understood at least his own lack of ability after a lifetime spent as an asinine frat-boy
who never did anything on his own.
He had Cheney and Rumsfeld along deliberately because he knew they were ready to run things
for him.
His lack of effective intelligence and lack of drive to do anything should have meant that
Bush never be president.
But he had money, tons of it, and heavy-duty political connections, and the real power men
like the ruthless Cheney had him lined up from the start as their front man.
The one thing Bush proved was that America doesn't even need a President. Any pathetic figure
can sign the documents placed before him and read the speeches written for him.
The establishment, with immense resources at its disposal, is quite capable of keeping the
public believing that the face on the television is actually in charge.
Actually, while Obama is more intelligent than Bush, he too is a weak and ineffective figure.
He has marched without pause to the drumbeat of the Pentagon and CIA
"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings:
Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their
laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt-until
recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the
black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between
the two parties." (Gore Vidal - "The State of the Union", 1975)
"W" had one of the BEST track records of placing PoC in truly significant positions. Condoleeza
Rice. Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzalez, etc. Bush was in no way, shape or form a racist - so long
as you were an Uncle Tom willing to sell out your fellow citizens, bomb the crap out of foreigners,
and kiss the asses of the 1%.
Like making Bush's tax cuts permanent. Obama has many great qualities, but a strong principled
belief in equality is not one of them. He's a neo-liberal corporatist through and through -hence
frantically trying to push TTP through before the election, now that Hillary was forced to say
she's against it. I'm sure there was a private conversation there - 'That f-ing Bernie is making
me say I'm against TTP -can you get it through before the election, we can't trust Trump on it'
Michelle Obama embrases the criminal whose administration is responsible ( although we know that
the foreign policy in the US is not decided by the president but by the NSA, CIA and occult lobbies
) for the death of over 1.500.000 million people in Iraq and Syria. Meanwhile the Guardian embraces
the anti Russian propaganda by giving voice to the unpeakable lies about Russia's war crimes.
Fortunately most media in the Continent (in France and Italy especially), are not follwing this
dictats.
If the UN and the International Criminal Court were not mere tools of the US to punish anyone
they don't like how on earth is this criminal not in jail? The only person that did worse than
him is Hitler. He purposely lied to go into a war that destroyed thousands of innocent lives.
I see, Bush (death toll 500,000+) and Obama (death toll 300,000+) are now closing ranks to avert
Trump. Phew!!! This Trump guy must be really dangerous. I hope, our banks help finance an effective
campaign against Trump!
I think this is a good thing, Ronald Reagan used to have dinner with Tip O'Neill. As did many
Republicans and Democrat presidents and senior members of Congress/Senate, that's stopped under
Tom DeLay and Gingrich during the 90s when partisanship really took hold. It's been ugly ever
since.
Socializing with the opposition is good for a working relationship.
Obama wasn't corrupted by office - operation Obama was planned well in advance. I would argue
he was corrupted a long time ago. I see war criminal Bush Snr endorsed Clinton just last week
- go figure. Not that I am a fan of Trump - far from it.
Obama appeared out of nowhere and managed to scrape together the mega bucks to fund his campaign?
Doesn't work like that - You don't currently get to be POTUS otherwise.
It seems like only 16 years ago that a bunch of Wall Street traders flew to Florida to stage a
riot to stop the recount....and here's Obama and Bush looking forward to the election of the first
President with her/his own hedge fund.....it brings tears to my eyes...
GW Bush refers to Hillary Clinton as his sister-in-law, now receives a hug from Michelle Obama.
Further confirmation that the supposed political rivalry between the Reps and Wall St / TPP Dems
is just noise.
The Obamas have become part of the firm. Anyone who has read vincent bugliosi book,The prosecution
of George W BUsh for murder knows the last thing this guy needs is a hug. How can any of them
be truly trusted
Politics is theater. They're all acting pretty much all the time, as politics is the art of managing
perceptions.
Everyone knows everyone. There is a front of house posturing and invective demanded by the job,
and then the back of house, deals and horse-trading.
Bill Clinton is a massive friend of both George Bushes and Donald Trump used be a good friend
of the Clintons. But both the Clintons loathe Barack and Michelle Obama.
So for me, the very worst picture was the one of Hillary being hugged by Barack during her stolen
coronation.
Looks like the establishment is closing ranks. When was the last time the US had a real two party
system and politicians were not controlled by Wall Street?
The intelligentsia (Latin: intellegentia, Polish: inteligencja, Russian: интеллигенция; IPA: [ɪntʲɪlʲɪˈɡʲentsɨjə])
is a social class of people engaged in complex mental labor aimed at guiding or critiquing, or
otherwise playing a leadership role in shaping a society's culture and politics.[1] This therefore
might include everyone from artists to school teachers, as well as academics, writers, journalists,
and other hommes de lettres (men of letters) more usually thought of as being the main constituents
of the intelligentsia.
Intelligentsia is the subject of active polemics concerning its own role in the development of
modern society not always positive historically, often contributing to higher degree of progress,
but also to its backward movement.[2]... In pre-revolutionary Russia the term was first used to
describe people possessing cultural and political initiative.[3] It was commonly used by
those individuals themselves to create an apparent distance from the masses, and generally retained
that narrow self-definition. [citation needed]
If intellectuals replace the current professional politicians as the leaders
of society the situation would become much worse. Because they have neither
the sense of reality, nor common sense. For them, the words and speeches are
more important than the actual social laws and the dominant trends, the dominant
social dynamics of the society. The psychological principle of the intellectuals
is that we could organize everything much better, but we are not allowed to
do it.
But the actual situation is as following: they could organize the life of
society as they wish and plan, in the way they view is the best only if under
conditions that are not present now are not feasible in the future. Therefore
they are not able to act even at the level of current leaders of the society,
which they despise. The actual leaders are influenced by social pressures, by
the current social situation, but at least they doing something. Intellectuals
are unhappy that the real stream of life they are living in. They consider it
wrong. that makes them very dangerous, because they look really smart, while
in reality being sophisticated professional idiots.
John Jenkins conveniently forgot export of Islamic extremists from Saudi
Arabia during Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the USA and GB role in creation
of political Islam. I can't see any neo-Westphalian pragmatism of the Saudi state
in its actions in Syria and support of Turkey slide into islamization. But his point
that Iran does not represent a secular state either is well taken. It's just Shias
fundamentalism instead of Sunni fundamentalism.
Notable quotes:
"... There is no clear link between economic deprivation and radicalization. But the former doesn't help if it leads to idle hands and claims of social injustice. ..."
"... Sheikh Nimr advocated the destruction of the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and the secession of the Eastern Province. His version of a righteous Islamic state is not a thousand miles from that of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (and a long way from the non-takfiri, non-caliphal, neo-Westphalian pragmatism of the Saudi state). He called for wilayat al-faqih, the heterodox Guardianship of the Jurisprudent espoused by Khomeini. ..."
"... The vengeful early years of the Islamic Republic, when clerics who previously would not have hurt a fly enthusiastically participated in the judicial murder of thousands in the name of righteousness, show some of the consequences. So does the arrest and humiliating mistreatment in 1982 of the venerable Ayatollah Shariatmadari, who stood up to Khomeini and dared to object to the implementation of any Islamic hudud punishments in the absence of the Hidden Imam. So does the continued rate of executions in Iran (nearly 700 by July last year, according to Amnesty International) and the Islamic Republic's own treatment of dissidents – and, indeed, of the ordinary protesters of 1999, 2009 and 2011. ..."
"... To Iran it was: Saudi citizens owe loyalty in tribal fashion to their king, not to foreign religious leaders or to some ideal of transnational Islamism, and we shall not tolerate interference. To the rest of the world it was: we shall not bend in the face of the storms raging round the region, if necessary alone. ..."
Now the Saudis face a period of sustained low energy prices at a time when
the costs of a newly interventionist and expeditionary foreign policy are rising
dramatically and when the need to restructure the economy to create perhaps
an extra four million new jobs by 2020 has become urgent. At the same time they
know that a small but significant section of the Sunni population of the kingdom
is vulnerable to the dark seductions of Islamic State, because they regard it
as more legitimately Islamic, or as the only organized Sunni group pushing back
against Iran, the Shia, or both. There is no clear link between economic
deprivation and radicalization. But the former doesn't help if it leads to idle
hands and claims of social injustice.
To cap it all, the Iranian nuclear deal angered the Saudis not because it
was a nuclear deal but because it was simply a nuclear deal, failing in their
view to address malign and subversive non-nuclear Iranian activities in Bahrain,
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, and rewarding Iran prematurely. They have felt
very abandoned by the US and other Western states. And they believe the apparent
pragmatism of the Rowhani government is a façade, offering privileged access
in return for the suspension of any critical faculty. That makes the issue of
the Vienna peace talks on Syria secondary. There will certainly be an impact.
Yet it is not as if the Saudis had disguised their deep scepticism. They had
been pressured to sit with the Iranians, but they had also insisted on continuing
to support opposition forces in the field and have not wavered in their insistence
that Assad needs to go.
You might think this is all special pleading. But before you say that the
matter is a straightforward one of a benighted justice system administering
medieval punishments to dissidents, reflect on this. Sheikh Nimr advocated
the destruction of the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and the secession
of the Eastern Province. His version of a righteous Islamic state is not a thousand
miles from that of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (and a long way from the non-takfiri,
non-caliphal, neo-Westphalian pragmatism of the Saudi state). He called for
wilayat al-faqih, the heterodox Guardianship of the Jurisprudent espoused by
Khomeini.
The vengeful early years of the Islamic Republic, when clerics who previously
would not have hurt a fly enthusiastically participated in the judicial murder
of thousands in the name of righteousness, show some of the consequences. So
does the arrest and humiliating mistreatment in 1982 of the venerable Ayatollah
Shariatmadari, who stood up to Khomeini and dared to object to the implementation
of any Islamic hudud punishments in the absence of the Hidden Imam. So does
the continued rate of executions in Iran (nearly 700 by July last year, according
to Amnesty International) and the Islamic Republic's own treatment of dissidents
– and, indeed, of the ordinary protesters of 1999, 2009 and 2011.
The signals the Saudi state sought to send by executing 43 Saudi Sunnis convicted
of terrorism at the same time as Sheikh Nimr and his three fellow Shias reflected
all of this.
To their own citizens the message was: we shall enforce the judgment
of the courts on all those who seek to undermine the stability of the kingdom
and the legitimacy of its government, irrespective of sect, and on your
behalf we shall resist Iranian expansionism and Islamic State predation
with equal vigour.
To Iran it was: Saudi citizens owe loyalty in tribal fashion to
their king, not to foreign religious leaders or to some ideal of transnational
Islamism, and we shall not tolerate interference. To the rest of the world
it was: we shall not bend in the face of the storms raging round the region,
if necessary alone.
John Jenkins is a former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iraq,
Syria and Burma. He is now executive director (Middle East) of the International
Institute for Strategic Studies, and is based in Bahrain
The author goes on to write which I find a bit odd " To me, income inequality
is an overrated problem in American life, and has even propelled the American
entrepreneurial spirit. "
He then seems to imply that maybe there is an emergent, de facto bad outcome:
Yet it remains true that, considering all federal government policies, including
tax exemptions, the rich schools have benefited more than the poor ones -- a
regressive social policy that many would argue is inconsistent with using higher
education as a tool in promoting the American Dream.
Anyway, direct funding of third-level education by federal and state subsidies
seems like a great idea and something that I would be very happy for my tax
dollars to be used towards and -- moreover -- I would be happy paying more
taxes if they were put to such purposes.
Far right nationalism is essentially an externality caused of neoliberal
globalization. that means that neoliberalism inevitably produces a splash of
virulent far right nationalism in countries were the standard of living dropped
considerably and unemployment hit high marks.
The author failed to mention neoliberalism and the crisis of neoliberal globalization
even once. What a sucker. Very few of Guardian commenter realized that this we
are now facing with a strong, driven by nationalism, backlash to neoliberal globalization.
In this case with neoliberals represented by EU bureaucrats.
Notable quotes:
"... There goes Mason again -- spouting his pro-global fascist bile as though he were some Socialist hero. ..."
"... Sovereign nations are the ONLY bulwark against the banking cartel's now-obvious global tyranny of debt servitude. ..."
"... I always seems hypocritical to slate nationalism in one breath and celebrate cultural diversity in the next. Given that most cultures in existence are very much defined by national identity...you have only to look at how people define themselves...'progressives' find themselves constantly having to square the circle of protecting cultures whilst trying to eliminate nations. ..."
"... conservative and middle of the road parties (and for a long time this included Labour) pushed an agenda that favoured the rich, and left the middle class by the wayside. If you want to find the cheerleaders of globalism you don't have to look much further than most of the world's conservative parties. Far right (or far left) parties aren't very successful in democracies in which people come before profit. ..."
"... Money interests controlling the world demeaning the nation state, undermining ethnic unity, using well meaning liberal fools to make true government impossible and preventing people from achieving their natural greatness. ..."
"... Funny stuff to read. There is no Croatia as a independent state. It is owned by multinational companies. Everything is foreign except forests and drinking water. The is no Croatian independent army - Croatian army is a part of NATO. ..."
"... There is no independent government left or right since everything they do is to listen to their masters from Brussels who are slaping then while they are amassing wealth by means of corruption. ..."
"... Now that the global economy is shaken, the olden demons have crawled out of the woodwork ..."
"... They also seem a bit lost on Mussolini, a man they compare to Trump on an incessant basis (I cringe a little each time I read it). This a man who, in his Fascist Manifesto, advocated in favour of the minimum wage, pandering to the unions, progressive taxation, lowering the voting age and abolishing the upper-chamber. Does that sound 'far-right' to you? ..."
"... Adolf Hitler, 1927: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." ..."
"... perhaps it's a case of the EU reaping what it's sowed? let's face the leading members of the eu at the time - in particular Germany - did all they could to hasten the break up of Yugoslavia. The 'state' of Croatia was a construct of the nazis in the first place ..."
"... in 1992, before the war in Bosnia started, Europe sent Jose Cutilleiro to broker a peace deal. He did it and all three sides (Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims) signed it and the collective sigh of relief could be heard on the Moon. But then Warren Zimmerman, US diplomat, called the leader of Bosnian Muslims for a talk that lasted five days and after that, Alija Izetbegovic retracted his signature, a Muslim killed a Serb in Sarajevo, the first shots were fired after that and the war started...you were saying something about Americans imposing peace? ..."
"... The huge elephant in the room is NATO. A highly corrupt, highly undemocratic institution that has long acted like the world police, meddling everywhere and funding tyrants which won't stop until it completes its aim of full globalisation. It actively aims to flood Europe with migrants without giving democratic elected governments a say. You think Juncker is bad, well he is, but read up on Peter Sutherland and other shady characters in NATO. Until NATO is somehow brought under control nationalism will continue to rise. ..."
There goes Mason again -- spouting his pro-global fascist bile as though
he were some Socialist hero.
Sovereign nations are the ONLY bulwark against the banking cartel's
now-obvious global tyranny of debt servitude.
The more sovereign nations and centres of sovereign power we have, the
more insulated we are from the kind of global fascism that Mason, being
the snake oil salesman he is, peddles.
I always seems hypocritical to slate nationalism in one breath and celebrate
cultural diversity in the next. Given that most cultures in existence are
very much defined by national identity...you have only to look at
how people define themselves...'progressives' find themselves constantly
having to square the circle of protecting cultures whilst trying to eliminate
nations.
Perhaps the resultant cultural homelessness is just as much a cause of
issues as is nationalism in itself.
For me the reason nationalist parties are doing well is that conservative
and middle of the road parties (and for a long time this included Labour)
pushed an agenda that favoured the rich, and left the middle class by the
wayside. If you want to find the cheerleaders of globalism you don't have
to look much further than most of the world's conservative parties. Far
right (or far left) parties aren't very successful in democracies in which
people come before profit.
As for Weimar, since you brought it up. Fascism wasn't voted into power.
A group of bankers and industrialists (conservatives) persuaded the German
president to make Hitler the chancellor. The rest is history. As a darkly
humorous coda, one of the high ups in the Reichsbank was interviewed after
the war and asked why he helped do this - considering the awful things Hitler
had been saying. His answer was along the lines of; 'we didn't think he
was serious about that...'
Mason is right of course. I do fear a repeat of history. One thing that
strikes me looking at the nationalist conspiracy theorists is how familiar
it is. I've been looking a lot recently at the far right since the end of
the 19th century up to World War 2. It's basically the same guff that Ukippers
spout.
Money interests controlling the world demeaning the nation state,
undermining ethnic unity, using well meaning liberal fools to make true
government impossible and preventing people from achieving their natural
greatness.
The only real difference is that at the time the bastards used the Jews
to personify a global conspiracy of the wealthy and now they use the more
malleable "elite". It's a much more flexible term. Disagree with me and
using facts? You are part of a metropolitan bubble or academic ivory tower
etc...Also big difference is that at the time they did have to stand on
a street corner to spout their bile and risk a scrap. Now it's swamping
the comments section of a left wing newspaper. Much safer if a bit more
cowardly.
Funny stuff to read. There is no Croatia as a independent state. It
is owned by multinational companies. Everything is foreign except forests
and drinking water. The is no Croatian independent army - Croatian army
is a part of NATO.
There is no independent government left or right since everything
they do is to listen to their masters from Brussels who are slaping then
while they are amassing wealth by means of corruption.
Result is 53% of turnout in elections. People don't care or try to chance
something that is impossible to change.
We are a nation of 4 million - a great threat to core values of EU where
everything is great. Kick us out and enjoy your multiculturalism - I will
rather take my dog for a walk not having to the lock the door in my house...
Now that the global economy is shaken, the olden demons have crawled
out of the woodwork and the inherently Fascist nations (the ones who
chose militarist authoritarianism or totalitarianism on their own before
WWII) are reverting to type. Croatia, Poland, Hungary, Finland, the Baltic
states.
We can only hope Spain, Portugal, Italy, Austria, Germany, Romania, and
Bulgaria can find the inner strength to resist this temptation to regress.
Just once, I'd love for a Guardian 'journalist' to define what 'far-right'
means; it's, by some distance, their most commonly used slur. I know they
think it's a pejorative term, but what alludes them is it's the precise
definition of anarchism or extreme individualism. They seem to think it's
a synonym for 'racist.'
It probably has something to do with the fact they've been taught history's
worst tyrant was 'far-right' because, well, 'he was waycist.' Except, what
they've failed to notice is
the name of his party
the fact he was
a ruthless statist and advocated supreme state-control
he despised laissez-faire
capitalism
he hated liberal individualism.
racism isn't a political
policy and the left doesn't oppose racism, it merely opposes racism against
non-white people 6. he was a self-avowed socialist!
They also seem a bit lost on Mussolini, a man they compare to Trump
on an incessant basis (I cringe a little each time I read it). This a man
who, in his Fascist Manifesto, advocated in favour of the minimum wage,
pandering to the unions, progressive taxation, lowering the voting age and
abolishing the upper-chamber. Does that sound 'far-right' to you?
His manifesto reads like the manifesto of a modern progressive party
(which is why the progressives of the 20's championed him). It just demonstrates
how utterly narrative driven progressive politics is; then again, those
who live by narrative die by narrative.
Adolf Hitler, 1927: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic
economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its
unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according
to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we
are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
He basically sounds like your modern-day progressive.
Leigh Richards , 2016-09-13 06:36:12
perhaps it's a case of the EU reaping what it's sowed? let's face the leading
members of the eu at the time - in particular Germany - did all they could
to hasten the break up of Yugoslavia. The 'state' of Croatia was a construct
of the nazis in the first place FFS!
It was, ultimately, US diplomacy that imposed the peace of 1995.
in 1992, before the war in Bosnia started, Europe sent Jose Cutilleiro
to broker a peace deal. He did it and all three sides (Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian
Croats and Bosnian Muslims) signed it and the collective sigh of relief
could be heard on the Moon. But then Warren Zimmerman, US diplomat, called
the leader of Bosnian Muslims for a talk that lasted five days and after
that, Alija Izetbegovic retracted his signature, a Muslim killed a Serb
in Sarajevo, the first shots were fired after that and the war started...you
were saying something about Americans imposing peace?
They used to say of the Balkans that it is like tectonic plates building
up pressure one against the other. Eventually they will explode again. This
seems likely.
"Money interests controlling the world demeaning the nation state, undermining
ethnic unity"
That's not a conspiracy theory, that's the truth. The far-right are opportunistic
vultures of course but people's concerns are very real, even if most of
them don't know the full facts. Who does?
The huge elephant in the room is NATO.
A highly corrupt, highly undemocratic institution that has long acted
like the world police, meddling everywhere and funding tyrants which won't
stop until it completes its aim of full globalisation. It actively aims
to flood Europe with migrants without giving democratic elected governments
a say. You think Juncker is bad, well he is, but read up on Peter Sutherland
and other shady characters in NATO. Until NATO is somehow brought under
control nationalism will continue to rise. Chilling.
It is not true that announced referendum in Republika Srpska is about independence.
It is actually to check people's opinion about constitutional court that
forbidding Serbs to celebrate 09 January as National Day - just one more
decision in a row made exclusively to further lower Serb autonomy in region
guaranteed by peace agreement.
Just across the mountains lies Republika Srpska – the Serb enclave
created in the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Dayton Agreement
in 1995, after a bitter civil war. Republika Srpska's leaders are threatening
to hold a referendum on independence, which would blow up the deal that
has brought peace to the region for 20 years.
In response, Croatia's politicians have upped the rhetoric..
Three paragraphs, that is how long I had to wait for the first "It's
actually Serbs' Fault" bit. Croatia has no interest in Republika Srpska
at the moment, and if it does, it is observing its moves to eventually copy
them and get out of the very uncomfortable partnership with Bosnian Muslims
whom they see as a much greater threat, so mr. Mason completely missed the
mark - I would have a word with the researchers if I was him, this is quite
embarrassing.
Croatia is silently desensitizing EU for a very long time: a mass for
fascist leader Pavelic here, a monument to an ustasha terrorist there, a
nazi minister yesterday, releasing a war criminal today - little by little,
Croatia is being nazified under the nose of EU officials.
It all started in 1990 and never stopped. Imagine the German Jews waking
up one morning discovering the German constitution has been altered to exclude
them from sharing the equal rights with the rest and that Nazi money, flags
and other symbols are reinstated and that even some old Nazi politicians
are brought from abroad to take positions in the government - all that happened
to Croatian Serbs in 1990, the regime that killed 200 000 of them in 1941
seemed to be resurrected. Worse even, nobody in Europe minded that Croatian
defense minister Susak openly uses Nazi salute and the rest of them lionizes
the Nazi Independent State of Croatia.
It is happening again, in Croatia, Hungary and Poland and again EU doesn't
react so I start to think that EU actually doesn't mind Nazis at all.
I think some countries are just more susceptible to nationalism than others.
It's no accident that among the activist demographic, Paul is citing 40%
unemployment.
Nationalism and fascism are growing forces across the world.
It is a highly complex issue, but the source of hatred towards others
and the exultation of the "you and yours" is fear and insecurity. It is
an animalistic response, a tribalism within our DNA.
To my mind, there are some simple pillars of resistance. Education, of
course. A significant reduction in inequality, and the reintroduction of
hope particularly to young men. A fair crack of the whip for all.
But the big point for me that people miss is the complete lack of a narrative
from the developed world, except dog-eat-dog, individualism, selfishness
and false utopia of wealth generation. Nationalism and fascism have a story,
have a decisive message. It is seductive to those who are lost.
Until the developed world can find what it really stands for (and don't
tell me it's "democracy and freedom" because neither is fully true), our
society will continue to fracture and the next world war will edge ever
closer.
This article gets it wrong. There is not a single Member of the Croatian
Parliament, who could be labeled as "far right", or anybody resembling Farrage,
the BNP, Marine Le Pen, or the Italian Right, where memorial services for
Mussolini are casually being held. Croatian politics has no right wing,
period.
Bullshit dude, you're flat out lying. There are Pavelić and Ustaša memorials
all over the country, masses held, za dom spremni ustaša in football stands
without any action by the police or politics. There are proponents of this
policy in the Sabor, luckily less now than before, so if you're trying to
preach to the British, you lose. Delete your account.
Shows exactly how 'European values' repetitively thrown at us as the founding
blocks of the EU, are pretty meaningless in reality. The standards to which
Turkey must adhere according to EU whims are far different to those of Balkan
entities (nicely 'Christian' and unlike Cyprus, unequivocally 'European'
in geography).
OK to low standards from member states, but not OK to higher standards than
some members from Turkey. And yet this is all about 'values', such as fundamental
rights, justice, education, which have to be anchored in perceived religion
and the paranoia of those who don't know who they are unless a national
identity is legislated for them.
This article completely ignores the fact that the right-wing HDZ leader,
Karamarko, is now long and gone. The new leader Plenkovic has 180-degree
opposite rhetoric, which is typical of HDZ in general, a party without a
consistent left-right positioning. It arose as a populist movement to form
independent Croatia.
The new leader of the HDZ was elected with the same majority of the same
people as the previous Karamarko. Plenković is a facade behind the same
pro-fascist, criminal organization as before. HDZ has from the outset been
positioned right, and surprisingly the least right during Tuđman, former
Tito general and communist.
Utter tosh - Britain voted for Brexit as it is sick & tired of being dictated
to be unelected undemocratic Brussels bureaucrats & the ECJ. The United
States of Europe project is an corpse that has not the intelligence to realise
it is dying & the sooner the better. If the EU reverted in being purely
a trading arrangement rather than a supra-national political ideal it may
still have a miniscule chance of survival but with cretins like Juncker,
Tusk et al in charge - no chance. The sooner we exercise Article 50 & begin
the divorce proceedings the better.
So out of touch, Mr. Mason or is it a slow day at the office? Where to start?!?
Perhaps go back to the nineties when Franjo Tudjman spoke to the crowds
and declared "thank God my wife is neither a Serb or a Jew". Europe praised
him and supported his ethnic cleansing of more than 250.000 Serbs from the
Krajina. Successive Croat governments have rehabilitated war criminals from
WWII and renamed squares and streets after racist butchers. In the meantime
Europe has aided and abetted whether by actively participating or by ignoring
what is going on. You need to read a lot more about the situation and stop
weaving the Russians into this mess. It is the EU and US mess. The solution
should e looked for st their door!
Xenophobic croatians? They are trying to uphold those millions of demanding
invaders so you can peacefully write bull like this in your north london
garden. They were happy to recover from the war and now they are cracking
again under the financial burden of the illegal immigrant crisis. Rampant
corruption in Croatia? Your whole elite is in bed with Saudies and Russian
oligarchs. London is the moneylaundering capital of the world a safehaven
for crooks.
Didn't graun know this ? Croatia has long been a 'frontier post' of European
'civilisation'. Fascist tendency is well known trait in Croatian society(just
as Nationalism has in Serbia). Anyone with the basic knowledge on Balkans
is aware of this.
Anyway to be honest I am not at all surprised with such 'articles' where
the author gets sos surprised after similar things happen. It occurred in
-
1. In post Qaddafi Libya graun was 'surprised' to know that rebels have
islamist leaning (leaning my a**, they ARE hardcore islamists)
2. In post Yanukovich Ukraine when after so many failed attempts to cover
things up they had to publish some articles saying battalions like Aidar,
Azov 'like' to use fascist symbols(it's expected from fascists, isn't it
? )
3. They still haven't admitted that 'moderates' in Syria are not exactly
moderates. I guess they will admit it only if Assad is overthrown.
"Russian money has poured not just into Serbia but into Republika Srpska,
too, together with increased diplomatic influence." Yes, but more investments
are coming from the West (Fiat, Michelin, Mondelez, Microsoft, etc.) with
substantial governments sponsored infrastructure projects coming from UAE
and EU. Why is successful nationhood of Balkan states almost explicitly
linked with complete alignment with either East or West? Why is not normal
to trade freely and be "politically and diplomatically influenced" by both
sides? Or, it could be exclusively reserved right for, for example, Britain
that now looks to China as a post-Brexit alternative. No matter how media
is trying to portrait the Russian influence in the region, the fact is that
Balkan countries are well seated in the heart of Europe, with no intention
to pack and leave.
What is cosmetically used as a divisive material by the local political
parties in the Balkans for their daily use, is usually propelled by the
media as an undeniable proof that "old Balkan ghosts" are back. The ordinary
people are tired of political rhetoric, amplified by sensations hungry media.
By looking for the change, they might be ending with the same result, election
after election, but nations of the region are not interested in yet another
geostrategic trap, full of sacrifices for the sake of big players. They
want peace and a chance to make a dignified living.
This is actually we fear from the neolib hype of their attention to the
young generation =
Meanwhile, young people across the region try to live in a cannabis-softened,
networked dreamworld – where electronic dance music or Pokémon Go replace
the national and political identities formed 20 years ago.
I remember during the various Balkan wars the region was frequently described
as an 'historical fault-line'. There was then something of a revisionist
backlash that disputed that such a thing existed and asserted that the antagonism
between various groups went back no further than the rise of romantic nationalism
in the 1800s.
Actually, there is a fault-line, but not the one that many people imagine
(i.e Christian/Muslim or Occidental/Oriental). The division is between different
Slav groups; one the one hand, those like the Slovenes and Croats who are
traditionally Catholic and consider themselves part of the West, and on
the other the Serbs, Macedonians and Montenegrins who generally see themselves
as part of an Orthodox, 'authentically' Slavic community with Russia at
its head. Much the same division is found further North and is fed by both
Russian historiography that sees the country as the guardian of Slavdom
- the big brother to various smaller nations - and by the instinctive Western
view that the 'other' is fundamentally uncivilised (or at least un-modern).
My own country (the Czech Republic) is a good example of this. Far from
seeing ourselves as part of some great Slav family except in the most abstract
sense, most Czechs take their cues from Berlin, Paris, London and Washington
and see Russians as somewhat backward and uncouth (an impression reinforced
by the presence of the Red Army here for nearly 50 years. Believe me, if
you'd seen the poor bastards up close, you wouldn't fear them so much as
pity them). But go to Minsk or even parts of Eastern Slovakia and you'll
find opinions that are the polar opposite of the above. For various historical
reasons, the same attitudes are amplified in the Balkans so that you have
a situation where peoples who are ethnically almost identical end up hating
each other to the point of violence.
On a different note, it is strange that the legacy of colonialism is
used to excuse almost anything in the developing world but Turkish domination
of the Balkans and the impact that that had on the cultural development
and outlook of the various peoples there - the Serbs in particular - is
virtually never factored in as a reason for people killing each other in
large numbers. It is almost as if some people think that Europeans should
know better...
Globalization is happening with or without NATO. Technology and science
progressed, the world is connected, the differences are melting. Isolation
never ends well. On topic: Croatia is in NATO and there are no refugees
here.
The EU is Balkanising Europe with a helping hand from Merkel. Ethnic and
geopolitical conflict is our future, simply look at the polls in western
European states. "Nationalism" is the modern lefts boogie man. Maybe if
the left (and let's be honest, center right) stopped with their ludicrous
immigration policies there would be less hardline national sentiment. Multiculturalism
is not some sort of human right, it's a political ideology, and it will
come apart.
The EU is doing great things for all the med countries, building strong
economies with good prospects for young people and promoting peace and democracy
on its borders, why the concern?
Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, the Balkans, Ukraine, Turkey, Syria, they are being
imbued with the spirit of European free thought and values, the sort of
liberal tolerance you will only find in great countries like France, why
are you laughing?
It is disturbing that here as in the UK with Farage and Brexit and lePen
in France etc(long list of nasty pieces of work) nationalism is resurgent.It
differs little from the Fascism of the 30s in its glorification of the nation
state and hatred of foreigners. Europe has to face this down in any way
it can or we will repeat the mistakes of last century and get embroiled
in a conflict that only the pedlars of hate would welcome.
On this issue the guardian ,Mason and below the line comment are out of
their depth by a mile, far to complicated/sensitive an issue, which demands
a great deal of historical knowledge and cultural /political /religious/ethnic
awareness .
A lot of points here raised, none of them expanded on.
Croatia is in the title, yet, you mention Bosnia, Republika Srpska, Macedonia...
the Balkans, as you like to call this region, is a complex, many layered
thing... Puting Republika Srpska together with Macedonia or Croatia is something
like comparing Tunisia, Syria and Pakistan (not that these two regions are
of the same relevance, just making the point that garbling these countries
together and explaining each in a few sentences isn't doing any of them
justice).
Some things pointed out are plain wrong. For instance: "...the likely
outcome is a coalition of the same old "centrist" parties – nationalists
and social democrats." Not gonna happen. The so-called nationalists have
never ever formed a coalition with the so called social democrats, nor will
they in the near future.
And last, but not the least: "If Europe wants to make the Balkans work,
it needs to understand the limits of its current approach." What does that
even mean? What Europe? You seem to label Croatia as nationalist, and leaning
in a fascist direction, and yet you name Europe as the one to control us?
Who? Hungary? Poland? Germany with its rise of AFD? I don't think Europe
has the moral high ground to meddle here, and I don't see what would even
be accomplished by it. Unless there are gross human rights violations all
of sudden, of course.
For the time being, I think everyone should concentrate on sorting out
their own countries.
People in Croatia are fed up with the status quo. Same old politicians
for years, with same old policies, and if someone seemingly new pops up
it turns out it was the same old garbage all over again. That is the reason
behind low turnout. And whenever there is a low turnout in Croatia, the
right parties gain ground, because they have a very disciplined electorate.
They tell then to vote for God and country and so they do.
Sadly or more like, quite fortunately, this piece is not about Russia.
It is a piece aimed at asserting the rational over certain ingrained
ethnic rivalries. Good.
We have seen enough of nationalism and inter racial ethnic division.
It bought all those peoples nothing but bad.
Yes. Membership of the EU should not be taken for granted. There should
be certain criteria which the political leaders of applicant states ahould
adhere and adhere they must. There should be no compromise. No compromise!
("No Surrender").
If they want the advantages which membership of the single market can
bestow, then they must accept the civil rights which are bestowed on it's
newly adopted citizens.
If the Croats under rheir nationaliatic and chauvanistic government ignore
this general perspective, rhen they are indeed, unfit. If they can't respect
former adversaries. If they refuse to acknowledge their past, well, don't
let them join (Never, never, never!).
Macedonia's political elite is indeed corrupt to the bone but the country
is certainly not "mired in ethnic conflict" whatever that means Paul. Do
some bloody research.
And your implicit assumption that national chauvinism is somehow a typically
Balkan event says a lot about your thought process. Know that the EU will
not do anything about Croatia's hard right because it's nice to have someone
to do your dirty work on the border zones while you play the honest liberal.
It takes a genuine left! wing government to really upset someone in Brussels.
Well, some of the nasty rethoric like calling Serbs "misery" actually came
from the popular leader on the left this time, who lost. It's too confusing
to put it all in one article.
But, in Macedonia, there were problems, right? Between Macedonians and Albanians,
only last year.
Those who lend the money can smell the global rise in socialism a mile off
- no wonder they are driving the wars the wars in Middle East - which drives
the desperate and displaced into Europe - which starts the rise in hard
right politics... It's so obvious and yet it happens every time.
Well if the US (Clinton) hadn't directed the EU to get involved in Ukraine
and incite a revolution then Putin wouldn't have had to get involved to
protect his naval base and the ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Then the US wouldn't
have had a cause to start trade sanctions and piss of Mr Putin. In which
case Mr Putin wouldn't probably have had the motivation to start cold war
games again.
Anyway I am sure Mrs Clinton has had a very large cheque from the US
defense industry who are the ultimate sponsors of US war games.
What about Ukraine Paul, we've seen open nazism there since the day the
Americans coopted the Maiden coup, oh I forgot that nasty Mr Putin made
them do it ...
Guardian cried nationalism at Scots who just wanted rid of the tories and
Westminster government
its difficult for me to trust any article from guar which includes the
word nationalism
it could well be nationalism which is driving this.... but guar has a
history of demonstrating that it does not even come close to grasping the
basic meaning of the word
The Guardian is 'multiculturalist'. Multiculturalism means absolutely nothing
at all and is a thoroughly discredited idea/l. IMO it is a vehicle for the
alienation of individuals from each other and the destruction of the bond,
i.e. culture, that holds them together and, in most cases, has been constructed
over thousands of years. Destruction of culture and language has always
been the weapon of choice in the imperialists' subjection project. People
will fight back.
Nationalism, as the, increasingly centralised, distant, authoritarian, democratically
deficient EU becomes more and more politically focused and powerful, will
simply grow and grow.
Political and financial elites across the EU live in mortal fear of referenda
for a very good reason.
Supporting the break up of Yugoslavia was the worse mistake the European
powers ever made since 1945. And approving the independence of Kosovo probably
the second. On what grounds do they think now they can oppose the independence
of Republika Srpska? The continued harassment and gratuitous confrontation
of certain EU states against Russia won't help either.
Europe is tending towards break up as countries start to align back to their
historical roots. Look at a map of Europe now compared with 30 years ago.
Don't forget all the regional tensions, the Basques, Catalans, and I hear
20 other similar situations across Europe. Meanwhile Project EU thinks it
can create a single Europe. It's laughable.
We have no influence or control over the EU. It is run by Germany and their
puppets in Brussels. The actual purpose of the euro politicians is to create
a single country called Europe. One currency, one legal system, one army,
open borders, etc. Sovereign control will be gradually stripped from individual
countries and passed to Brussels. But of course it is completely corrupt
and mismanaged and it is only a matter of time before it collapses. At least
we had the balls to brexit.
These things are really serious and they are happening all over the democratic
world. We can end up with Trump on one end and myriad far right or crypto
far right governments in Europe. It is a complete failure of our political
economic and educational system.
I honestly believe that representational democracy as we know it is on its
last breath.
Why do you create a distinction between the left and fascism? Fascism, as
advocated by The National Socialist German Workers Party and Mussolini,
adored statism (state-control).
The left is about ever-increasing state power, the right is about individualism
('far-right', a term used as a pejorative, actually means anarchy, Hitler
was a megalomaniacal control freak). The fascists are on record time and
time again expressing their hatred of laissez-faire capitalism and liberal
individualism.
Mussolini's manifesto - which advocates the minimum wage, pandering to
the unions, progressive taxation, lowering the voting age and abolishing
the upper-chamber - reads like a manifesto for a modern-day progressive
party. Why? Because it was self-proclaimed 'progressives', in the 20s, who
supported it.
The EU has made small regions feel powerless and provoked more nationalism,
just look at the tensions within the UK, Spain, Italy before you even start
with the Balkans. The Balkans have been forced to be the frontline in a
blockade for a mismanaged German refugee crisis. All these eastern european
economies are mostly basket cases that joining the EU won't save. Indeed
with EU free movement of labour they'll find all their young talent gone
looking for opportunities abroad but maybe that's what they want?
Why does the Guardian conflate every expression of nationalism with fascism?
It's a bit like conflating an instance of one white police officer shooting
one black person with systemic racism - it doesn't fit. It's childlike.
We are nationalist. It's not whether we should be, we are. We have a
border, we unite behind symbols, we have a national anthem, a national Parliament,
a national health service and a national language. I don't believe 'Britishness'
is quantifiable, however I also, unlike The Guardian, realise it exists;
much in the same way 'love' can't quantified, but many accept it (it is
our national religion).
'Britishness' is merely the collective will of the British people. While
we can't quantify it per se, it exists. It's the collective moral obligation
held by the citizens of this country towards free healthcare at the point
of delivery; it's a moral obligation which doesn't exist in the majority
of countries the world over. It's a very British moral obligation, and one
which is in danger of being eroded by the left's worst policy: open borders.
I know in Guardian-land criticism of its national religions, ie, diversity,
open borders, globalism, feminism, etc., is tantamount to blasphemy, but
can we please get a handle on reality? There are nearly 200 nation-states
in the world and only a tiny handful of them are in a political union; the
nation-state is now, and will continue to be, the primary actor in international
relations.
That in your arrogance you forget this is what has led to your spectacular
fall from grace all over the western world. The people don't want globalism;
the people are tribal, and they always will be. The people extend trust
to outsiders with a great deal of caution; they don't do so because they
are bad, they do so because of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.
What's more, it's not just 'British people' who adopt these attitudes;
it's everyone; it's every group. It's why Bangladeshis congregate together
in Tower Hamlets, it's why Pakistanis congregate together in Govanhill;
it's why black people congregate together in Chicago.
You can't just unwind 200,000 years of evolution with 30 years of progressive
politics; you certainly can't achieve that when you determine that the in-group
is the problem.
If you want real progress, be liberal. At this stage, I don't believe
progressives are even opposed to racism; they merely oppose racism against
non-white people. I don't believe progressives favour equality; they merely
favour equality for women (or x group). These aren't liberal attitudes,
these are bigoted attitudes.
They are just reinforcing group-based dynamics (ethnocentrism, tribalism,
gynocentrism, etc.), the very dynamics you criticise in the context of other
groups (ie, white heterosexual males).
Excellent comment. Isn't it strange that repressive ideologies are called
'progressive' by the Marxists and Globalists that spread the word, the fear
and the idiocy.
It's simple: nationalism is neurotic and built on defining oneself by the
virtue of one's difference, to the exclusion of similarities and debasement
of the other. It's the reverse of the Good Samaritan.
All that is very nice indeed, problem is when 'in the name of my nation'
someone ends up laying dead and beaten to pulp on the streets .... and that,
sorry, ain't so nice.
"... Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. ..."
"... Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen. ..."
"... After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy! ..."
"... I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. ..."
"... amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience. ..."
"... Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons. ..."
"... The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies. ..."
"... The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny.. ..."
"... There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. ..."
"... With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex. ..."
"... Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light. ..."
"... The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy. ..."
"... What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have. ..."
"... Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes? ..."
"... That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time. ..."
"... Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation? ..."
"... The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes. ..."
"... Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions. ..."
"... I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated. ..."
"... Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR? ..."
"... Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion. ..."
"... You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly. ..."
"... Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore. ..."
"... There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene. ..."
"... You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both? ..."
"... ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense??? ..."
"... Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts! ..."
"... ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. ..."
"... The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now. ..."
"... Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. ..."
"... Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc. ..."
"... The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard ..."
"... See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR. ..."
"... But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country. ..."
"... Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country. ..."
"... Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's. ..."
"... Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil? ..."
"... Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law. ..."
"... Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law ..."
"... As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change. ..."
"... You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively. ..."
"... However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings. ..."
"... What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law? ..."
NATO and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria .... they make a desert and call
it peace.
ID7582903 1 Nov 2015 06:19
"Credibility"? Beware and be aware folks. This isn't a monopoly game being played here; it's
for real.
2015 Valdai conference is Societies Between War and Peace: Overcoming the Logic of Conflict
in Tomorrow's World. In the period between October 19 and 22, experts from 30 countries have been
considering various aspects of the perception of war and peace both in the public consciousness
and in international relations, religion and economic interaction between states. Videos w live
translations and english transcripts (a keeper imho)
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50548
30 Oct, 2015 - The day US announces Ground troops into Syria, and the day before the downing/crash
of the Russian Airbus 321 in the Sinai, this happened:
Russia has conducted a major test of its strategic missile forces, firing numerous ballistic and
cruise missiles from various training areas across the country, videos
uploaded by the Ministry of Defense have shown.
A routine exercise, possibly the largest of its kind this year, was intended to test the command
system of transmitting orders among departments and involved launches
from military ranges on the ground, at sea and in the air, the ministry said Friday.
30.10.2015
Since the beginning of its operation in Syria on September 30, Russian Aerospace Forces have carried
out 1,391 sorties in Syria, destroying a total of 1,623 terrorist targets, the Russian General
Staff said Friday.
In particular, Russian warplanes destroyed 249 Islamic State command posts, 51 training camps,
and 131 depots, Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Russian General Staff Main Operations Directorate
said.
"In Hanshih, a suburb of Damascus, 17 militants of the Al-Ghuraba group were executed in public
after they tried to leave the combat area and flee to Jordan," he specified. "The whole scene
was filmed in order to disseminate the footage among the other groups operating in the vicinity
of Damascus and other areas", the General Staff spokesman said. In the central regions of the
country, the Syrian Army managed to liberate 12 cities in the Hama province, Kartapolov said.
"The Syrian armed forces continue their advance to the north," the general added.
Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried
to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow
statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. What an insult to our intelligence! We
are well aware that the US provides the logistical and technical support, and refuelling of warplanes
to the Saudi coalition illegal war in Yemen. Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and
other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and
destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human
Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen.
After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to
diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish
alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare,
and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened
ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's
legacy!
Barmaidfromhell -> WSCrips 1 Nov 2015 03:52
Well said.
I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the
anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. Obviously carefully selected
to follow any line given them and amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience.
Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution.
Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as
the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear
day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons.
Michael Imanual Christos -> Pete Piper 1 Nov 2015 00:28
Pete Piper
In brief;
The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies
US enemies.
... ... ...
midnightschild10 31 Oct 2015 21:35
When Obama denounced Russia's actions in Syria, and blamed them for massive loss of civilian
lives, Russia responded by asking them to show their proof. The Administration spokesperson said
they got their information from social media. No one in the Administration seems to realize how
utterly stupid that sounds. Marie Harf is happily developing the Administration's foreign policy
via Twitter. As the CIA and NSA read Facebook for their daily planning, Obama reads the comments
section of newspapers to prepare for his speech to the American public in regard to putting boots
on the ground in Syria, and adding to the boots in Iraq. If it didn't result in putting soldiers
lives in jeopardy, it would be considered silly. Putin makes his move and watches as the Obama
Administration makes the only move they know, after minimal success in bombing, Obama does send
in the troops. Putin is the one running the game. Obama's response is so predictable. No wonder
the Russians are laughing. In his quest to outdo Cheyney, Obama has added to the number of wars
the US is currently involved in. His original claim to fame was to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
which then resulted in starting Iraq and Afghanistan Wars 2.0. Since helping to depose the existing
governments in the Middle East, leading not only to the resurgence of AlQuaeda, and giving birth
to ISIS, and leaving chaos and destruction in his wake, he decided to take down the last standing
ruler, hoping that if he does the same thing over and over, he will get a different result. Obama's
foreign policy legacy had been considered impotent at best, now its considered ridiculous.
SomersetApples 31 Oct 2015 20:03
We bombed them, we sent armies of terrorist in to kill them, we destroyed their hospitals and
power plants and cities, we put sanctions on them and we did everything in our power to cut off
their trading with the outside world, and yet they are still standing.
The only thing left to do, lets send in some special military operatives.
This is so out of character, or our perceived character of Obama. It must be that deranged
idiot John McCain pulling the strings.
Rafiqac01 31 Oct 2015 16:58
The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny....having
just watched CNNs Long Road to Hell in Iraq....and the idiots advising Bush and Blair you have
to wonder the extent to which these are almighty balls ups or very sophisticated planning followed
up by post disaster rationalisation....
whatever the conclusion it proves that the intervention or non interventions prove their is
little the USA has done that has added any good value to the situation...indeed it is an unmitigated
disaster strewn around the world! Trump is the next generation frothing at the mouth ready to
show what a big John Wayne he is!!
DavidFCanada 31 Oct 2015 13:56
There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling
countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. That US legacy
will forever remain, burnt into skins and bodies of the living and dead, together with a virtually
unanimous recognition in the ME of the laughable US pretexts of supporting democracy, the rule
of law, religious freedom and, best of all, peace. Obama is merely the chief functionary of a
nation of lies.
Informed17 -> WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:47
Are you saying that there was no illegal invasion of Iraq? No vial of laundry detergent was
presented at the UN as "proof" that Iraq has WMDs? No hue and cry from "independent" media supported
that deception campaign? Were you in a deep coma at the time?
Informed17 -> somethingbrite 31 Oct 2015 13:36
No. But the US trampled on the international law for quite a while now, starting with totally
illegal interference in Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:18
Hey Guardian Editors.....and all those who worshipped Obama....In America, there were folks
from the older generation that warned us that this Community Organizer was not ready for the Job
of President of the United States....it had nothing to do with his color, he just was not ready.....he
was a young, inexperienced Senator, who never, ever had a real job, never had a street fight growing
up pampered in Hawaii, was given a pass to great universities because his parents had money, and
was the dream Affirmative Action poster boy for the liberal left. Obama has not disappointed anyone
who tried to warn us......and now we will reap what he has sowed:
1. 8 Trillion to our debt
2. Nightmare in the Middleast (how is that Arab Spring)
3. Polarized America....Dems and Republicans hate each other....hate each other like the Irish
and English...10 x over.
4. War on Cops
5. War with China
6. Invasion from Central America
I see a great depression and World War IV on the horizon....and I am being positive!
SaveRMiddle 31 Oct 2015 12:47
Nothing Obama says has any value. We've watched the man lie with a grin and a chuckle.
Forever Gone is all trust.
His continued abuse of Red Line threats spoke volumes about the lawyer who Reactively micromanages
that which required and deserved an expert Proactive plan.
Let History reflect the horrific death CIA meddling Regime Change/Divide and Conquer creates.
HeadInSand2013 31 Oct 2015 12:45
Liberal activists were in little doubt that Obama has failed to live up to his commitment
to avoid getting dragged directly into the war.
With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President
is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the
so-called US military-industrial complex.
Liberal activists are stupid enough to think that M. Obama is actually in charge of the US
military or the US foreign policy. Just go back and count how many times during the last 6 years
M. Obama has made a declaration and then - sometimes the next day - US military has over-ruled
him.
Mediaking 31 Oct 2015 10:00
Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the
Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration
camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their
respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ...
all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone
has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light.
USA forces coming to the aid of their 5 individuals... yes 1,2,3,4,5 ( stated by US command-
there are only that amount of FSA fighters left - the rest have gone over to ISIL with their equipment -- ) the local population all speak of ISIL/Daesh being American/Israeli ,they say if this is a
civil war how come all the opposition are foreigners -- I think perhaps it's like the Ukraine affair...
a bunch of CIA paid Nazi thugs instigating a coup ... or like Venezuela agents on roof tops shooting
at both sides in demonstrations to get things going. The usual business of CIA/Mossad stuff in
tune with the mass media with their engineered narratives -- Followed by the trolls on cyber space...
no doubt we shall see them here too.
All note that an Intervention in Syria would be "ILLEGAL" by Int. law and sooner than later
will be sued in billions for it...on top of the billions spent on having a 5 person strong force
of FSA...spent from the American tax payers money . Syria has a government and is considered a
state at the UN . Iran and Russia are there at the request and permission of Syria .
Russia and Iran have been methodically wiping out Washington's mercenaries on the ground while
recapturing large swathes of land that had been lost to the terrorists. Now that the terrorists
are getting wiped out the west and the Saudis are are screaming blue murder !
I for one would have Assad stay , as he himself suggests , till his country is completely free
of terrorists, then have free elections . I would add , to have the Saudis and the ones in the
west/Turkey/Jordan charged for crimes against humanity for supplying and creating Daesh/ISIS .
This element cannot be ignored . Also Kurdistan can form their new country in the regions they
occupy as of this moment and Mosul to come. Iran,Russia,Iraq, Syria and the new Kurdistan will
sign up to this deal . Millions of Syrian refugees can then come back home and rebuild their broken
lives with Iranian help and cash damages from the mentioned instigators $400 billion . The cash
must be paid into the Syrian central bank before any elections take place ... Solved...
My consultancy fee - 200ml pounds sterling... I know ... you wish I ruled the world (who knows
!) - no scams please or else -- ( the else would be an Apocalypse upon the western equity markets
via the Illuminati i.e a 49% crash )... a week to pay , no worries since better to pay for a just
solution than to have million descend upon EU as refugees . It is either this or God's revenge
with no mercy .
amacd2 31 Oct 2015 09:52
Obama, being more honest but also more dangerous than Flip Wilson says, "The Empire made me
do it",
Bernie, having "reservations" about what Obama has done, says nothing against Empire, but continues
to pretend, against all evidence, that this is a democracy.
Hillary, delighting in more war, says "We came, we bombed, they all died, but the Empire won."
Talk about 'The Issue' to debate for the candidates in 2016?
"What's your position on the Empire?"
"Oh, what Empire, you ask?"
"The friggin Empire that you are auditioning to pose as the president of --- you lying tools
of both the neocon 'R' Vichy party and you smoother lying neoliberal-cons of the 'D' Vichy party!"
lightstroke -> Pete Piper 31 Oct 2015 09:41
Nukes are not on the table. Mutually Assured Destruction.
The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to
have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy.
It's not necessary to win wars to exercise that power. All they have to do is start them and
keep them going until the arms industry makes as much dough from them as possible. That's the
only win they care about.
What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money
we don't have.
Taku2 31 Oct 2015 09:26
Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are
fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will
he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian
airstrikes?
How stupid can a President get?
Obama does need to pull back on this one, even though it will make his stupid and erroneous
policy towards the Syrian tragedy seem completely headless. If this stupid and brainless policy
is meant to be symbolic, its potential for future catastrophic consequences is immeasurable.
phillharmonic -> nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:56
That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign
troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international
law all the time.
nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:35
Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State
And who are those then? Do they exist, do we have any reliable source confirming they are really
simultaneously fighting IS and Syrian Army or is it yet another US fairy tale?
Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government
or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why
is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation?
phillharmonic 31 Oct 2015 08:33
The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S.
was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel,
while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were
arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't
going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria.
The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused
a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to
oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes.
amacd2 -> Woody Treasure 31 Oct 2015 08:31
Woody, did you mean "Obama is a foil (for the Disguised Global Crony-Capitalist Empire--- which
he certainly is), or did you mean to say "fool" (which he certainly is not, both because he is
a well paid puppet/poodle for this Global Empire merely HQed in, and 'posing' as, America ---
as Blair and Camron are for the same singular Global Empire --- and because Obama didn't end his
role as Faux/Emperor-president like JFK), eh?
Nena Cassol -> TonyBlunt 31 Oct 2015 06:48
Assad's father seized power with a military coup and ruled the country for 30 years, before
dying he appointed his son, who immediately established marshal law, prompting discontent even
among his father's die-hard loyalists ...this is plain history, is this what you call a legitimate
leader?
Cycles 31 Oct 2015 06:41
Forced to go in otherwise the Russians and Iranians get full control. Welcome to the divided
Syria a la Germany after WW2.
TonyBlunt -> Nena Cassol 31 Oct 2015 06:36
"It does not take much research to find out that Assad is not legitimate at all"
Please share your source with us Nena. But remember Langley Publications don't count.
TonyBlunt -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 06:29
The Americans do not recognise international law. They do not sign up to any of it and proclaim
the right to break it with their "exceptionalism".
Katrin3 -> herrmaya 31 Oct 2015 05:27
The Russians, US, Iran etc are all meeting right now in Vienna. The Russians and the US military
do communicate with each other, to avoid attacking each other by mistake.
The Russians are in the West and N.West of Syria. The US is going into the N. East, near IS
headquarters in Raqqa, to support the Kurdish YPG, who are only a few kilometers from the city.
Katrin3 -> ID6693806 31 Oct 2015 05:15
Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are
also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following
the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions.
I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend
their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated.
centerline ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:48
The Kurds are the fabled moderate opposition who are willing to negotiate, and who have also
fought with the Syrian government against US backed ISIS and al Nusra so called moderate opposition.
Pete Piper -> Verbum 31 Oct 2015 04:47
@Verbum Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became
insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR?
Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds
corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being
invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military,
throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total
surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy,
and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have
laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion.
gabriel90 -> confettifoot 31 Oct 2015 04:46
ISiS is destroying Syria thanks to the US and Saudi Arabia; its an instrument to spread chaos
in the Middle East and attack Iran and Russia...
ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:21
So, on the day peace talks open, the US unilaterally announces advice boots on the ground to
support one of the many sides in the Syrian War, who will undoubtedly want self determination,
right on Turkey's border, as they always have, and as has always been opposed by the majority
of the Syrian population. What part of that isn't completely mad?
Great sympathy for the situation of the Kurds in Syria under Assad, but their nationalism issue
and inability to work together with the Sunni rebels, was a major factor in the non formation
of a functioning opposition in Syria, and will be a block to peace, not its cause. It's also part
of a larger plan to have parts of Turkey and Iraq under Kurdish control to create a contingent
kingdom. Whatever the merits of that, the US deciding to support them at this stage is completely
irrational, and with Russia and Iran supporting Assad will lengthen the war, not shorten it.
MissSarajevo 31 Oct 2015 04:21
Just a couple of things here. How does the US know who the moderates are?!? Is this another
occasion that the US is going to use International law as toilet paper? The US will enter (as
if they weren't already there, illegally. They were not invited in by the legitimate leader of
Syria.
gabriel90 31 Oct 2015 04:19
Warbama is just trying to save his saudi/qatari/turk/emirati dogs of war... they will be wiped
out by Russia and the axis of resistance...
Pete Piper -> Michael Imanual Christos 31 Oct 2015 04:08
Does anyone see anything rational in US foreign policy? When I hear attempts to explain, they
vary around .. "it's about oil". But no one ever shows evidence continuous wars produced more
oil for anyone. So, are we deliberately creating chaos and misery? Why? To make new enemies we
can use to justify more war? We've now classified the number of countries we are bombing. Why?
The countries being bombed surely know.
Pete Piper -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 03:50
You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade
Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized
by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain
this to the public, sadly.
Only the US routinely violates other nations' sovergnity. Since Korea, the only nation that
has ever used military force against a nation not on its border is the US.
Can anyone find rationality in US foreign policy? We are supposed to be fighting ISIL, but
Saudi Arabia and Israel appear to be helping ISIL to force Syrian regime change. And the US is
supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia that are routed to ISIL. Supposedly because eliminating President
Asad is more important than fighting ISIL? The US public is being misled into thinking we are
NOW fighting ISIL. After Asad is killed, then we will genuinely fight ISIL? Russia, Iran, and
more(?) will fight to keep Asad in power and then fight ISIL? THIS IS OBVIOUS BS, AND ALSO FUBAR.
By all means, get everyone together for some diplomacy.
oldholbornian -> lesmandalasdeniki 31 Oct 2015 03:36
Well lets look at Germany the centre of christian culture and the EU
reminds me of emporer franz josef in europe about 100 years ago .. meant well but led to ruination
..i dont think that there has been an american president involved in more wars than obama
obama by his cairo speech kicked of the arab spring ..shows that words can kill
however.. the experience he now has gained may lead to an avoidance of a greater sunni shia
war in syria if the present vienna talks can offer something tangible and preserve honour to the
sunnis .. in the mid east honour and macho are key elements in negotiations
iran however is a shia caliphate based regime and unless it has learnt the lesson from yemen
on the limitations of force may push for further success via army and diplomacy and control in
syria and iraq
oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 02:42
But Obama's latest broken promise to avoid an "open-ended action" in Syria could lead to a
full-blown war with Russia considering that Russian military has been operating in Syria for weeks.
" For the first time ever, the American strategists have developed an illusion that they
may defeat a nuclear power in a non-nuclear war," Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin
told AP. "It's nonsense, and it will never happen."
Any US / terrorist engagement with the Syrian security forces will include engaging with its
allies Russia
Once the firing starts Russia will include the US as terrorists with no rights to be in Syrian
and under the UN RULES have the right to defend themselves against the US
HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:32
Hmm Foreign snipers on rooftops ( not in the control of the government) how many times is this
scenario going to be played out before the 'press' twigs it than something is not making sense.
HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:29
Though in one demonstration there was snipers on rooftops shooting both deconstratirs and the
police - far more police were killed than demonstrators - what does this reming you of? Was these
actions seemingly out of the control of the government a preliminary to what happened in Kiev
during the maidan - practices get the technics right I suppose. - outside forces were obviously
at work ' stirring the pot.
Anna Eriksson 31 Oct 2015 02:24
Let's hope that the US will help out with taking in some refugees as well! In Germany, and
Sweden locals are becoming so frustrated and angry that they set refugee shelters on fire. This
is a trend in both Sweden and Germany, as shown in the maps in the links. There have almost been
90 arsons in Germany so far this year, almost 30 in Sweden.
Nobody tells the American people and nobody else really cares, but these 40-something guys
being sent to Syria are possibly there as:
cannon fodder: to deter the Russians from bombing and Iranians from attacking on the ground
the American friendly anti-Assad militant groups;
to collect and report more accurate intel from the front line (again about the Russian/Iranian
troops deployment/movement).
The Russian and Iranian troops on the ground will soon engage and sweep anti-Assad forces in
key regions in Western Syria. This will be slightly impeded if Americans are among them. But accidents
do happen, hence the term "cannon fodder".
The Russians and Iranians will likely take a step back militarily though for the duration of
talks, so the American plan to protect Saudi backed fighters is likely to work.
I never involved or mentioned ISIS because this is NOT about fighting ISIS. It's about counteracting
the Russian/Irania sweep in the area, and ultimately keeping the Americans in the game (sorry,
war).
petervietnam 31 Oct 2015 01:13
The world's policeman or the world's trouble maker?
Austin Young -> Will D 31 Oct 2015 00:34
But he's the "change we can believe in" guy! Oh right... Dem or republican, they spew anything
and everything their voters want to hear but when it comes time to walk the walk the only voice
in their head is Cash Money.
lesmandalasdeniki -> Bardhyl Cenolli 30 Oct 2015 23:34
It frustrates me, anyone who will be the problem-solver will be labeled as dangerous by the
Western political and business leaders if the said person or group of people can not be totally
controlled for their agenda.
This will be the first time I will be speaking about the Indonesian forest fires that started
from June this year until now. During the period I was not on-line, I watched the local news and
all channels were featuring the same problem every day during the last two-weeks.
US is also silent about it during Obama - Jokowi meeting, even praising Jokowi being on the
right track. After Jokowi came back, his PR spin is in the force again, he went directly to Palembang,
he held office and trying to put up an image of a President that cared for his people. He couldn't
solve the Indonesian forest fires from June - October, is it probably because Jusuf Kalla has
investment in it?
My point is, US and the Feds, World Bank and IMF are appointing their puppets on each country
they have put up an investment on terms of sovereign debt and corporate debt/bonds.
And Obama is their puppet.
Will D 30 Oct 2015 23:30
Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises
and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything
he says anymore.
He has turned out to be a massive disappointment to all those who had such high hopes that
he really would make the world a better place. His failure and his abysmal track record will cause
him to be remembered as the Nobel Peace prize wining president who did exactly the opposite of
what he promised, and failed to further the cause of peace.
Greg_Samsa -> Greenacres2002 30 Oct 2015 23:07
Consistency is at the heart of logic, all mathematics, and hard sciences.
Even the legal systems strive to be free of contradictions.
I'd rather live in world with consistency of thought and action as represented by the Russian
Federation, then be mired in shit created by the US who have shed all the hobgoblins pestering
the consistency of their thoughts and actions.
Never truly understood the value of this stupid quote really...
Phil Atkinson -> PaulF77 30 Oct 2015 22:28
There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic
and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something
critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit
and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war,
UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene.
You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically,
WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both?
MainstreamMedia Propaganda 30 Oct 2015 22:03
ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against
our own mercenaries make sense???
I think blatant policy changes like this show just how ineffectual the US president actually
is. The hand over between Bush and Obama has been seamless. Gitmo still going, patriot act renewed,
Libya a smoldering ruin (4 years down the line), no progress on gun control, troops in Afganistan
and Iraq... it goes on...
HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:58
"It's really hard to see how this tiny number of troops embedded on the ground is going
to turn the tide in any way."
Or the U.S. could carry out air strikes against Hezbollah which has been fighting ISIS for
a while now. They could also supply weapons to ISIS (who are dubbed 'moderates') to counter Russian
airstrikes and Iranian man power.
Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its
foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This
is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those
countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements
with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different
groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking
about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts!
Phil Atkinson -> Harry Bhai 30 Oct 2015 21:57
Fuck the al-Sauds and their oil. If the US wants their oil (and there's plenty of other oil
sellers in the world) then just take it. Why not be consistent?
templeforjerusalem 30 Oct 2015 21:51
IS has shown itself to be deeply hateful of anything that conflicts with their narrow religious
interpretations. Destroying Palmyra, murdering indiscriminately, without any clear international
agenda other than the formation of a new Sunni Sharia State, makes them essentially enemies of
everybody. Although I do agree that belligerent secular Netanyahu's Israel sets a bad example
in the area, Israel does not tend to murder over the same primitive values that IS uses, although
there's not much difference in reality.
IS uses extermination tactics, Israel used forced land clearance and concentration camp bombing
(Gaza et al), while the US in Iraq used brutal force. None of this is good but nothing justifies
the shear barbarism of IS. Is there hope in any of this? No. Is Russian and US involvement a major
escalation? Yes.
Ultimately, this is about religious identities refusing to share and demand peace. Sunni vs
Shia, Judeo/Catholic/Protestant West vs Russian Orthodox, secular vs orthodox Israel. No wonder
people are saying Armageddon.
HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:50
ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have
an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to
suffer. The only countries and groups that have been successfully fighting ISIS - Assad's
forces, Iranians, Hezbollah, Russians, and Kurds are in fact enemies of either the U.S., Saudis,
Israelis, or Turks. Isn't that strange? The countries and peoples that have suffered the most
and that have actually fought against ISIS effectively are seen as the enemy. Do the powers that
be really want to wipe out ISIS at all costs? No, especially if it involves the Iranians and Russians.
How are Russian boots on the ground - of which there have been many for some time - ok
and American boots bad?
The difference is that of a poison and the antidotum. The American/NATO meddling in Iraq, Libya
and Syria created a truly sick situation which needs to be fixed. That's what the Russians are
doing. Obviously, they have their own objectives and motives for that and are protecting their
own interests, but nevertheless this is the surest way to re-establish semblance of stability
in the Middle East, rebuilt Syria and Iraq, stop the exodus of the refugees, and mend relations
in the region.
The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing
short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America
lost any claim to 'leadership' by now.
I feel sorry for Mr Obama, and indeed America, because he is a decent person, yet most of us
are unaware what forces he has to reckon with behind the scenes. It is clear by now that interests
of corporations and rich individuals, as well as a couple of seemingly insignificant foreign states,
beat the national interest of America all time, anytime. It is astonishing how a powerful, hard
working and talented nation can become beholden to such forces, to its own detriment.
In the end, I do not think the situation is uniquely American. Russia or China given a chance
of total hegemony would behave the same. That's why we need a field of powers/superpowers to keep
one another in check and negotiate rather than enforce solutions.
ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:02
Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. Yes,
the me has its own problems, including rival versions of Islam and fundamentalism as well as truly
megalomaniac leaders. But in instances (Libya for example) they did truly contribute to the country's
destruction (and I am not excusing Gaddafi, but for the people there sometimes having these leaders
and waiting for generational transformations may be a better solution than instant democracy pills.)
ID7582903 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:00
Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according
to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc.
The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops
into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's
a War Crime by every standard
Obama and the "regime" that rules the United Snakes of America have all gone over the edge
into insanity writ large.
ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 20:55
To clarify, I meant that all these groups are funded by these Arabic sheikhdoms and it increasingly
appears that th us of a is not as serious in eradicating all of them in the illusion that the
so called softer ones will over through Assad and then it will be democracy, the much misused
and fetishised term. Meanwhile we can carve up the country, Turkey gets a bite and our naughty
bloated allies in Arabia will be happy with their influence. Only if it happened that way...
There is much more than this short and simplified scenario, and yes Russia played its hand
rather well taking the west off guard. And I am not trying to portray Putin as some liberation
prophet either. So perhaps you could say that yes, maybe I have looked into it deep...
BlooperMario -> RedEyedOverlord 30 Oct 2015 20:52
China and Russia are only responding to NY World Bank and IMF cheats and also standing up to
an evil empire that has ruined the middle east.
Time you had a rethink old chap and stopped worshipping Blair; Bush; Rumsfeld etc as your heros.
See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR.
Silly Sailors provoking Chinese Lighthouse keepers.
RoyRoger 30 Oct 2015 19:30
Their Plan B is fucked !!
But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate
corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve
up Syria a sovereign country.
Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian
rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is
a sovereign country.
The real battle/plan for the Corporate corrupt White House is to try and get a foothold in
Syria and establish a military dictator after a coup d'etat'. As we know it's what they, the West,
do best.
Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering
neo-Nazi's.
In the interest of right is right; Good Luck Mr Putin !! I'm with you all the way.
weematt 30 Oct 2015 19:25
War (and poverty too) a consequence, concomitant, of competing for markets, raw materials and
trade routes or areas of geo-political dominance, come to be seen as 'natural' outcomes of society,
but are merely concomitants of a changeable social system.
... ... ...
Greg_Samsa 30 Oct 2015 19:21
Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the
opposite fronts on the Syrian soil?
This gives a whole new dimension to the term 'blue-on-blue'.
Kevin Donegan 30 Oct 2015 18:59
Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law.
"Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty
over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle
of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how
large or small) is equal in international law. The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia,
signed in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years' War, in which the major continental European states
– the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden and the Dutch Republic – agreed to respect one
another's territorial integrity. As European influence spread across the globe, the Westphalian
principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and
to the prevailing world order.[1]"
foolisholdman 30 Oct 2015 18:41
As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such
as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance
of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change.
If ever there was a government hat had lost its legitimacy the present US government is it.
foolisholdman -> Johnny Kent 30 Oct 2015 18:31
Johnny Kent
The slight question of legality in placing troops in a sovereign country without permission
or UN approval is obviously of no importance to the US...and yet they criticise Russia for
'annexing Crimea...
Yes, but you see: the two cases are not comparable because the USA is exceptional.
You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting
demonstrators who demonstrated
against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime
had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot
up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but
on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their
weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively.
However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional)
human beings.
WalterCronkiteBot 30 Oct 2015 17:11
What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international
law?
Noone seems to even raise it as an issue, its all about congressional approval. Just like the
UK drone strikes.
"... Look over there! Putin is all over the place these days, he is doing Brexit, supporting Trump, and Corbyn I think, he is hacking Hillary, wow. ..."
Look over there! Putin is all over the place these days, he is doing Brexit, supporting Trump,
and Corbyn I think, he is hacking Hillary, wow. And he still has time to ride horses and
play with tigers and invade Europe. I see why he is popular.
But it's nice to be Russian, I like Russia, it's a beautiful country. Until now the Bernie
people were all sexists, racists, privileged homeless idiots who lived in basements, but now we
are Russians. Much better. See that's the Hillary outreach to the bros.
The real question is whether the email are authentic or not. They are.
Neoliberal propaganda honchos just decided to use a smoke screen to conceal this
fact using Russia as a bogeyman.
Russian might be guilty of many things, but in no way it is
responsible for corruption of DNC and this subversive actions/covert operations
used for installing Hillary Clinton as a candidate from the Democratic Party. .
Notable quotes:
"... Is it OK to cheat, lie and deceive - as Clintons and DNC did - and then defend themselves by saying that "nobody would know, if it wasn't for those damn Russians"? Even the idea is preposterous: how we find out about this corruption is irrelevant, the point is there was corruption and cheating. ..."
"... So the DNC is trying to Blame Russia for their own corrupt actions. ..."
"... [Under Clintons] democracy has become conspiracy ..."
"... Are you constipated? Blame it on Russia. ..."
"... Oh and blaming Russia for revealing the truth. The truth was not attacked, but who revealed the truth is suddenly the bad guy. So desperate and out of sorts. :) ..."
"... There's no proof, besides an unsourced article in the Washington Post form 'security experts', that Russia had anything to do with this. What we do know is that immediately after the leaks became public various news outlets produced obviously planted hit pieces claiming some kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin, and again with precisely zero evidence as back up. It's gob smacking that the Clinton campaign would risk an international incident with a nuclear power to cover for their shitty behaviour, but then again it's Hillary Clinton so perhaps not. ..."
"... It may indeed be Russian hackers who gained access to the emails which confirm the DNC was all along in the tank for Clinton, and was actively placing a thumb on the scale from day one in the primary process. ..."
"... But the bottom line here is that if the DNC had not so conspired, there would be no emails to leak, now would there? For Mook and others to now be placing blame on the hackers, rather than on those who produced the embarrassing material that the hackers exposed, is diversionary and inexcusable. ..."
"... The funniest thing is, they don't even deny the authenticity of the emails. Basically, DNC says that someone is guilty of revealing the truth. You can hardly stoop any lower. Blaming Russia is just a cherry on the cake. ..."
"... How nice to have an eternal scapegoat: TheRussiansAreComing!TheRussiansAreComing! This will obviously be RodHam's theme as President. Perhaps to the point of annihilation. Neo-Conne! ..."
"... My biggest issue with Hillary from the start has been her continued nonchalance when it comes to matters of national security. She acts as if she is above the need to keep sensitive information safe from potential enemies, both foreign and domestic. That's a pretty scary attitude coming from someone who is likely to be this nation's next leader. ..."
"... It's amazing. Caught red handed and still deflecting. Take responsibility for Christ sak ..."
"... ".....Several of the emails released indicate that the officials, including Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, grew increasingly agitated with Clinton's rival, Bernie Sanders, and his campaign as the primary season advanced, in one instance even floating bringing up Sanders' religion to try and minimize his support. ..."
"... The more interesting part is that this blame is just a distraction from the larger issue, that the entire political system is corrupted and broken. This is just business as usual, only this instance was revealed. ..."
I honestly can't wait for when the pro-clinron commentors arrive. I can
see it now "this doesn't matter if you vote 3rd party you're voting for
trump." It won't matter that this is all the fault of the DNC, it will be
on us. I'm calling it now ;)
Is it OK to cheat, lie and deceive - as Clintons and DNC did - and then
defend themselves by saying that "nobody would know, if it wasn't for those
damn Russians"? Even the idea is preposterous: how we find out about this
corruption is irrelevant, the point is there was corruption and cheating.
Interestingly, this is a favorite defense of all authoritarians. They
always claim that if it benefits the "enemy", it is ok to suppress it. Stalin
had a concept of "objectively aiding the enemy" - it meant that maybe the
person was not a conscious traitor, but his/her actions helped the enemy
- and that was enough. Is Guardian and Clintons now marching down this road
of extreme "us versus them" ideology?
What's is next? Will Clintons ban Bernie from speaking because it would
"aid Trump"? (and by extension in their paranoid thinking, it would aid
Russia).
"Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling
us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and
are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."
So the DNC is trying to Blame Russia for their own corrupt actions.
Another reason on the list as to why I won't be voting for Hillary. Why
did DNC act very anti-democratic?
A vote for Hillary is a vote for continued corruption.
Rather than blaming they ought to be taking responsibility for their own
words. But they'd have to be adults with integrity to do that. The tragedy
and travesty of it is the willful, routine, nonchalant effort to subvert
the Constitution and the will of the people. These kinds of machinations
have always gone on within both parties and should always be exposed. The
SuperPACS, the dark money, the secret maneuverings, the totally broken primary
system, all designed to stop our having our say. People elsewhere often
wonder about "our" choices for the White House. Now they can see how much
of that free choice has been wrested away over time, and how imperative
it is that we ordinary people start working on positive change within the
elective system. In my opinion all the DNC participants should lose their
jobs and be made to cool their heels in jail a while, because without consequences
we may as well just burn the Constitution and Bill of Rights right now and
be done with it, for all the respect these documents are given by our politicians.
What a revolting mess it all is on both sides, with ordinary people the
losers, as always.
Oh and blaming Russia for revealing the truth. The truth was not attacked,
but who revealed the truth is suddenly the bad guy. So desperate and out
of sorts. :)
There's no proof, besides an unsourced article in the Washington Post form
'security experts', that Russia had anything to do with this. What we do
know is that immediately after the leaks became public various news outlets
produced obviously planted hit pieces claiming some kind of collusion between
the Trump campaign and Putin, and again with precisely zero evidence as
back up. It's gob smacking that the Clinton campaign would risk an international
incident with a nuclear power to cover for their shitty behaviour, but then
again it's Hillary Clinton so perhaps not.
A big part of the problem is that Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) is still
in her position. If the Democratic Party place a value on performance, she
should have been fired after the 2014 mid-terms.
Part of the problem is that the DNC is too closely aligned with the interests
of one political family. Competence and other considerations count for a
lot less than loyalty. DWS kept her position because of the ties to Clinton
and Clintons donors, not because she did a good job and grew the party.
The opposite has happened.
Frankly, Obama bears some degree of responsibility for this because he's
the one who canned Howard Dean, who actually had a track record of success
at winning elections and growing the party through two election cycles.
Instead Obama replaced him with a guy like Tim Kaine, who wasn't up to the
task either. Dean also did a good job of navigating the very difficult 2008
election. Kaine and DWS did poorly in the capacity as DNC Chair.
As president, Obama has done a lot right. But his neglect of the DNC
is part of his legacy, and it isn't a good one.
That's nice that those damn Russians 'stole' their email. However, those
damn Russians didn't write them. I dislike and distrust Hillary and DWS
more now that I did a week ago, and that takes some doing. Hillary is Nixon.
Paranoid. Dishonest. Devious.
how in the name of god can the overly compensated chairwoman of the democratic
party conspire against a candidate supported by nearly half of democratic
primary voters ???
Kaine is in the same boat as Clinton on the TPP - the Good Ship Hypocrite.
Both hope like hell that TPP gets passed in the lame duck so they can make
a show of being against it to gain some progressive cred. If Obama and his
colleagues Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan can't get TPP done before his term
ends, Clinton and Kaine's reservations re TPP will disappear faster than
a snowflake in July. It's like Clinton's about face on the Keystone pipeline
- she got a heads up from Obama that he wasn't going to approve it anyway,
so she came out against it.
I love the irony of the comment from the Clinton Campaign..... '' This is
further evidence the Russian Government is trying to influence the outcome
of an election ''.
Heavens forbid that the USA would ever stoop so low as to try and influence
the outcome of other Countries elections !!!
It of course being totally above Americians to indulge such devious behaviour
.
Very true, and Hillary was happy to support the violent Honduras coup of
an elected government and still very much supports that new violent regime.
And the new regime is very friendly to western big corporate 'interests'.
Of course. Hillary is old-school.
Doesn't matter who did it, the Russians, Anonymous, Edward Snowden. The
point is that the DNC is revealed as partisan and rigged. In addition to
minimizing her role at the convention, I believe Wasserman Schultz should
be dumped from any position of leadership, along with other DNC leaders.
No wonder people are fed up with politics as usual.
"Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling
us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and
are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."
And Mook is the expert who whispered that lie in his own ear.
Great photo, Mook the Spook, her lover, a few bigtime aids. They got
caught like Nixon's plumbers at Watergate. So they would like to blame the
Russians for their writing calumnies and antiSemitic slanders against Sanders.
They look pretty stupid!
Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling us that Russian state
actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and are] releasing these
emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."
It may indeed be Russian hackers who gained access to the emails which confirm
the DNC was all along in the tank for Clinton, and was actively placing
a thumb on the scale from day one in the primary process.
Sanders knew it, and we as his supporters also knew it and made reference
to that very issue repeatedly in countless comment threads here at the Guardian
and elsewhere.
But the bottom line here is that if the DNC had not so conspired,
there would be no emails to leak, now would there?
For Mook and others to now be placing blame on the hackers, rather than
on those who produced the embarrassing material that the hackers exposed,
is diversionary and inexcusable.
The Clinton campaign is moving closer and closer to blowing this election
completely and allowing the most dangerous candidacy I've ever seen in my
lifetime actually win this thing.
They've already selected a VP pick which effectively thumbs their nose
at the very progressives whose enthusiasm they will need at the voting booths,
and now here they are trying to deflect blame for unconscionable skullduggery
in the primary process onto foreign actors.
Debbie Wassermann Schultz should have been fired long ago, so blatant and
obvious were her shenanigans.
This kind of tone-deaf ineptitude could see all of us paying an unimaginable
price in November. All it will take at this point is a few more mass shootings
(at which we here in the US have a particular talent) to feed into Trump's
narrative and we'll all be waking up in January in a country we don't even
recognize.
The funniest thing is, they don't even deny the authenticity of the
emails. Basically, DNC says that someone is guilty of revealing the truth.
You can hardly stoop any lower. Blaming Russia is just a cherry on the cake.
Just saw Bernie on CNN basically saying the Nr1 priority is to defeat D.
Trump, then keep fighting the good fight from within the Democratic Party
trying to reform it from within.
A big thing he misses here that the top honcho Mrs Hillary Clinton is one
of the main reasons of what the Democratic Party has become. She will be
a huge obstruction to anything resembling reform. You might as well pack
up and go 3rd party and show the Dems that way what American voters want.
4 years of Trump might actually be a lot better to shake up the corrupt
DNC then 4-8 years of Hillary and who knows how many years of Republicans
2 follow (and believe me, Hillary will do a lot of damage to the democratic
brand!)
Clinton is desperate to lurk voters by anything, then let it be those Russians
that hacked her mail. A Russian proverb to the point - "A bad dancer always
blames his balls that hamper him".
If they'd backed off, allowed their MSM protectors to bury the story, this
whole thing would have died down in a week. A few angry Bernie Bros notwithstanding
there's nothing in the emails that we didn't know already. Yes the DNC and
the Hillary Clinton campaign were one and the same....shock! Yes sections
of the corporate owned media are colluding with the Democratic Party....wowsers!!
But no, they couldn't help themselves. Now we've got the Democratic nominee
for the Presidency alleging, with zero proof, that her opponent is engaged
in a conspiracy to commit criminal acts with a foreign power! Seriously
who thought this was a good idea?
How nice to have an eternal scapegoat: TheRussiansAreComing!TheRussiansAreComing!
This will obviously be RodHam's theme as President. Perhaps to the point
of annihilation. Neo-Conne!
My biggest issue with Hillary from the start has been her continued nonchalance
when it comes to matters of national security. She acts as if she is above
the need to keep sensitive information safe from potential enemies, both
foreign and domestic. That's a pretty scary attitude coming from someone
who is likely to be this nation's next leader.
Putin ate my homework (TM). What Debbie and the gang did is worse, much worse than this sorry article
tries to portray. For example, what sort of Democratic Party tries to use Bearnie's religion
agsinst him ?!?
".....Several of the emails released indicate that the officials, including
Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, grew increasingly agitated with Clinton's
rival, Bernie Sanders, and his campaign as the primary season advanced,
in one instance even floating bringing up Sanders' religion to try and minimize
his support.
****"It might may [sic] no difference, but for KY and WA can we get someone
to ask his belief," Brad Marshall, CFO of DNC, wrote in an email on May
5, 2016. "Does he believe in God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish
heritage.
I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with
my peeps. My southern baptist peeps woudl draw a big difference between
a Jew and an atheist."****
"Amy Dacey, CEO of the DNC, subsequently responded "AMEN," according
to the email"
The more interesting part is that this blame is just a distraction from
the larger issue, that the entire political system is corrupted and broken.
This is just business as usual, only this instance was revealed.
Has anyone here worked, I mean truly worked in the pre-election process,
behind the scenes, witnessing the dirty business that is gathering electoral
votes during caucuses and primaries? It is a total sham. It is where under-the-table
deals are made for promised loyalties to certain candidates, where those
that have the most, bribe others to vote a certain way, where quid pro quo
rules over democracy or a candidates stance on issues and/or policies. It
is where future cabinet positions are secured, based on allegiance to party
hierarchy and strong-arming. Your vote means nothing, only a small select
group determines candidates, and ultimately the president.
DNC Chair Wasserman is just one cog in a massive political machine, one
run rampantly out of control. And this happens on both sides, among both
parties. It is where the personal selfish love of money, power, and fame
outstrip the will of the people.
Long live hackers for keeping a check on an obviously corrupted system.
The mainstream media isn't doing their jobs anymore, someone has to. The
media have merely become the pretorian band for the super class, those elite
that truly control this country from behind the scenes, pulling the puppet
strings attached to the soulless politicians.
We are again presented with two candidates whom have each proven their
desire to negate the will of the nation, for purely selfish reasons. Neither
is truly qualified for this office.
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought
to trust no [hu]man living with the power to endanger the public liberty".
-John Adams-
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more
corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters"
-Ben Franklin-
All this discussion missed the most important point: Obama is neocon and neoliberal
and he did what he was supposed to do. "Change we can believe is" was a masterful
"bait and switch" operation to full the gullible electorate. he was just a useful
puppet for globalist. They used him and they will threw him to the dust bin of history
sweetened with $200k speeches.
Notable quotes:
"... The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third party in the United States that represents ordinary American people! ..."
"... So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone strikes? ..."
"... Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never had happened under a Trump presidency. ..."
"... Clinton helped the distabilize Syria arming rebels who some joined IS: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328 ..."
"... 'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US is not at war with???? ..."
"... Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy! ..."
"... Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us -- even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo. He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call it murder. ..."
"... Obama's presidency: 1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay it up. 2. Record # of people living on food stamps. 3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to hide it) 4. Stagnant income for average family 5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up despite stagnant income. 6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance cost up. 7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until its threat is too big to ignore. ... ... Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after Bush's term was over. ..."
"... Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is; has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and nothing has changed. ..."
"... Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts. ..."
"... Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like Bill and Hillary? Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement. ..."
"... "This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma industries. ..."
"... "Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly when taken off a teleprompter? ..."
"... Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around 2,600 innocent civilians. ..."
"... Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined. ..."
"... Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
"... Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot Act.) ..."
"... Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions than Bush ever did. ..."
"... Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing terrorist militias (many of whom we armed). ..."
"... Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport thousands of children who came here to escape the violence. ..."
"... Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states. ..."
"... Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street. ..."
"... Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality here, especially in communities of color, ..."
"... Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza - and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the right-wingers in control of that state. ..."
"... Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen ..."
"... Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons. ..."
"... Which of these things make you "so proud?" ..."
"... You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care (Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting for it. ..."
"... To him getting rid of Asad who poses no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd. ..."
"... This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase catches on. ..."
"... Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in the world. ..."
"... Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic, completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions, created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex. ..."
"... I'm confident that Hillary Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have you believe ;-). ..."
"... TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy. ..."
The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative
corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third
party in the United States that represents ordinary American people!
kittehpavolvski
So, if we're about to see the best of Obama, what have we been seeing
hitherto?
waitforme
So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone
strikes?
ForestTrees
Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign
countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never
had happened under a Trump presidency.
'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by
drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US
is not at war with????
What a fatuous article about the world's leading terrorist.
And of course we shouldn't forget that he had prosecuted more whistleblowers
than all other presidents combined.
Let's not forget that he claims and has exercised his 'right' to murder
his own citizens on the basis of secret evidence - one being a 16 year old
boy. And when the White House spokesman was asked why the boy was murdered
by drone, he said 'He should have had a more responsible father'.
He sings off on his 'Kill List' of domestic and foreign nationals every
Tuesday, dubbed 'Terror Tuesday' by his staff.
Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy!
ID7715785
Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us --
even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He
has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He
has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo.
He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and
a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call
it murder.
ninjamia
Oh, I know. He'll repeat the snide and nasty remarks about Trump that
he gave at the Press Club dinner. Such style and grace - not.
Casting Donald Trump as the Big Bad Wolf doesn't bring about real change.
And sadly, in his almost 8 years in office (2 years with absolute control
over the Congress) Barack Obama has brought about little real change. For
him it is a slogan.
Larry Robinson
Obama's presidency:
1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay
it up.
2. Record # of people living on food stamps.
3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to
hide it)
4. Stagnant income for average family
5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up
despite stagnant income.
6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance
cost up.
7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until
its threat is too big to ignore.
... ...
Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He
is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after
Bush's term was over.
shinNeMIN -> Larry Robinson
$500 million worth of arm supply?
hadeze242 -> Major MajorMajor
while Obama's messy military interventions become more and more confused,
chaotic and tragic his personal appearance gets ever more Hollywood: perfect
attire, smile and just the right words. I would prefer the inverse, less
tailoring and neat haircuts, but more honesty and transparency. e.g., Obama
lied about the NSA for how long in this first term. Answer: all four years
long and beyond into the 2nd term.
BostonCeltics
Six more months until he goes into the dustbin of history. Small minded
people in positions of power who take things personally are the epitome
of incompetence.
Mats Almgren
Obama became a worse president than Bush. Endless moneyprinting, bombing
nine countries, created a operation Condor 2.0 with interventions in Venezuela,
Brazil and Argentina, didn't withdraw any troops from Afghanistan, lifted
the weapon embargo on Vietnam to sell US weapons and at the same time forcing
Vietnam to not do trade deals with China, intimidating the Phillipines from
doing trade with China, restarted the cold war which had led to biggest
military ramp up in Eastern Europe since 1941, drone bombed weddings and
hospitals and what not, supported islam militants in Libya, Syria and Iraq
which has led to total devastation in these countries. And there has been
an increase in the constant US interventionism regarding European elections
and referendums. And has continuously protected the dollar hegemony causing
death and destruction thoughout the world.
With that track record it's easy to say that Obama might be worst US
president ever. And there has been hardly any critism and critical thinking
in the more and more propagandistic and agenda driven western media.
It's like living in the twilight zone reading the media in Sweden and
Britain.
Jose Sanchez -> Mats Almgren
Blame a president for trying to sell what we still manufacture are you?
Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is;
has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and
nothing has changed.
NewWorldWatcher
The new leader of the Republican party thinks that that it was stupid
to go into Iraq and Afghanistan but it would be good to carpet bomb ISIS.
He IS a great Republican. No wonder this party is on the fringe of extinction.
Mats Almgren -> NewWorldWatcher
Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against
intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared
that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts.
trundlesome1
Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of
taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those
Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic
policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like
Bill and Hillary?
Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements
for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement.
zootsuitbeatnick
"This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is
the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster
as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison
for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who
gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma
industries.
That's as hyper-competitive as Trump is selfless.
Try to be at least a little reality-based.
hadeze242
the best of Pres. Obama? Perhaps only someone living a life in the UK
could dream this strange dream? Great, compared to whom, to what? Never
since WW2 has the US & world seen such a weak, openly-prejudiced, non-performing
Pres. Remember O's plan to save Afghanistan? Lybia? Then, working (bombing)
with Putin's Russia to collaterally bomb the beautiful, developed, cultural
nation of Syria. To what end I ask? To create refugees? Obama has never
been at his best, always only at his worst. Ah, yes, his smooth-lawyered
sentences come with commas & periods and all that, but there is no feeling
inside the man. This man is a great, oratory actor. His promises are well-written
& endless, but delivery is never coming. Yes, we can .. was his electoral
phrase. No, we can't ... after 8 long, wasted yrs was his result.
NewWorldWatcher
In Las Vegas they are gaming on how many votes will Trump lose by not
who will win. A Trump loss will be in excess of 10 Million votes.......5to2
odds. The worse loss in recent history!
Janet Re Johnson -> NewWorldWatcher
From your mouth to God's ears. But I'm a big baseball fan, so I know
it ain't over till it's over.
Larry Robinson
Also it's when Obama talks out of outburst rather than from a teleprompter
that you can tell his true capability as a leader or lack thereof.
Notice that Obama said ... not once has an advisor tells him to use the
term "radical Islam" ... . Well Mr Obama, it's your own call to decide what
term to use on this issue so why are you bringing your advisors out for
credence. Right or wrong that's your own decision so you should stand behind
it. When you bring advisors in to defend what should be your own call it
shows WEAKNESS.
Obama basically tells everyone that he needs his advisors to tell him
what do b/c he does NOT know how to handle it by himself. So who's the leader
here, Obama or his advisors? Is Obama just a puppet that needs his advisors
to pull the string constantly? Ouch.
It's the prompter-free moment like this that the truth about Obama comes
out. I wonder why Trump has not picked this clear hole up yet.
raffine
The POTUS will crush Mr Trump like a 200 year old peanut.
Carolyn Walas Libbey -> raffine
The POTUS is about as useful as an old condom.
PortalooMassacre
Exposed to the toxic smugness of Richard Wolffe, I'm beginning to see
what people find attractive about Donald Trump's refreshing barbarism.
guy ventner -> synechdoche
"Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly
when taken off a teleprompter?
Ron Shuffler
"Greatest President since Lincoln" "I am proud - so proud! - to say that
this man is MY President! Personally, I am ashamed that this man is my President.
But anyway, here's what Richard Wolffe and y'all are so proud of:
Here's what your favorite President actually did:
Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around
2,600 innocent civilians.
Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined.
Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Deported at least 2.8 million "illegal" immigrants
Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot
Act.)
Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions
than Bush ever did.
Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing
terrorist militias (many of whom we armed).
Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made
it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport
thousands of children who came here to escape the violence.
Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and
pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states.
Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street.
Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality
here, especially in communities of color,
Left Guantanamo open (though as Commander-in-Chief he could have
closed it down with a phone call).
Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza
- and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the
right-wingers in control of that state.
Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them
cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen
Sent billions of dollars to the new military rulers of Egypt
Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons.
Which of these things make you "so proud?"
BG Davis -> Ron Shuffler
You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care
(Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting
for it.
At the same time, you overestimate the simplicity of just closing Guantanamo
prison with "a phone call." So he makes the phone call; then what happens
to the prisoners? They aren't all innocent non-entities who just happened
to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Larry Robinson
It's only in the mind of die hard liberals that Obama has been strong
against terrorists. Just look at how he handles Syria situation. Asad -
a Shiite govt - is a sworn enemy to ISIS - a Sunni organization so if you
are serious about ISIS you should utilize Asad, right? Well no, Obama is
so hell-bent on unseating Asad that he supports those rebels that are also
Sunni-based and cozy with ISIS. To him getting rid of Asad who poses
no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is
basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd.
Lafcadio1944
What part of Obama's criminal acts in office do think are the best? For
me the very best of Obama is how he can project power so suavely while standing
before the world as a prima facia criminal. TORTURE IS ILLEGAL!! Under the
law those who order and/or carry out torture MUST be prosecuted. THAT IS
INTERNATIONAL, TREATY AND DOMESTIC US LAW.
The oh so great and powerful Obama he of such dignity in office has SHOWN
UTTER CONTEMPT FOR THE RULE OF LAW!!!
But that's OK he will say bad things about Trump.
This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in
a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government
has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to
congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase
catches on.
I want to vomit when the press acts so hypocritically ready to jump all
over Putin or China in a heart beat - but challenge US officials who openly
violate the law - not a chance.
babymamaboy
Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive
as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant
groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by
continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in
the world.
It would be really easy for him to call it like it is -- we don't care
who you worship, just don't mess with our oil. But he actively feeds the
narrative while chiding Trump for being too enthusiastic about it. I guess
that's what passes for US leadership these days.
urgonnatrip
Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic,
completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put
into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions,
created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for
no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex.
How has Barack done? He's held them in check and avoided an escalation
to WW3. I wish I could say the next president was going to continue the
trend but somehow I doubt it.
KerryB -> urgonnatrip
You had me right up until the last line. I'm confident that Hillary
Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role
played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie
Sanders would have you believe ;-).
zolotoy -> KerryB
Yeah, just ignore Hillary Clinton's actual record, right?
AgnosticKen
TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy.
"... I hope that Jonathan Steele's excellent critique of Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine ( Review , 21 February) will be widely read. It is the first piece I have discovered in the UK press to provide a realistic synopsis of the background to current events. ..."
"... the process was deliberately sabotaged by US intelligence agencies, working from the hypothesis that a tie-up between the EU and a democratic Russia would pose a major threat to American long-term economic interests. ..."
"... (Lieut Cdr, Ret'd; Former Nato intelligence analyst), Deddington, Oxfordshire ..."
I hope that Jonathan Steele's excellent critique of Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine
(Review,
21 February) will be widely read. It is the first piece I have discovered in the UK press to provide
a realistic synopsis of the background to current events.
The real ending of the cold war was in 1986, when the USSR leadership resolved on a five-year
programme to move to parliamentary democracy and a market economy. The intention in Moscow was to
use that period to achieve a progressive convergence with the EU.
There could have been huge benefits to Europe in such convergence, but the process was deliberately
sabotaged by US intelligence agencies, working from the hypothesis that a tie-up between the EU and
a democratic Russia would pose
a major threat to American long-term economic interests.
The chaos that we now have, and the distrust of America which motivates Russian policy, stems
primarily from decisions taken in Washington 30 years ago.
Martin Packard (Lieut Cdr, Ret'd; Former Nato intelligence analyst), Deddington, Oxfordshire
According to Gowdy, "the committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally
after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself, and
would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming
that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton herself
had her records when Congress first requested them."
Notable quotes:
"... According to Gowdy, "the committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself, and would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton herself had her records when Congress first requested them." ..."
"... Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. The Republicans chant while Rome burns. How about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.... ..."
"... Did Clinton say she's never had a subpoena? Yes. Did a subpoena get issued? Yes. Was the whole interview at that point discussing a point in time months before the subpoena got issued? Yes. ..."
"... Karl Rove has so often said that it is who DOES NOT vote that determines the outcome, and now we have the Tea Party. ..."
"... The Clintons ARE very close personal family friends with the entire Bush clan. When the TV cameras are off and the reporters are gone, they are a very tight group who see the world thru like greedy eyes. Check this out. ..."
"... Having someone who is the brother of one former president and the son of another run against the wife of still another former president would be sweetly illustrative of all sorts of degraded and illusory aspects of American life, from meritocracy to class mobility. ..."
"... Wall Street has long been unable to contain its collective glee over a likely Hillary Clinton presidency. ..."
"... the matriarch of the Bush family (former First Lady Barbara) has described the Clinton patriarch (former President Bill) as a virtual family member, noting that her son, George W., affectionately calls his predecessor "my brother by another mother." ..."
"... If this happens, the 2016 election would vividly underscore how the American political class functions: by dynasty, plutocracy, fundamental alignment of interests masquerading as deep ideological divisions, and political power translating into vast private wealth and back again. ..."
"... Most of our presidents were horn dogs. Their wives know about it in many cases, but they knew that it was part of the package. The only difference was that before Clinton, the press would never think of reporting about sexual dalliances. ..."
"... Clinton is not materially different to many GOP candidates outside the loons. ..."
"... She has stiff competition: Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power, Carly Fiorina, etc. She might win the title, though. ..."
"... So after years of trying to turn Benghazi into a scandal, the email thing is mostly meaningless to Democrats. So congratulations Republicans, you blew your chance. ..."
In a statement on Wednesday, Republican congressman Trey Gowdy accused the
former secretary of state of making an "inaccurate claim" during an interview
on Tuesday. Responding to a question about the controversy surrounding her email
server while at the US state department, Clinton had told CNN: "I've never had
a subpoena."
But Gowdy said: "The committee has issued several subpoenas, but I have not
sought to make them public. I would not make this one public now, but after
Secretary Clinton falsely claimed the committee did not subpoena her, I have
no choice in order to correct the inaccuracy."
Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told the Guardian that Gowdy's accusation
itself was inaccurate, insisting that the congressman had not issued a subpoena
until March.
"She was asked about her decision to not to retain her personal emails after
providing all those that were work-related, and the suggestion was made that
a subpoena was pending at that time. That was not accurate," Merrill wrote in
an email.
Gowdy also posted a copy of the subpoena on the Benghazi committee's website.
According to Gowdy, "the committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally
after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself,
and would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming
that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton
herself had her records when Congress first requested them."
Lester Smithson 9 Jul 2015 16:00
Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. The Republicans chant while
Rome burns. How about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq....
kattw 9 Jul 2015 12:41
Gotta love when people say they have no choice but to do something absurd,
then choose to do something absurd rather than not.
Did Clinton say she's never had a subpoena? Yes. Did a subpoena get
issued? Yes. Was the whole interview at that point discussing a point in
time months before the subpoena got issued? Yes.
Yes, Mr. Legislator: you DID subpoena Clinton. Several months AFTER she
did the thing in question, which the interviewer wanted to know why she
did in light of subpoenas. And really, what was she thinking? After all,
a subpoena had already been issued, ummm, 3 months into the future! Why
was she not psychic? Why did she not alter her actions based on something
that congress would do eventually? How DARE she not know what the fates
had decried!
Mr. Legislator, you were given the opportunity to not spin this as a
political issue, and to be honest about the committee's actions. You chose
to do otherwise. Nobody forced you to do so. You had plenty of choices -
you made one. Don't try to shift that onto a lie Clinton never told. She's
got plenty of lies in her closet, many stupidly obvious - calling one of
her truths a lie just shows how much of an ideological buffoon you really
are.
ExcaliburDefender -> Dan Wipper 8 Jul 2015 23:47
Whatever. Dick Cheney should have been tried in the Hague and incarcerated
for 50 lifetimes. Most voters have decided to vote party lines, the next
16 months is for the 10% undecided and a few that can be swayed.
Karl Rove has so often said that it is who DOES NOT vote that determines
the outcome, and now we have the Tea Party.
Plenty of time for outrage, faux or real. We haven't had a single debate
yet. Still get to hear from Chafee on the metric system and whether evolution
is real or not from the GOP.
Jill Stein for President <-------|) Paid for by David Koch and Friends
Herr_Settembrini 8 Jul 2015 23:25
Quite frankly, I've long since passed the point of caring about Benghazi,
and the reason why is extremely simple: this has been a nakedly partisan
investigation, stretching on for years now, that has tried to manufacture
a scandal and fake outrage in order to deny Obama re-election in 2012, and
now (since that didn't work) to deny Clinton the election in 2016.
The GOP doesn't have one shred of credibility left about this issue--
to the point that if they were able to produce photographs of Obama and
Clinton personally storming the embassy, America would collectively shrug
(except of course for the AM talk radio crowd, who are perpetually angry
anyway, so nobody would notice).
TET68HUE -> StevePrimus 8 Jul 2015 23:08
The Clintons ARE very close personal family friends with the entire
Bush clan. When the TV cameras are off and the reporters are gone, they
are a very tight group who see the world thru like greedy eyes. Check this
out.
JEB BUSH V. HILLARY CLINTON: THE PERFECTLY ILLUSTRATIVE ELECTION
BY GLENN GREENWALD
@ggreenwald
12/17/2014
Jeb Bush yesterday strongly suggested he was running for President in
2016. If he wins the GOP nomination, it is highly likely that his opponent
for the presidency would be Hillary Clinton. Having someone who is the
brother of one former president and the son of another run against the wife
of still another former president would be sweetly illustrative of all sorts
of degraded and illusory aspects of American life, from meritocracy to class
mobility. That one of those two families exploited its vast wealth
to obtain political power, while the other exploited its political power
to obtain vast wealth, makes it more illustrative still: of the virtually
complete merger between political and economic power, of the fundamentally
oligarchical framework that drives American political life.
Then there are their similar constituencies: what Politico termed "money
men" instantly celebrated Jeb Bush's likely candidacy, while the same publication
noted just last month how Wall Street has long been unable to contain
its collective glee over a likely Hillary Clinton presidency. The two
ruling families have, unsurprisingly, developed a movingly warm relationship
befitting their position: the matriarch of the Bush family (former First
Lady Barbara) has described the Clinton patriarch (former President Bill)
as a virtual family member, noting that her son, George W., affectionately
calls his predecessor "my brother by another mother."
If this happens, the 2016 election would vividly underscore how the
American political class functions: by dynasty, plutocracy, fundamental
alignment of interests masquerading as deep ideological divisions, and political
power translating into vast private wealth and back again. The educative
value would be undeniable: somewhat like how the torture report did, it
would rub everyone's noses in exactly those truths they are most eager to
avoid acknowledge. Email the author:
[email protected]
StevePrimus 8 Jul 2015 22:33
Clinton's nomination as a democratic candidate for president is a fait
accompli, as is Bush's nomination on the GOP card. The amusing side show
with Rubio, Trump, Sanders, Paul, Walker, Perry, Cruz, et al can be entertaining,
but note that Clinton and Bush seem much closer aligned with each other
than either sueems to be to Sanders on the left and Graham on the right.
MtnClimber -> CitizenCarrier 8 Jul 2015 20:41
Read some history books and learn.
Most of our presidents were horn dogs. Their wives know about it
in many cases, but they knew that it was part of the package. The only difference
was that before Clinton, the press would never think of reporting about
sexual dalliances.
Among those that cheated are:
Washington
Jefferson
Lincoln
Harding
FDR
Eisenhower
JFK
LBJ
Clinton
Not bad company, but they all cheated. It seems like greater sexual drive
is part of the package for people that choose to be president.
RossBest 8 Jul 2015 20:24
There is an obvious possible explanation here. She was talking about
things in the past and ineptly shifted in effect into the "historical present"
or "dramatic present" and didn't realize she was creating an ambiguity.
That is, she was talking about the times when she set up the email system
and used it and later deleted personal emails and she intended to deny having
received any relevant subpoenas AT THOSE TIMES.
I'm not a Clinton supporter but this seems plausible. But inept.
zchabj6 8 Jul 2015 20:10
The state of US politics...
Clinton is not materially different to many GOP candidates outside
the loons.
CitizenCarrier -> Carambaman 8 Jul 2015 17:54
My personal favorite was when as 1st Lady during a trip to New Zealand
she told reporters she'd been named in honor of Sir Edmund Hillary.
She was born before he climbed Everest. He was at that time an obscure
chicken farmer.
BorninUkraine -> duncandunnit 8 Jul 2015 17:44
You mean, she lies, like Bill? But as snakes go, she is a lot more dangerous
than him.
BorninUkraine -> Barry_Seal 8 Jul 2015 17:40
She has stiff competition: Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power, Carly
Fiorina, etc. She might win the title, though.
Dennis Myers 8 Jul 2015 16:30
This sort of thing is exactly why anything they throw at her won't stick.
Like the boy who cried wolf, when the wolf actually came, no one was listening
anymore. So after years of trying to turn Benghazi into a scandal, the
email thing is mostly meaningless to Democrats. So congratulations Republicans,
you blew your chance.
"... So we have two problems now. One like the author points out, there is no coherent alternative from the left ..."
"... since is so diffuse a target it becomes a boogey man rather than actual target to be loathed. ..."
"... one area where neo-liberalism is dominant is that of 'welfare reform', a key component of the ideology, In this sphere the lack of interest and action by the left, civil society, etc, has been shameful, I can recall here in the UK that at one weekend during the New Labour reign at a Labour Party Conference 60,000 people protested anti-war issues while only about 80 were there for the Monday event against N/L's nascent Welfare Reform Bill which created the policy architecthure for all the coming changes.. ..."
"... New Labour was a con trick. JC's version will, imho, reverse a lot of the damage done - that's if the Blairites will stop throwing their toys out the pram. ..."
"... neoliberalism is so wide spread that those that are actual neo-liberals don't even know they are. neoliberalism is core of The Conservatives and New Labour ..."
"... In the 20th century more people were killed by their own governments than in war. But to the left the real threat to people comes not from a concentration of power wielded by governments but of concentrations of wealth in private hands. ..."
"... This is pretty much the only reason why I still read the Guardian. Monbiot and the quick crossword. ..."
"... Monbiot is the best journalist the Guardian has, he can actually make a logical fact based argument unlike the majority of Guardian journalist. ..."
"... 'The Invisible Hand' is not an ideology or dogma. It's just a metaphor to describe those with problems grasping abstract concepts: when there are a large number of buyers and suppliers for a good, the 'market finds a price' which is effectively the sum of all the intelligence of the participants, their suppliers, customers etc.. ..."
"... You clearly haven't read Wealth of Nations. The only mention of an invisible hand is actually a warning against what we now call neoliberalism. Smith said that the wealthy wouldn't seek to enrich themselves to the detriment of their home communities, because of an innate home bias. Thus, as if by an invisible hand, England would be spared the ravages of economic rationality. ..."
"... Your understanding of the 'invisible hand' is a falsehood perpetuated by neoliberal think tanks like the Adam Smith institute (no endorsement or connection to the author, despite using his name). ..."
"... I read, cannot remember where, that with neo liberalism the implementation is all that matters, you do not need to see the results. I suppose because the followers believe when implemented it will work perfectly. I think it's supporters think it is magic and must work because they believe it does. ..."
"... Yes, a high priest of neo-liberalism, Lord Freud, was given only 13 weeks to investigate and reform key elements of the the UK's welfare system, it hasn't worked and Freud is now invisible. ..."
"... Failed neoliberalism and not restricting markets that do not benefit the majority are the cause and we stand on the brink of falling further should the Brexiter's have their way. If there's one thing the EU excels at it's legislating against the excesses of business and extremism. ..."
Part of the problem is that Neoliberalism isn't as clearly defined as communism. This also
means that anything bad that happens in society today can be hung on to neoliberalism whether
warranted or not. Zika causes microcephaly? another consequence of neoliberalism to be sure!
So we have two problems now. One like the author points out, there is no coherent alternative
from the left (interestingly the Canadian NDP party tried and your much beloved Naomi Klein
was part of a group who sabotaged the effort and produced a neo-stalinist proposal instead that
went nowhere) and second, since is so diffuse a target it becomes a boogey man rather than
actual target to be loathed.
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty.
Are they though? Even ignoring trade subsidies, it's a bit difficult to compete in e.g. politics,
the media, the law and many other areas unless you have money behind you. It's more a self-perpetuating
protectionist oligarchy. And therefore as much neoliberalism as North Korea is communism.
Another incisive article by George, one area where neo-liberalism is dominant is that of 'welfare
reform', a key component of the ideology, In this sphere the lack of interest and action by the
left, civil society, etc, has been shameful, I can recall here in the UK that at one weekend during
the New Labour reign at a Labour Party Conference 60,000 people protested anti-war issues while
only about 80 were there for the Monday event against N/L's nascent Welfare Reform Bill which
created the policy architecthure for all the coming changes..
Now there are suicides, misery for milllions, etc, it was left to a few disability groups,
a few allies, Unite Community, UkUncut, etc to challenge the behemoth. The Left has a hierarchy
of oppression which often means it operates in a bubble aloof from wider concerns.
People have been set up for decades to respond offensively to some words like unions, unemployed,
sole parents, Greenies (environmentalists), female leaders, you name it, anyone they don't like.
There is white trash, bogans, bludgers like trained pets they repeat the mantra as soon as anyone
opposes them and people go against their best interests.
New Labour was a con trick. JC's version will, imho, reverse a lot of the damage done - that's
if the Blairites will stop throwing their toys out the pram.
neoliberalism is so wide spread that those that are actual neo-liberals don't even know they
are. neoliberalism is core of The Conservatives and New Labour , Lid Dem even Green Party
could be classed as neo-liberals, so the alternative is the communist party who are actually against
staying in the EU or the idiots on the the right like UKIP and so on.
We need common sense party instead of the terrible state of politics we have all over the Globe.
The rise in the far-left and the far-right the non-platform anti free speech left with their phobia
labels or the neanderthals of the far-right like rise of Golden Dawn and the anti-Muslim rhetoric
by Trump.
Greens are neo-liberals? Mate, we're left of labour even now. We believe economic growth is fundamentally
incompatible with a sustainable future, for example
(academic research beyond the faulty national statistics supports this), and the only way to tackle
this is a wholesale redistrbutive system. The poor would be hit hardest by radical cuts in consumption
and carbon limits. Enough to impoverish millions in this country alone. So we need to be redistributive
in a far more radical way than even corbyns labour would be.
Agreed, it feels like there's a HUGE gap in politics that simply isn't being filled at the moment.
The false starts for real 'multi-party' politics that were the Lib Dem gains, Green Party and
UKIP have all turned out to be more of the same, damp squibs or total mess.
People are sick of politics, they're sick of bizarre single-issue parties and they're sick
of even the language of politics. Such opportunity and yet nothing is appearing.
Depends on which Greens. The German Greens, for instance, after some initial party, are now just
another corporate-friendly party that will compromise with anyone and anything.
Good article apart from the schoolboy error of characterizing the USSR as Communist. No advanced
Communist State has yet existed. For clarification of the theory, try reading Etienne Balibar's
On the Dictatorship of the Proletariat
Yes, Lenin's attempt at implementing the abstract theories of Marx (he believed he found a way
to short circuit the stages of socioevolution by skipping the Capitalist phase by jumping from
Feudalism.to Socialism - the goal of the USSR.
The people were the eggs in the theoretical omlet that was made.
The fact that so many were brutally murdered in the pursuit of and ends propagandized as 'liberation'
can never be a allowed to be forgotten.
The next time will not be different, nor the time after that or the one after that.
Well said.
But I think we are too far in it and cant see any opposition for this.
Big corpos will try to keep status quo or even push harder their own agenda. They have easy job
as they only have to buy (already done this) few politicians.
We haven't failed to come up with an alternative- we've been shouting it at you. Its name is socialism.
Thankfully we have Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn et al to represent our cause yet still it falls
on deaf ears with the press and the political establishment.
In the 20th century more people were killed by their own governments than in war. But to the
left the real threat to people comes not from a concentration of power wielded by governments
but of concentrations of wealth in private hands.
The problem is that concentration of wealth leads to the buying of government power.
It's not simple government bad, wealth good or indifferent. It's the wealthy using said wealth
to buy government power to further enrich the wealthy.
Government is just a tool, who drives it matters.
In addition to neoliberalism being adopted by the Democrats and Labour, another distinct ideology
has the traditional parties of the left tied in knots.
One YouTuber has called it 'Neoprogressivism' - the creed underpinning identity politics.
Above Monbiot describes how neoliberalism was in large part born as Hayek's alternative to
the early twentieth century nationalism/communism clash; worryingly it seems a century later our
politics is again hamstrung by two pernicious ideologies as the world blindly races towards another
disaster.
Whereas neoliberalism is now widely recognised and eviscerated, light is just starting to be
shone on 'Neoprogressivism'. I recommend the YouTube video of this title for an account of the
second 'rock' around which contemporary politics navigates.
'The Invisible Hand' is not an ideology or dogma. It's just a metaphor to describe those with
problems grasping abstract concepts: when there are a large number of buyers and suppliers for
a good, the 'market finds a price' which is effectively the sum of all the intelligence of the
participants, their suppliers, customers etc..
The Socialists, who have difficulty grasping this reality, want to 'fix' the price, which abnegates
the collective intelligence of the market participants, and causes severe problems.
Capitalism is freedom, Socialism is someone's ideology.
'The Invisible Hand' is... a metaphor to describe those with problems grasping abstract
concepts: when there are a large number of buyers and suppliers for a good, the 'market finds
a price' which is effectively the sum of all the intelligence of the participants
You clearly haven't read Wealth of Nations. The only mention of an invisible hand is actually
a warning against what we now call neoliberalism. Smith said that the wealthy wouldn't seek to
enrich themselves to the detriment of their home communities, because of an innate home bias.
Thus, as if by an invisible hand, England would be spared the ravages of economic rationality.
Your understanding of the 'invisible hand' is a falsehood perpetuated by neoliberal think
tanks like the Adam Smith institute (no endorsement or connection to the author, despite using
his name).
'The Invisible Hand' is not dogma.
You definitely know a lot about dogma (and false dichotomies):
Capitalism is freedom, Socialism is someone's ideology.
A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left,
the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to
design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century
All very well, but how? Did anyone hear the screams of rage when Sanders started threatening Hillary,
or when Corbyn trounced the Blairites? The dead hand of Bernays and Goebbels controls everything.
There is no alternative on offer by the left.
The socialist/trade union package is outmoded.
The failure to describe reality in a way that concurs with what ordinary people experience has
driven off much support and reduced credibility.
There is no credible model for investment and wealth creation.
The focus on social mobility upwards rather than on those who do not move has given UK leftism
a middle-class snobby air to it.
Those entering leftist politics have a very narrow range of life experience. The opposition to
rightist politics is cliched and outmoded.
There is a complete failure to challenge the emerging multi-polar plutocratic oligarchy which
runs the planet - the European left just seeks a comfy accommodation.
There is no attempt to develop a post-socialist, holistic worldview and ideology.
The trade union package, gave us meal breaks, holidays, sickness benefits, working hours restrictions,
as opposed to the right wing media agenda, that if you aint getting it nobody should, pour poison
on the unions, pour poison on the public sector, a fucking media led race to the bottom for workers,
and there were enough gullible (poor )mugs around to accept it. You can curse the middle class
socialists all you like, but without their support the labour movement would never have got off
the ground.
During the industrial revolution, profitability and productivity were off the scale because the
workforce were just commodities, Unionisation instigated the idea that without the workforce,
your entrepreneurs can't do anything on their own, Henry Ford wouldn't have become a millionaire
without the help of his workforce. 'Poorest performing structures' Guess what! some of us are
human beings not auto- matrons. I hope you dine well on sterling and dollars, cause they're not
the most important things in life.
What if the highest possible taxes, zero avoidance / evasion and high employment still equals
deficits and increasing national debt ?
The paragraph written above neatly describes the post WW2 years, where the UK was pretty much
in perpetual surplus. High employment does not equate to national debt/deficit. Quite the opposite,
the more people in gainful employment the better. Increasing unemployment, driving wages down
while simultaneously increasing the cost of living is a recipe for complete economic failure.
This whole economics gig is piss easy, when the general mass of people have cash to spare they
spend it, economy thrives. Hoard the cash into the hands of a minority and starve the masses of
cash, economy dies. It really is that simple.
Public deficits exist to match the private surplus created by the rich enriching themselves. To
get rid of the deficit therefore we need to get rid of the private wealth of the rich through
financial repression and taxation
I read, cannot remember where, that with neo liberalism the implementation is all that matters,
you do not need to see the results. I suppose because the followers believe when implemented it
will work perfectly. I think it's supporters think it is magic and must work because they believe
it does.
Yes, a high priest of neo-liberalism, Lord Freud, was given only 13 weeks to investigate and
reform key elements of the the UK's welfare system, it hasn't worked and Freud is now invisible.
Hopeful this is the start for change through identifying issues and avoiding pitfalls.
Failed neoliberalism and not restricting markets that do not benefit the majority are the
cause and we stand on the brink of falling further should the Brexiter's have their way. If there's
one thing the EU excels at it's legislating against the excesses of business and extremism.
"... Bernie disgraced himself and drove a dagger through the heart of youth involvement in the democratic process. Millions of kids believd in him. He's is even more repellent that Clinton. Faced with evidence that the DNC had rigged the nomination process in favour of Clinton, what did he do? He backed her. Beyond shame. ..."
Bernie sold out. If not that, then he was simply in it as faux opposition
from the start. Having unified the militant and disgruntled outliers, he
then readily doffed his cap and sheperded his gullible followers towards
the only practical Democratic alternative available.
Wasted effort. The 'masters' in the shadows are about to throw the harridan
under the bus. Her brazen air of arrogance and entitlement is about to fade
as she comes to realise, that albeit Comey having been got at, he's still
succeeded in striking a severe blow against her, and also at the not-so-tin-hat
conspiracy of inappropriate, and increasingly overt, institutional support,
in the face of documented lies, in your face hypocrisy, and corruption oozing
from every orifice of a maverick administration.
The seeds have been planted for a defense of diminished responsibility.
Don't fall for it! Hillary, (and her illustrious spouse), deserve not a
smidgen of pity.
''We came, we saw, he died'', she enthusiastically and unempathically
cackled.
Just about sums it up
Michael109 fflambeau 2d ago
Bernie disgraced himself and drove a dagger through the heart of
youth involvement in the democratic process. Millions of kids believd in
him. He's is even more repellent that Clinton. Faced with evidence that
the DNC had rigged the nomination process in favour of Clinton, what did
he do? He backed her. Beyond shame.
Am I the only one who is totally disappointed in the Guardian for their completely one-sided coverage of Trump in this race? If
you look at the home page, it is all Trump. Not even one mention of Hillary Clinton.
I am a subscriber and supporter of the Guardian and I think they do a good job covering the news in a fairly objective manner.
But this total lack of equal coverage of the Clinton campaign is seriously making me reconsider being a Guardian reader and supporter.
Smug agreement among Hillary's acolytes: "No way this man can win, it's all over, just sit back and watch him implode, and Mrs
C win the election...this is in the bag." Blind panic among normal people..."Hillary voters, your candidate is revolting, and,
the problem is, she's sufficiently horrible that people might just stay at home, or, worse still, vote for the lunatic Trump."
I think she will win the election by a landslide and usher in a new era for the eradication of the middle and working class and
the destruction of personal freedom for the benefit of the corporation.
She will be the guiding light that leads us back down the road to serfdom. And she'll turn a profit while doing it too!
No evidence as expected. Try reading the Democrat platform. Plenty of stuff to benefit the middle and working class, whereas Trump
only has tax cuts for the rich. Trump wants to take away minimum wages and the right of people to join a union. Trump is all for
privileges for the rich and slavery for the rest.
I think if you read the NDA she signed at State around handling and use of State Department material and her agreement with Obama
around mixing Clinton Foundation with State business. I think if you read the Comey report and you read read the Federal Records
Act you will see that the DNC platform and for that matter any written agreement, holds no water for HRC.
Days on end and not a word on from you people on Hillary and her own lies, flip-flops and pandering for votes. Trump is a chump
but it looks like the DNC has the Guardian in its back pocket. Care to comment? (crickets....)
So, what's in it for all these sycophants and enablers this article refers to as DJ Trump's surrogates? Do they know what is happening?
Are they going for broke? Is it because they have to pay a mortgage? Or because they like the attention of being interviewed,
which they would not otherwise have? All of the above?
And thanks to this colossal amount of malfeasance, HR Clinton is getting away with her own multidimensional hubris. Why is
she still around?
The immigration issue is the democrats' effort to distract Donald Trump's outreach to the black community . . .
Mr. Trump has provided enough information on immigration. He has to put the press and everyone else on notice: "He said enough
for now!!!" The "flip-flop" issue is minor at this point.
What's important is the "black vote" as his only logical road to the White House. Mr. Trump must make it clear to the black
community that he needs their help.
He has little time and should immediately apologize for the Republican Party's mistake of accepting the democrats' decades
of influence over the black community.
He must confront the Democratic Party's decades of neglect of minorities (and the poor). What's "historical" about Donald Trump"
campaign is he actually represents "racial unity."
Those supporting Trump have the common bond of "poverty." Like President Johnson he needs to use "poverty" to overcome a preceding
president's popularity. He has as his political base "poor whites." His efforts now must focus on "winning" the support of "poor
blacks."
He has "ONE JOB" as this point if he wants to be president . . . He must make the black community understand "the opportunity
presented."
Mr. Trump must go directly to the black community (not the black establishment political brokers) and make things "clear" that
a "VOTE" for Trump is the black community's only available opportunity for racial equality.
Likewise, Mr. Trump needs to have his "poor white" political base understand the importance of "moving past" those things that
have separated us. Mr. Trump needs "racial unity" rallies from this point forward.
Your article fails to make a clear enough distinction between legal and illegal immigration. It suggests Trump is anti-immigration
and anti-immigrants - which is not the case. This is a common error in the debate.
Agreed. TPP is way more dangerous to the middle and working class than any immigrant or wall...except maybe WALL STREET...the
KKK of the financial world
No way will TPP get out of Congress. It's dead and buried.
Whatever happens to Trump's immigration policy is immaterial now. By flipflopping around it he's undermined what is a banner
policy for him in front of his own core supporters.
Hungary and Norway way are building walls..Israel has several ..Mexico put up one for the Guatemalen exodus..in the mean time
Hillarys plan for improving Jobs for Black youth is importing tens of thousand more .
If they are so good why doesn't Europe take them for us..
What gets lost in all of this how the USA allowed Mexico to spiral into the corrupt, poor country they currently are.
It's time for the US to get firm with Mexico and help them get on their feet - which their corrupt leaders will hate, but tough
shit. There is no excuse to border the United States of America and have such poor living standards for their people.
Although not ideal, a wall is a very direct message to Mexico's govt that the US will not tolerate their corrupt government
and drug cartels.
HOUSTON, Texas – The leader of Houston's New Black Panther Party said blacks "are being pimped like prostitutes" by Democrats
and should listen to the message from Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Trump reached out to members of the black
community last week during a speech following riots in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
People don't like her and she and her team are smart enough to know that the best thing for her campaign is to limit her public
exposure while quietly watching the Trump campaign wrecking itself.
Also she doesn't like dealing with the public either and would prefer to work behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny,
so suits her.
What's wrong with Trump changing his stance? He listened to his supporters (most of whom think some type of amnesty is appropriate)
and tweaked his immigration plan.. *gasp*
It seems like a mature, reasonable move from an intelligent strong leader - which Trump is.
He will be an excellent President.
One of the prime reasons for the increase in illegal immigration from Mexico was NAFTA, which ended up displacing hundreds of
thousands of farm owners and millions of farm workers due to NAFTA regulations.
The trouble with both candidates is the Believability Factor. No mater what they may say, it's doubtful they will do what they
say. There needs to be election laws that make ignoring campaign 'promises' once in office impeachable.
Hillary still ducking press conferences and any situation where her disgraceful record and malfeasance can be exposed. She is
unable to give a straight answer to anything but this is hardly surprising given that this woman has been living in denial about
everything for most of her adult life. Disturbing that she could be so close to power.
Donny T can't make America any worse than it is. Think about the competences of the institution of presidency - they are mostly
in the area of foreign policy and trade. There, his ideas are more progressive than those of Hillary. We know that she is an interventionist
ally of terrorists and a supporter of TTIP, a deal that is being negotiated in complete secrecy - for a good reason. Just look
up what any credible economist, like Stiglitz, thinks about it.
Donny T is neither an interventionistn or an enemy of secular states and/or great fighters against terrorism, like Mr Assad.
He is also more moderate in regards to Palestinian - Israely issue, and so on. And of course, Donny T is not a Wall Street pawn
like her.
Oh yes, and he isn't hell bent on starting a confrontation with Russia that might end in nuclear war - very important thing
to consider. Hillary is. Her camp is completely russophobic.
In the domain of domestic policy (immigration, human rights, Mexico wall, blah, blah...) if he is breaking constitution - he
can be easily stopped by legislative or judicial branches of govt.
So, the choice is clear for any rational person. Vote for Mr Trump.
The violence and crime in Chicago are unfathomable yet the media don't seem to bother.
Trump writes an 'insensitive' tweet after he has highlighted the problem for months and wants to tackle the problem, media freaks
out.
Trump's original platform of deporting 11 million illegals isn't doable. That would involve round-ups and incarcerations last
seen in Nazi Germany. I don't think the American people at large would stand for that.
So the spiel has been morphing into something more palatable to Joe Average. He keeps trying to placate his base by having
his surrogates assure them that nothing has changed but it obviously has.
The immigration issue is the democrats' effort to distract Donald Trump's
outreach to the black community . . .
Mr. Trump has provided enough information on immigration. He has to put
the press and everyone else on notice: "He said enough for now!!!" The "flip-flop"
issue is minor at this point.
What's important is the "black vote" as his only logical road to the
White House. Mr. Trump must make it clear to the black community that he
needs their help.
He has little time and should immediately apologize for the Republican
Party's mistake of accepting the democrats' decades of influence over the
black community.
He must confront the Democratic Party's decades of neglect of minorities
(and the poor). What's "historical" about Donald Trump" campaign is he actually
represents "racial unity."
Those supporting Trump have the common bond of "poverty." Like President
Johnson he needs to use "poverty" to overcome a preceding president's popularity.
He has as his political base "poor whites." His efforts now must focus on
"winning" the support of "poor blacks."
He has "ONE JOB" as this point if he wants to be president . . . He must
make the black community understand "the opportunity presented."
Mr. Trump must go directly to the black community (not the black establishment
political brokers) and make things "clear" that a "VOTE" for Trump is the
black community's only available opportunity for racial equality.
Likewise, Mr. Trump needs to have his "poor white" political base understand
the importance of "moving past" those things that have separated us. Mr.
Trump needs "racial unity" rallies from this point forward.
The immigration issue is how he won the primaries and it is the issue that
has made him popular with his fans. It is typically the focus of his speeches.
How can you suggest that the democrats are attempting to distract anyone
on immigration? Trump is the one who talks about it constantly.
"... Your article fails to make a clear enough distinction between legal and illegal immigration. It suggests Trump is anti-immigration and anti-immigrants - which is not the case. This is a common error in the debate. ..."
"... You are so silly. How many times has Hillary changed her mind on immigration? In fact, I am sure all of you recall a time when she suggested a fence and deportation. ..."
"... Here's Hillary in favor of a wall and deportations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DckY2dRFtxc ..."
"... Hungary and Norway way are building walls..Israel has several ..Mexico put up one for the Guatemalen exodus..in the mean time Hillarys plan for improving Jobs for Black youth is importing tens of thousand more ..."
"... One of the prime reasons for the increase in illegal immigration from Mexico was NAFTA, which ended up displacing hundreds of thousands of farm owners and millions of farm workers due to NAFTA regulations. ..."
The immigration issue is the democrats' effort to distract Donald Trump's
outreach to the black community . . .
Mr. Trump has provided enough information on immigration. He has to put
the press and everyone else on notice: "He said enough for now!!!" The "flip-flop"
issue is minor at this point.
What's important is the "black vote" as his only logical road to the
White House. Mr. Trump must make it clear to the black community that he
needs their help.
He has little time and should immediately apologize for the Republican
Party's mistake of accepting the democrats' decades of influence over the
black community.
He must confront the Democratic Party's decades of neglect of minorities
(and the poor). What's "historical" about Donald Trump" campaign is he actually
represents "racial unity."
Those supporting Trump have the common bond of "poverty." Like President
Johnson he needs to use "poverty" to overcome a preceding president's popularity.
He has as his political base "poor whites." His efforts now must focus on
"winning" the support of "poor blacks."
He has "ONE JOB" as this point if he wants to be president . . . He must
make the black community understand "the opportunity presented."
Mr. Trump must go directly to the black community (not the black establishment
political brokers) and make things "clear" that a "VOTE" for Trump is the
black community's only available opportunity for racial equality.
Likewise, Mr. Trump needs to have his "poor white" political base understand
the importance of "moving past" those things that have separated us. Mr.
Trump needs "racial unity" rallies from this point forward.
Your article fails to make a clear enough distinction between legal
and illegal immigration. It suggests Trump is anti-immigration and
anti-immigrants - which is not the case. This is a common error in the
debate.
You are so silly.
How many times has Hillary changed her mind on immigration? In fact, I am sure all of you recall a time when she suggested a fence
and deportation.
Hungary and Norway way are building walls..Israel has several ..Mexico put
up one for the Guatemalen exodus..in the mean time Hillarys plan for improving
Jobs for Black youth is importing tens of thousand more .
If they are so good why doesn't Europe take them for us..
What gets lost in all of this how the USA allowed Mexico to spiral into
the corrupt, poor country they currently are.
It's time for the US to get firm with Mexico and help them get on their
feet - which their corrupt leaders will hate, but tough shit. There is no
excuse to border the United States of America and have such poor living
standards for their people.
Although not ideal, a wall is a very direct message to Mexico's govt
that the US will not tolerate their corrupt government and drug cartels.
What's wrong with Trump changing his stance? He listened to his supporters
(most of whom think some type of amnesty is appropriate) and tweaked his
immigration plan.. *gasp*
It seems like a mature, reasonable move from an intelligent strong leader
- which Trump is.
He will be an excellent President.
One of the prime reasons for the increase in illegal immigration from Mexico
was NAFTA, which ended up displacing hundreds of thousands of farm owners
and millions of farm workers due to NAFTA regulations.
The trouble with both candidates is the Believability Factor. No mater
what they may say, it's doubtful they will do what they say. There needs
to be election laws that make ignoring campaign 'promises' once in office
impeachable.
Trump's original platform of deporting 11 million illegals isn't doable.
That would involve round-ups and incarcerations last seen in Nazi Germany.
I don't think the American people at large would stand for that.
So the spiel has been morphing into something more palatable to Joe Average.
He keeps trying to placate his base by having his surrogates assure them
that nothing has changed but it obviously has.
"... As disgusted and determined as we might be, we still have to operate within the 'neoliberal' system. We are all 'us' in this context and we are all a product of our environment to some extent. however crap that environment might be. ..."
"... Combined with offshoring of as many jobs abroad as possible, free movement of unskilled workers and the use of agency labour to undercut pay and conditions, the future looks bleak. ..."
"... There is nothing meritocratic about neoliberlaism. Its about who you know. ..."
"... I understand what you say, and there is definitely an element within society which values Success above all else, but I do not personally know anyone like that. ..."
"... .....By "us" of course, you mean commies. I think you are inadvertently demonstrating another of Hares psychopath test features; a lack of empathy and self awareness. ..."
"... I've worked in a few large private companies over the years, and my experience is they increasingly resemble some sort of cult, with endless brainwashing programmes for the 'members', charismatic leaders who can do no wrong, groupthink, mandatory utilisation of specialist jargon (especially cod-psychological terminology) to differentiate those 'in' and those 'out', increased blurring of the lines between 'private' and 'work' life (your ass belongs to us 24-7) and of course, constant, ever more complex monitoring of the 'members' for 'heretical thoughts or beliefs'. ..."
"... And the most striking idea here: Our characters are partly moulded by society. And neo-liberal society, and it's illusions of freedom, has moulded many of us in ways that bring out the worst in us. ..."
"... Neo-liberalism has however killed off post war social mobility. In fact according to the OECD report into social mobility, the more egalitarian a developed society is, the more social mobility there is, the more productivity and the less poverty and social problems there are. ..."
As disgusted and determined as we might be, we still have to operate within the 'neoliberal'
system. We are all 'us' in this context and we are all a product of our environment to some extent.
however crap that environment might be.
There are constant laments about the so-called loss of norms and values in our culture.
Yet our norms and values make up an integral and essential part of our identity. So they cannot
be lost, only chaned
If you have no mandate for such change, it breeds resentment.
For example, race & immigration was used by NuLabour in a blatant attempt at mass societal
engineering (via approx 8%+ increase in national population over 13 years).
It was the most significant betrayal in modern democratic times, non mandated change extraordinaire,
not only of British Society, but the core traditional voter base for Labour.
To see people still trying to deny it took place and dismiss the fallout of the cultural elephant
rampaging around the United Kingdom is as disingenuous as it is pathetic.
It's a race to the bottom, and has lead to such "success stories" as G4S, Serco, A4E, ATOS, Railtrack,
privatised railways, privatised water and so on.
It's all about to get even worse with TTIP, and if that fails there is always TISA which mandates
privatisation of pretty much everything - breaking state monopolies on public services.
Combined with offshoring of as many jobs abroad as possible, free movement of unskilled
workers and the use of agency labour to undercut pay and conditions, the future looks bleak.
A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort
and talents
There is nothing meritocratic about neoliberlaism. Its about who you know. In the
UK things have gone backwards almost to the 1950s. Changes which were brought about by the expansion
of universities have pretty much been reversed. The establishment - politics, media, business
is dominated by the better=off Oxbridge elite.
It is difficult for me to agree. I have grown up within Neoliberalism being 35, but you describe
no one I know. People I know weigh up the extra work involved in a promotion and decide whether
the sacrifice is worth the extra money/success.
People I know go after their dreams, whether that be farming or finance. I understand what
you say, and there is definitely an element within society which values Success above all else,
but I do not personally know anyone like that.
He's saying people's characters are changed by their environment. That they aren't set in stone,
but are a function of culture. And that the socio-cultural shift in the last few decades is a
bad thing, and is bad for our characters. In your words: The dreams have changed.
It's convincing, except it isn't as clear as it could be.
I understand his principle but as proof, he sites very specific examples...
A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism.
A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is
seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become
a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master's
degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?
This is used as an example to show the shifting mindset. But as I stated, this describes no
one I know. We, us, commenting here are society. I agree that there has been a shift in culture
and those reaping the biggest financial rewards are the greedy. But has that not always been the
way, the self interested have always walked away with the biggest slice, perhaps at the moment
that slice has become larger still, but most people still want to have a comfortable life, lived
their way. People haven't changed as much as the OP believes.
The great lie is that financial reward is success and happiness.
This is used as an example to show the shifting mindset. But as I stated, this describes
no one I know
Indeed even in the "sociopathic" world of fund management and investment banking, the vast
majority of people establish a balance for how they wish to manage their work and professional
lives and evaluate decisions in light of them both.
Indeed. How come G4S keep winning contracts despite their behaviour being incompetent and veering
on criminal, and the fact they are despised pretty much universally. Hardly a meritocracy.
You can add A4E to that list and now Capita who have recruited all of 61 part time soldiers
in their contract to replace all the thousands of sacked professionals
.....By "us" of course, you mean commies. I think you are inadvertently demonstrating another
of Hares psychopath test features; a lack of empathy and self awareness.
"Since the living standards of majority in this country are on a downward trend"
The oil's running out. Living standards, on average, will continue to decline until either
it stops running out or fusion power turns out to work after all.
Whether you have capitalism or socialism won't make any difference to the declining energy
input.
I'm sure I read an article in the 80s predicting what the author has written. Economics and cultural
environment is bound to have an effect on behaviour. We now live in a society that worships at
the altar of the cult of the individual. Society and growth of poverty no longer matters, a lone
success story proves all those people falling into poverty are lazy good for nothing parasites.
The political class claims to be impotent when it comes to making a fairer society because the
political class is made up of people who were affluent in the first place or benefited from a
neo-liberal rigged economy. The claim is, anything to do with a fair society is social engineering
and bound to fail. Well, neo-liberal Britain was socially engineered and it is failing the majority
of people in the country.
There is a cognitive dissonance going on in the political narrative of neo-liberalism, not
everyone can make it in a neo-liberal society and since neo-liberalism destroys social mobility.
Ironically, the height of social mobility in the west, from the gradual rise through the 50s and
60s, was the 70s. The 80s started the the downward trend in social mobility despite all the bribes
that went along with introducing the property owning democracy, which was really about chaining
people to capitalism.
I'm sure I read an article in the 80s predicting what the author has written.
Well, a transformation of human character was the open battle-cry of 1980s proponents of neoliberalism.
Helmut Kohl, the German prime minister, called it the "geistig-moralische Wende", the "spiritual
and moral sea-change" - I think people just misunderstood what he meant by that, and laughed at
what they saw as empty sloganeering. Now we're reaping what his generation sowed.
OK, now can you tell us why individual freedom is such a bad thing?
The previous period of liberal economics ended a century ago, destroyed by the war whose outbreak
we are interminably celebrating. That war and the one that followed a generation later brought
in strict government control, even down to what people could eat and wear. Orwell's dystopia of
1984 actually describes Britain's wartime society continuing long after the real wars had ended.
It was the slow pace of lifting wartime controls, even slower in Eastern Europe, and the lingering
mindset that economies and societies could be directed for "the greater good" no matter what individual
costs there were that led to a revival of liberal economics.
Neoliberalism is a mere offshoot of Neofeudalism. Labour and Capital - those elements of both
not irretrievably bought-out - must demand the return of The Commons . We must extend our
analysis back over centuries , not decades - let's strike to the heart of the matter!
Collectivist ideologies including Fascism, Communism and theocracy are all similar to feudalism.
I've worked in a few large private companies over the years, and my experience is they
increasingly resemble some sort of cult, with endless brainwashing programmes for the 'members',
charismatic leaders who can do no wrong, groupthink, mandatory utilisation of specialist jargon
(especially cod-psychological terminology) to differentiate those 'in' and those 'out', increased
blurring of the lines between 'private' and 'work' life (your ass belongs to us 24-7) and of course,
constant, ever more complex monitoring of the 'members' for 'heretical thoughts or beliefs'.
'Collectivism' is not as incompatible with capitalism as you seem to think.
You sound like one of those 'libertarians'. Frankly, I think the ideals of such are only realisable
as a sole trader, or operating in a very small business.
Progress is restricted because the people are made poor by the predations of the state
Neoliberalism is firmly committed to individual liberty, and therefore to peace and mutual
toleration
It is firmly committed to ensuring that the boundaries between private and public entities
become blurred, with all the ensuing corruption that entails. In other words, that the state becomes
(through the taxpayers) a captured one, delivering a never ending, always growing, revenue stream
for favoured players in private enterprise. This is, of course, deliberate. 'Individual liberties
and mutual toleration' are only important insomuch as they improve, or detract, from profit-centre
activity.
You have difficulty in separating propaganda from reality, but you're barely alone in this.
Lastly, you also misunderstand feudalism, which in the European context, flourished before
there was a developed concept of a centralised nation state, indeed, the most classic examples
occurred after the decentralisation of an empire or suchlike. The primary feudal relation
was between the bondsman/peasant and his local magnate, who in turn, was subject to his liege.
In other words a warrior class bound by vassalage to a nobility, with the peasantry bound by
manorialism and to the estates of the Church.
Apart from that though, you're right on everything.
I completely agree with the general sentiment.
The specifics aren't that solid though:
- That we think our characters are independent of context/society: I certainly don't.
- That statement about "bullying is more widespread" - lacks justification.
The general theme of "meritocracy is a fiction" is compelling though.
As is "We are free-er in many ways because those ways no longer have any significance"
.
And the most striking idea here: Our characters are partly moulded by society. And neo-liberal
society, and it's illusions of freedom, has moulded many of us in ways that bring out the worst
in us.
The Rat Race is a joke. Too many people waste their lives away playing the capitalist game. As
long as you've got enough money to keep living you can be happy. Just ignore the pathetic willy-wavers
with their flashy cars and logos on their shirts and all that guff
All we need is "enough" - Posession isn't that interesting. More a doorway to doing interesting
stuff.
I prefer to cut out the posession and go straight to "do interesting stuff" myself. As long as
the rent gets paid and so on, obviously.
Doesn't always work, obviously, but I reckon not wanting stuff is a good start to the good
life (ref. to series with Felicity Kendall (and some others) intended :)
That, and Epicurus who I keep mentioning on CIF.
Rather naive. History is full of brilliant individuals who made it. Neo-liberalism has however
killed off post war social mobility. In fact according to the OECD report into social mobility,
the more egalitarian a developed society is, the more social mobility there is, the more productivity
and the less poverty and social problems there are.
I agree - the central dilemma is that neither individualism nor collectiviism works.
But is this dilemma real? Is there a third system? Yes there is - Henry George.
George's paradigm in nothing funky, it is simply Classical Liberal Economics - society works
best when individuals get to keep the fruits of thier labour, but pay rent for the use of The
Commons.
At present we have the opposite - labour and capital are taxed heavily and The commons are monopolised
by the 1%.
Hence unemployment
Hence the wealth gap
Hence the environmental crisis
Hence poverty
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
So the values and morals that people have are so wafer thin that a variation in the political
system governing them can strip them away? Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion
of humanity?
"Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion of humanity?"
Open your eyes and take a lokk at the world. There is enough wealth in the world for everyone
to live free from poverty. Yet, the powerful look after themselves and allow poverty to not only
exist but spread.
>If you've ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither
no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. "The City of
London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted
to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people.
Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds
…".<
I agree with much of this. Working in the NHS, as a clinical psychologist, over the past 25 years,
I have seen a huge shift in the behaviour of managers who used to be valued for their support
and nurturing of talent, but now are recognised for their brutal and aggressive approach to those
beneath them. Reorganisations of services, which take place with depressing frequency, provide
opportunities to clear out the older, experienced members of the profession who would have acted
as mentors and teachers to the less experienced staff.
I worked in local authority social care, I can certainly see the very close similarities to what
you describe in the NHS, and my experience in the local authority.
I can well imagine there are big similarities. Friends of mine who work in education say the same
- there is a complete mismatch between the aims of the directors/managers and that of the professionals
actually providing the teaching/therapy/advice to the public. When I go to senior meetings it
is very rare that patients are even mentioned.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.
This is an incredibly broad generalisation. I remember my grandfather telling me about what
went on in the mills he worked in in Glasgow before the war, it sounded like a pretty savage environment
if you didn't fit in. It wasn't called bullying, of course.
I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality
traits and penalises others.
Isn't this true of pretty much any system? And human relationships in general? I cannot think
of a system that is completely blind to the differences between people. If you happen to be lazy
or have a problem with authority you will never do as "well" (for want of a better term).
I have always said to people who claim they are Liberals that you must support capitalism,the
free market,free trade, deregulation etc etc when most of them deny that, I always say you are
not a Liberal then you're just cherry-picking the [Liberal] policies you like and the ones you
don't like,which is dishonest.
There is nothing neo about Liberalism,it has been around since the 19th century[?].People have
been brainwashed in this country [and the USA] since the 1960's to say they are liberals for fear
of being accused of being fascists,which is quite another thing.
I have never supported any political ideology,which is what Liberalism is,and believe all of them
should be challenged.By doing so you can evolve policies which are fair and just and appropriate
to the issue at hand.
Neoliberalism has only benefited a minority. Usually those with well connected and wealthy families.
And of course those who have no hesitation to exploit other's.
In my view, it is characterized by corruption, exploitation and a total lack of social justice.
Economically, the whole system is fully dependent on competition not co-operation. One day, the
consequences of this total failure will end in violence.
One day, the consequences of this total failure will end in violence.
And if we keep consuming all our resources on this finite planet in pursuit of profit and more
profit there will be no human race we will all be extinct.,and all that will be left is an exhausted
polluted planet that once harbored a vast variety of life.
Isent neolibral capitalism great.
As Marx so often claimed, values, ethics, morality and behaviours are themselves determined by
the economic and monetary system under which people live. Stealing is permitted if you are a banker
and call it a bonus or interest, murder is permitted if your government sends you to war, surveillance
and data mining is permitted if your state tells you there is a danger from terrorists, crime
is overlooked if it makes money for the perpetrator, benefit claimants are justified if they belong
to an aristocratic caste or political elite.......
There is no universal right or wrong, only that identified as such by the establishment at
that particular instance in history, and at that specific place on the planet. Outside that, they
have as much relevance today as scriptures instructing that slaves can be raped, adulterers can
be stoned or the hands of thieves amputated. Give me the crime and the punishment, and I will
give you the time and the place.
For a tiny elite sitting on the top everything has been going exactly as it was initially planned.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men
living together in Society, they create for themselves in the
course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a
moral code that glorifies it".
F. Bastiat.
Excellent article.
I'm amazed that more isn't made of the relationship between political environment/systems and
their effect on the individual. Oliver James Affluenza makes a compelling case for the unhappiness
outputs of societies who've embraced neo liberalism yet we still blindly pursue it.
The US has long been world leader in both the demand and supply of psychotherapy and the relentless
pursuit of free market economics. these stats are not unconnected.
I once had a colleague with the knack of slipping into his conversation complimentary remarks
that other people had made about him. It wasn't the only reason for his rapid ascent to great
heights, but perhaps it helped.
That's one of my favourite characteristics of David Brent from 'The Office'. "You're all looking
at me, you're going, "Well yeah, you're a success, you've achieved you're goals, you're reaping
the rewards, sure. But, OI, Brent. Is all you care about chasing the Yankee dollar?"
Neoliberalism is another Social Darwinist driven philosophy popularised after leading figures
of our times (or rather former times) decided Malthus was probably correct.
So here we have it, serious growth in population, possibly unsustainable, and a growing 'weak
will perish, strong will survive' mentality. The worst thing is I used to believe in neoliberal
policies, until of course I understood the long term ramifications.
And the reality is that "neoliberalism" has, in the last few decades, freed hundreds of millions
in the developing word from a subsistence living to something resembling a middle class lifestyle.
This has resulted in both plummeting global poverty statistics and in greatly reduced fecundity,
so that we will likely see a leveling off of global population in the next few decades. And this
slowing down of population growth is the most critical thing we could for increasing sustainability.
The problem is a judeo-christian idea of "free choice" when experiments, undertaken by Benjamin
Libet and since, indicate that it is near to unlikely for there to be volitionally controlled
conscious decisions.
If we are not even free to intend and control our decisions, thoughts and ambitions, how can
anyone claim to be morally entitled to ownership of their property and have a 'right' to anything
as a reward for what decisions they made? Happening is pure luck: meaningful [intended] responsibility
and accountability cannot be claimed for decisions and actions and so entitlement cannot be claimed
for what acquisitions are causally obtained from those decisions and actions.There is no 'just
desserts' or decision-derived entitlement justification for wealth and owning property unless
the justifier has a superstitious and scientifically unfounded belief in free choice.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace
Compared to say, that experienced by domestic staff in big houses, small children in factories,
perhaps even amongst miners, dockers and steel workers in the halcyon days of the post-war decade
when apparently everything was rosy?
This whole article is a hodge podge of anecdote and flawed observations designed to shoehorn
behaviour into a pattern that supports an economic hypothesis - it is factually groundless.
Compared to say, that experienced by domestic staff in big houses, small children in factories
Yes, but if it was left to people like you, children would still be working in factories. So
please do not take credit for improvements that you would fight tooth and nail against
perhaps even amongst miners, dockers and steel workers in the halcyon days of the post-war
decade when apparently everything was rosy?
They had wages coming to them and didn't need to rely on housing benefit to keep a roof over
their head. Now people like you bitterly complain about poorly paid workers getting benefits to
sustain them.
People who "work hard and play hard" are nearly always kidding themselves about the second bit.
It seems to me that the trend in the world of neoliberalism is to think that "playing hard"
is defined as "playing with expensive, branded toys" during your two week annual holiday.
'Playing hard' in the careerist lexicon = getting blind drunk to mollify the feelings of despair
and emptiness which typify a hollow, debt-soaked life defined by motor cars and houses.
The "Max Factor" life. Selfishness and Greed. The compaction of life. Was it not in a scripture
in text?. The Bible. We as humans and followers of "Faith" in christian beliefs and the culture
of love they fellow man. The culture of words are a root to all "Evil. Depending on "Who's" the
Author and Scrolling the words; and for what reason?. The only way we can save what is left on
this planet and save man kind. Is eradicate the above "Selfishness and Greed" ?
We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage
of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can
do all these things because they no longer have any significance – freedom of this kind is
prompted by indifference.
These changes listed (and then casually dismissed) are monumental social achievements. Many
countries in the world do not permit their 'citizens' such freedom of choice and I for one am
very grateful to live in a country where these things are possible.
Of course there is much more to be done. But I would suggest that to be born in Western Europe
today is probably about as safe, comfortable, and free than at any time and any place in human
history. I'm not being complacent about what we still have to achieve. But we won't achieve anything
if we take such a flippant attitude towards all the amazing things that have been bequeathed to
us.
Excellent observation, it's the same way that technology that has quite clearly changed our lives
and given us access to information, opportunity to travel and entertainment that would have been
beyond the comprehension of our grandparents is dismissed as irrelevant because its just a smart
phone and a not a job for life in a British Leyland factory.
It takes a peculairly spoilt and arrogant Westerner to claim that the freedom to criticise religion
isn't significant or that we're only allowed to do so because it's no longer important. Tell that
to a girl seeking to escape an arranged marriage in Bradford...
OK. Now off you go and apply the same methodology to people living in statist societies, or just
have a go at our own civil service or local government workers. Try social workers or the benefits
agency or the police.
The author makes some good points, although I wouldn't necessarily call our system a meritocracy.
I guess the key one is how unaware we are about the influence of economic policy on our values.
This kind of systems hurts everyday people and rewards psychopaths, and is damaging to society
as a whole over the long term.
Targetising everything is really insidious.
That neoliberalism puts tremendous pressure on individuals to conform to materialistic norms is
undeniable, but for a psychotherapist to disallow the choice of those individuals to nevertheless
choose how to live is an admission of failure.
In fact, many people today experience the shallowness and corrupt character of market society
and elect either to be in it, but not of it, or to opt out early having made enough money, often
making a conscious choice to relinquish the 'trappings' in return for a more meaningful existence.
Some do selfless service to their fellow human beings, to the environment or both, and thereby
find a degree of fulfillment that they always wanted.
To surrender to the external demands of a superficial and corrupting life is to ignore the
tremendous opportunity human life offers to all: self realization.
It's not either-or, system or individual, but some combination of the two.
Decision making may be 80% structure and 20% individual choice for the mainstream - or maybe the
other way round for the rebels amongst us that try to reject the system.
The theory of structuration (Giddens) provides one explanation of how social systems develop
through the interactions between the system and actors in it.
I partly agree with you but I think examples of complete self realisation are extremely rare.
That means stepping completely out of the system and out of our own personality. Neither this
nor that.
The point is that the individual has the choice to move in the right direction. When and if they
do make a decision to change their life, it will be fulfilling for them and for the system.
Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is,
"make" something of ourselves. You don't need to look far for examples. A highly skilled individual
who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person with a good job who
turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy – unless those
other things ensure success.
I have been in the private sector for generations, and know tons of people who have behaved
precisely as described above. I don't know anyone who calls them crazy. In fact, I see the exact
opposite tendency - the growing acceptance that money isn't everything, and that once one has
achieved a certain level of success and financial security that it is fine to put other priorities
first rather than simply trying to acquire ever more.
The ATL article is rather stuffed full of stereotypes.
And speaking personally, I have turned down two offers of promotion to a management position
in the last ten years and neither time did I get the sense people thought I was crazy. They might
have done if I were in my late twenties rather than mid-fifties but that does reinforce the notion
that people - even bosses - can accept that there is more to life than a career.
I agree about the stereotypes. Also, has anyone ever seriously advised a primary school teacher
that they need a masters degree of economics?! I highly doubt that that is the norm!
I hate to break it to you but no matter how you organise society the nasty people get to the
top and the nice people end up doing all the work. "Neo-liberalism" is no different.
Or you could put it another way - 'neoliberalism' is the least worst economic/social system, because
most people are far more powerless and far more worse off under any other system that has ever
been developed by man...
For a start you need a system that is not based on rewarding and encouraging the worst aspects
of our characters. I try to encourage my kids not to be greedy, to be honest and to care about
others but in this day and age it's an uphill struggle.
"A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and
talents, meaning responsibility lies entirely with the individual and authorities should give
people as much freedom as possible to achieve this goal."
In the UK we have nothing like a meritocracy with a privately educated elite.
Success and failure are just about parental wealth.
"So the values and morals that people have are so wafer thin that a variation in the political
system governing them can strip them away? Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion
of humanity?"
RidleyWalker, I can assue you that it is not the left but the right who consistently have a
low opinion of humanity. Anyway, what has left and right got to do with this? There are millions
of ordinary decent people whose lives are blighted by the obscentity that is neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism
is designed to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor. Neo-liberalism is responsible
for the misery for millions across the globe. The only happy ones are those at the top of the
heap...until even their bloated selfish world inevitably implodes.
Of course these disgusting parasites are primitive thinkers and cannot see that we could have
a better, happier world for everyone if societies become more equal. Studies demonstrate that
more equal societies are more stable and content than those with ever-widening gaps in wealth
between rich and poor.
Neoliberalism...disgusting parasites...primitive thinkers...misery of millions...bloated selfish
world
This reads like a Soviet pamphlet from the 1930's. Granted you've replaced the word 'capitalism'
with 'neoliberalism' - in other words subsstituted one meaningless abstraction for another. It
wasn't true then and it certainly isnt true now...
Not sure why you think all this is new or attributable to neoliberalism. Things were much the
same in the 1960's and 1970's. All that has changed is that instead of working on assembly lines
in factories under the watchful gaze of a foreman we now have university degrees and sit in cubicles
pressing buttons on keyboards. Micromanagement, bureaucracy, rules and regulations are as old
as the hills. Office politics has replaced shop floor politics; the rich are still rich and the
poor are still poor.
Well, except that people have more money, live longer and have more opportunities in life than
before - most people anyway. The ones left behind are the ones we need to worry about
Not sure why you think all this is new or attributable to neoliberalism. Things were much
the same in the 1960's and 1970's.
And you can read far more excoriating critiques of our shallow materialistic capitalism, culture
from those decades, now recast as some sort of prelapsarian Golden Age.
Actually, the 1929 crash was not the first by any means. The boom and bust cycle of modern economics
goes back a lot further. When my grandparents talked about the "Great Depression" they were referring
to the 1890's.
The nineteenth century saw major financial crises in almost every decade, 1825, 1837, 1847, 1857,
1866 before we even get to the Great Depression of 1873-96.
Socialism seems to be happy home of corruption & nepotism. The old saw that Tory MP's are brought
down by sex scandals whilst Labour MP's have issues with money still holds.
Why is that relevant? This is a critique of neo liberalism and it is a very accurate one at that.
It isn't suggesting that Socialism is better or even offers an alternative, just that neo liberalism
has failed society and explores some of how and why.
The main problem is that neoliberalism is a faith dressed up as a science and any evidence that
disproves the hypothesis (e.g. the 2008 financial collapse) only helps to reinforce the faith
of the fundamentalists supporting it.
The reason why "neoliberalism" is so successful is precisely because the evidence shows it does
work. It has not escaped peoples' notice that nations where governments heavily curtail individual
and commercial freedom are often rather wretched places to live.
It would be nice to curtail coprorate freedom without curtailing the freedom of individuals. I
don't see how that might work.
"hubris over free markets" might well be it.
But I might be understanding that in a different way from you. People were making irrational decisions
that didn't seem to take on basic logic of a free market, or even common sense. Such as "where
is all this money coming from" (madoff, house ladder), "of course this will work" (fred goodwin
and his takeovers) and even "will i get my money back" (sub-prime lending).
So why don't we do something about it....genuinely? There appears to be no power left in voting
unless people are given an actual choice....Is it not time then to to provide a well grounded
articulate choice? The research, in many different disciplines, is already out there.
What can we do? It appears we are stuck between the Labour party and the Conservatives. Is it
even possible for another party to come to power with the next couple of elections?
The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the paradox of our era as: "Never have
we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed freer than before, in the
sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex
and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer
have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference. Yet, on the other
hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a bureaucracy that would make Kafka
weak at the knees. There are regulations about everything, from the salt content of bread to
urban poultry-keeping.
Verhaeghe begins by criticizing free markets and "neo-liberalism", but ends by criticizing
the huge, stifling government bureaucracy that endeavours to micro-manage every aspect of its
citizens lives, and is the opposite of true classic liberalism.
probably not as confusing as it seems to be for you.
this is just the difference between neoliberalism in theory and in practise.
like the "real existierende sozialismus" in eastern germany fell somewhat short of the brilliant
utopia of the theorists.
verhaeghe does not criticise the theoretical model, but the practical outcome. And the worst governmant
and corporate bureaucracy that mankind has ever seen is part of it. The result of 30+ years of
neoliberal policies.
In my experience this buerocracy is gets worse in anglo saxon countries closest to the singularity
at the bottom of the neolib black hole.
I am aware that this is only a correlation, but correlations, while they do not prove causation,
still require explanation.
Some time ago, and perhaps still, it was/is fashionable for Toryish persons to denigrate the 1960s.
I look back to that decade with much nostalgia. Nearly everyone had a job of sorts, not terribly
well paid but at least it was a job. And now? You are compelled to toil your guts out, kiss somebody's
backside, run up unpayable debts - and, in the UK, live in a house that in many other countries
would have been demolished decades ago. Scarcely a day passes when I am not partly disgusted at
what has overtaken my beloved country.
An excellent article! The culture of the 80's has ruled for too long and its damage done.... its
down to our youth to start to shape things now and I think that's beginning to happen.
Neo-Liberalism as operated today. "Greed is Good" and senior bankers and those who sell and buy
money, commodities etc; are diven by this trait of humankind.
But we, the People are just as guilty with our drives for 'More'. More over everything, even
shopping at the supermarket - "Buy one & get ten free", must have.
Designer ;bling;, clothes, shoes, bags, I-Pads etc etc, etc. It is never ending. People seem
to be scared that they haven't got what next has, and next will think that they are 'Not Cool'.
We, the people should be satisfied with what have got, NOT what what we havn't got.
Those who "want" (masses of material goods) usually "Dont get!"
The current system is unsustainable as the World' population rises and rises. Nature (Gaia)
will take care of this through disease, famine, and of course the stupidity of Humankind - wars,
destruction and general stupidity.
What's a meritocracy? Oh, that's right - a fable that people who have a lot of money deserve it
somehow because they're so much better than the people who work for a living.
The world was an even nastier place before the current era. During the 1970s and early 1980s there
was huge inflation which robbed people of their saving, high unemployment, and (shudder) Disco.
People tend to view the past with rose-coloured glasses.
What neoliberalism? We've got a mixed economy, which seemingly upsets both those on the right
who wish to cut back the state and those on the left who'd bolster it.
I work in a law firm specialising in M&A, hardly the cuddliest of environments, but I recognise
almost nothing here as a description of my work place. Sure, some people are wankers but that's
true everywhere.
FDR, the Antichrist of the American Right, famously said that the only thing we have to fear is
fear itself. And here we are with this ideology which in many ways stokes the fear. The one thing
these bastards don't want most of us to feel is secure.
There is no "free market" anywhere. That is a fantasy. It is a term used when corporations want
to complain about regulations. What we have in most industrialized countries is corporate socialism
wherein corporations get to internalize profits and externalize costs and losses. It has killed
of our economies and our middle class.
Socialism or barbarism -- a starker choice today than when the phrase was coined.
So long, at least, as we have an evolved notion of what socialism entails. Which means, please,
not the state capitalism + benign paternalism that it's unfortunately come to mean for
most people, in the course of its parasitical relationship with capitalism proper, and so with
all capitalism's inventions (the 'nation', the modern bureaucracy, ever-more-efficient exploitation
to cumulatively alienating ends......)
It's just as unfortunate, in this light, that the term 'self-management' has been appropriated
by the ideologues of pseudo-meritocracy, in just the way the article describes..
Because it's also a term (from the French autogestion) used to describe what I'd argue is the
most nuanced and sophisticated collectivist alternative to capitalism -- an alternative that is
at one and the same time a rejection of capitalism.... and of the central role of the state
and 'nation' (that phony, illusory community that plays a more central role in empowering the
modern state than does its monopoly on violence)... and of the ideology of growth, and
of the ideal of monolithic, ruthlessly efficient economic totalities organised to this end....
It's a rejection, in other words, of all those things contemplation of which reminds us just
how little fundamental difference there is between capitalism and the system cobbled together
on the fly by the Bolsheviks -- same vertical organisation to the ends of the same exploitation,
same exploitation to the ends of expanding the scope and scale of vertical organisation, all of
it with the same destructive effects on the sociabilities of everyday life....
Self-management in this sense goes beyond 'workers control'; (I'd argue that) it envisions
a society in which most aspects of life have been cut free from the ties that bind people
vertically to sources of influence and control, however they're constituted (private and public
bureaucracies, market pressures, the illusory narratives of nation, mass media and commodity...).
The horizontal ties of workplace and local community would thus be constitutive, by default,
and society as a whole would become very little more than the sum of its parts -- mutating on
a molecular local level as people collectively and democratically decided, in circumstances that
actually granted them the power to do so, how to balance the conflicting needs and desires and
necessities that a complex society and a complex division of labour present. 'Balance' because
there really isn't any prospect of a utopian resolution of these conflicts -- they come with civilisation
-- or with barbarism, for than matter, in any of its modern incarnations.
What about those who disagree with such a radical reordering of society? How would the collective
deal with those who wished to exploit it?
I'm genuinely interested, beats working...
The horizontal ties of workplace and local community would thus be constitutive, by default,
and society as a whole would become very little more than the sum of its parts -- mutating
on a molecular local level as people collectively and democratically decided, in circumstances
that actually granted them the power to do so, how to balance the conflicting needs and desires
and necessities that a complex society and a complex division of labour present.
Why do socialists so often resort to such turgid, impenetrable prose? Could it be an attempt
to mask the vacuity of their position?
I read this article skeptically, but then realised how accurately he described my workplace. Most
people I know on the outside have nice middle class lives, but underneath it suffer from anxiety,
about 1 not putting enough into their careers 2 not spending enough time with their kids. When
I decided to cut my work hours in half when I had a child, 2 of my colleagues were genuinely concerned
for me over things like, I might be let go, how would I cope with the drop in money, I was cutting
my chances of promotion, how would it look in a review. The level of anxiety was frightening.
People on the forum seem to be criticizing what they see as the authors flippant attitude to
sexual freedom and lack of religious hold, but I see the authors point, what good are these freedoms
when we are stuck in the stranglehold of no job security and huge mortgage debt. Yes you can have
a quick shag with whoever you want and don't need to answer to anyone over it on a Sunday, but
come Monday morning its back to the the ever sharpening grindstone.
This reminds me of the world I started to work in in 1955. I accept that by 1985 it was ten times
worse and by the time I retired in 2002, after 47 years, I was very glad to have what I called
"survived". At its worst was the increasing difference between the knowledge base of "the boss"
when technology started to kick in. I was called into the boss's office once to be criticised
for the length of a report. It had a two page summery of the issue and options for resolving the
problem. I very meekly inquired if he had decided on any of the options to resolve the problem.
What options are you talking about? was his response, which told me that either he had not read
the report or did not understand the problem. This was the least of my problems as I later had
to spend two days in his office explaining the analysis we (I) were submitting to the Board.
A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism.
A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is
seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become
a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master's
degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?
Speak for yourself.
The current economic situation affects each of us as much as we allow it to. Some may well love
neo-liberalism and the concomitant dog eat dog attitude, but there are some of us who regard it
as little more than a culture of self-enrichment through lies and aggression. I see it as such,
and want nothing to do with it.
If you live by money and power, you'll die by money and power. I prefer to live and work with
consensus and co-operation.
I'll never be rich, but I'll never have many enemies.
Hedge-fund and private-equity managers, investment bankers, corporate lawyers, management consultants,
high-frequency traders, and top lobbyists.They're getting paid vast sums for their labors. Yet
it seems doubtful that society is really that much better off because of what they do. They play
zero-sum games that take money out of one set of pockets and put it into another. They demand
ever more cunning innovations but they create no social value. High-frequency traders who win
by a thousandth of a second can reap a fortune, but society as a whole is no better off. the games
consume the energies of loads of talented people who might otherwise be making real contributions
to society - if not by tending to human needs or enriching our culture then by curing diseases
or devising new technological breakthroughs, or helping solve some of our most intractable social
problems. Robert Reich said this and I am compelled to agree with him!
Brilliant article. It is not going to change anything, of course, because majority of people of
this planet would cooperate with just about any psychopath clever enough not to take away from
them that last bit of stinking warm mud to wallow in.
Proof? Read history books and take a look around you. We are the dumbest animals on Earth.
Rubbish. We are the most intelligent and successful creature that this planet has ever seen. We
have become capable of transforming it, leaving it and destroying it.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.
I started work nearly 40 years ago and there were always some bullies in the workplace. Maybe
there are more now, I don't know but I suspect it is more widely reported now. Workplace bullies
were something of a given when I started work and it was an accepted part of the working environment.
Be careful about re-inventing history to suit your own arguments.
I'm surprised the normalization of debt was not mentioned. If you are debt free you have more
chance of making decisions that don't fit into the model.
So what do we do now, we train nearly 50% of our young that having large amounts of debt is
perfectly normal. When I was a student I lived off the grant and had a much lower standard of
living than I can see students having now, but of course I had no debt when I graduated. I know
student debt is administered differently, I'm talking about the way we are training them to accept
debt of all sorts.
Same applies to consumerism inducing the 'I want it and I want it now', increases personal
debt, therefore forcing people to fit in, same applies to credit cards and lax personal lending.
Although occasionally there are economic questions about large amounts of personal debt, politically
high personal debt is ideal.
Not sure if you're in the sector, in large parts that's kind of how academia works?
This is also what's referred to in the trade as an opinion piece, where an author will be presenting
his views and substantiating them with reference to the researches of others.
There is no mystery to neoliberalism -- it is an economic system designed to benefit the 0.1%
and leave the rest of us neck deep in shit. That's why our children will be paying for the bankers'
bonuses to the day they die. Let's celebrate this new found freedom with all the rest of the Tory
lickspittle apologists. Yippee for moral bankruptcy -- three cheers!
The Simple Summary is the state/ royality used to hold all the power over the merchants and the
public for centuries. Bit by bit the merchants stripped that power away from royality, until eventually
the merchants have now taken over everybody. The merchants hold all the power now and they will
never give that up as there is nobody to take it from them. By owning the state the merchants
now have everything that go with it. The army, police and the laws and the media.
David Harvey puts it all under the microscope and explains in great detail how they've achieved
their end game over the last 40 years.
There are millions of economists and many economic theories in our universities. Unfortunately,
the merchants will only fund and advertise and support economic theories that further their power
and wealth.
As history shows time and time again it will be the public who rip this power from their hands.
If they don't give it up it is only a matter of time. The merchants may now own the army, the
police, the laws and the parliament. They'll need all of that and more if the public decide to
say enough is enough.
Bullying used to be confined to schools? Can't agree with that at all. Bullying is an ingrained
human tendency which manifests in many contexts, from school to work to military to politics to
matters of faith. It is only bad when abused, and can help to form self-confidence.
I am not sure what "neo" means but liberal economics is the basis of the Western economies
since the end of feudalism. Some countries have had periods of pronounced social democracy or
even socialism but most of western Europe has reverted to the capitalist model and much of the
former east bloc is turning to it. As others have noted in the CiF, this does not preclude social
policies designed to alleviate the unfair effects of the liberal economies.
But this ship has sailed in other words, the treaties which founded the EU make it clear the
system is based on Adam Smith-type free market thinking. (Short of leaving the EU I don't see
how that can be changed in its essentials).
Finally, socialist countries require much more conformity of individuals than capitalist ones.
So you have to look at the alternatives, which this article does not from what I could see.
To be honest I don't think Neoliberalism has made much of a difference in the UK where personal
responsibility has always been king. In the Victorian age people were quite happy to have people
staving to death on the streets and before that people's problems were usually seen as either
their own fault or an act of God (which would also be your own fault due to sin). If anything
we are kinder to strangers now, than we have been, but are slipping back into our old habits.
I think the best way to combat extreme liberalism is to be knowing about our culture and realise
that liberalism is something which is embedded in British culture and is not something imposed
on us from else where or by some -ism. It is strengthen not just by politics but also by language
and the way we deal with personal and social issues in our own lives. We also need to acknowledge
that we get both good and bad things out of living in a liberal society but that doesn't mean
we have to put up with the bad stuff. We can put measures in place to prevent the bad stuff and
still enjoy the positives even though some capitalists may throw their toys out of the pram.
Personal responsibility is EXACTLY what neoliberalism avoids, even as it advocates it with every
breath.
What it means is that you get as much responsibility as you can afford to foist onto someone
else, so a very wealthy person gets none at all. It's always someone else's fault.
Neoliberalism has actually undermined personal responsibility at every single step, delegating
it according to wealth or perceived worth.
If Liberalism is the mindset of the British how come we created the NHS, Legal Aid, universal
education and social security? These were massive achievements of a post war generation and about
as far removed from today's evil shyster politics as it is possible to be.
"Our society constantly proclaims that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough, all the
while reinforcing privilege and putting increasing pressure on its overstretched and exhausted
citizens"
What to people mean when they use the word "society" in this context?
When we stopped having jobs and had careers instead, the rot set in. A career is the promotion
of the self and a job the means to realise that goal at the expense of everyone else around you.
The description of psychopathic behaviour perfectly describes a former boss of mine (female).
I liked her but knew how dangerous she was. She went easy on me because she knew that I could
do the job that she would claim credit for.
The pressure and stress of, for example open plan offices and evaluation reports are all part
of the conscious effort on behalf of employers to ensure compliance with this poisonous attitude.
The greatest promoter of this philosophy is the Media, step forward Evan Davies, the slobbering
lap dog of the rich and powerful.
On the positive side I detect a growing realisation among normal people of the folly of this worldview.
Self promoters are generally psychopaths who don't have any empathy for the people around them
who carry them everyday and make them look good. We call these people show bags. Full of shit
and you have to carry them all the time....
"meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others..."
I put to you the simple premsie that you can substitute "meritocratic neoliberalism" with any
political system (communism, fascism, social democracy even) and it the same truism would emerge.
"Neoliberalism promotes individual freedom, limited government, and deregulation of the economy...whilst
individual freedom is a laudable idea, neoliberalism taken to a dogmatic extreme can be used to
justify exploitation of the less powerful and pillaging of the natural environment." - Don Ambrose.
Contrast with this:
"Neoliberal democracy, with its notion of the market uber alles ...instead of citizens,
it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an
atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralised and socially powerless." - Robert
W. McChesney in Profit over People, Noam Chomsky.
It is fairly clear that the neoliberal system is designed to exploit the less powerfull when
it becomes dogmatic, and that is exactly what it has become: beaurocracy, deregulation, privatisation,
and government power .
Neoliberalism is a virus that destroys people's power of reason and replaces it with extra greed
and self entitlement. Until it is kicked back to the insane asylum it came from it will only keep
trying to make us it's indentured labourers. The only creeds more vile were Nazism and Apartheid.
Eventually the neoliberals will kill us all, so they can have the freedom to have everything they
think they're worth.
Yet, on the other hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a bureaucracy
that would make Kafka weak at the knees. There are regulations about everything, from the salt
content of bread to urban poultry-keeping.
Isn't a key feature of neo-liberalism that governments de-regulate? It seems you're willing
to blame absolutely everything on neoliberalism, even those things that neoliberalism ostensibly
opposes.
The Professor is correct. We have crafted a nightmare of a society where what is considered good
is often to the detriment of the whole community. It is reflected in our TV shows of choice, Survivor,
Big Brother, voting off the weakest or the greatest rival. A half a million bucks for being the
meanest most sociopathic person in the group, what great entertainment.
Always a treat to read your articles, Mr Verhaeghe; well written and supported with examples and
external good links. I especially like the link to Hare's site which is a rich resource of information
and current discussions and presentations on the subject.
The rise of the psychopath in society has been noted for some time, as have the consequences
of this behaviour in wider society and and a growing indifference and increased tolerance for
this behaviour.
But what are practical solutions? MRI brain scans and early intervention? We know that behaviour
modification does not work, we know that antipsychotic and other psychiatric medication does not
alter this behaviour, we know little of genetic causes or if diet and nutrition play a role.
Maybe it is because successful psychopaths leverage themselves into positions of influence
and power and reduce the voice, choices and influence of their victims that psychopathy has become
such an unsolvable problem, or at least a problem that has been removed from the stage of awareness.
It is so much easier to see the social consequences of psychopathy than it is to see the causal
activity of psychopaths themselves.
Neoliberalism has entered centre stage politics not as a solution, it is just socialism with a
crowd pleasing face. What could the labour party do to get voted in when the leadership consisted
of self professed intellectuals in Donkey Jackets which they wore to patronise the working classes.
Like the animal reflected in the name they became a laughing stock. Nobody understood their language
or cared for it. The people who could understand it claimed that it was full of irrelevant hyperbole
and patronising sentiment.
It still is but with nice sounding buzz words and an endless sound bites, the face of politics
has been transformed into a hollow shell. Neither of the party's faithful are happy with their
leaders. They have become centre stage by understanding process more than substance. As long as
your face fits, a person has every chance of success. Real merit on the other hand is either sadly
lacking or non existant.
Most people's personalities and behaviour are environment driven, they are moulded by the social
context in which they find themselves. The system we currently inhabit is one which is constructed
on behalf of the holders of capital, it is a construct of the need to create wealth through interest
bearing debt.
The values of this civilisation are consumer ones, we validate and actualise ourselves through
ownership of goods, and also the middle-class norms of family life, which are in and of themselves
constructs of a liberal consumer based society.
We pride ourselves on tolerance, which is just veiled indifference to anything which we feel
as no importance to our own desires. People are becoming automatons, directed through media devices
and advertising, and also the implanted desires which the consumer society needs us to act upon
to maintain the current system of economy.
None of this can of course survive indefinitely, hence the constant state of underlying anxiety
within society as it ploughs along on this suicidal route.
Good article, however I would just like to add that the new breed of 'business psychopath' you
allude to are fairly easy to spot these days, and as such more people are aware of them, so they
could be displaced quite soon, hopefully.
Cameron and the Conservatives have long been condemning the lazy and feckless at the bottom of
society, but has Cameron ever looked at his aristocratic in-laws.
His father-in-law, Sir Reginald Sheffield, can be checked out on Wikipedia.
His only work seems to have been eight years as a conservative councillor (lazy).
He is a member of three clubs, so he likes to go pissing it up with his rich friends (feckless).
This seems to be total sum of his life's achievements.
He also gets Government subsidies for wind turbines on his land (on benefits).
His estate has been in the family since the 16th Century and the family have probably done very
little since, yet we worry about the lower classes having two generations without work, in the
upper classes this can go on for centuries.
Wasters don't just exist at the bottom of society.
Mr. Cameron have a closer look at your aristocratic in-laws.
This is the consequence of a system that prevents people from thinking independently and
that fails to treat employees as adults.
Fundamentally the whole concept is saying "real talent is to be hunted down since, if you do
not destroy it, it will destroy you". As a result we have a whole army of useless twats in high
positions with not an independent thought between them. The concept of the old boys network has
really taken over except now the members are any mental age from zero upwards.
And then we wonder why nothing is done prperly these days....
Neoliberalism is fine in some areas of self-development and actualization of potential, but taken
as a kind of religion or as the be-all and end-all it is a manifest failure. For a start it neglects
to acknowledge what people have in common, the idea of shared values, the notion of society, the
effects of synergy and the geo-biological fact that we are one species all inhabiting the same
single planet, a planet that is uniquely adapted to ourselves, and to which we are uniquely adapted.
Generally it works on the micro-scale to free up initiative, but on the macro-scale it is hugely
destructive, since its goals are not the welfare of the entire human race and the planet but something
far more self-interested.
I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality
traits and penalises others.
This is inevitable. All societies have this property. A warrior society rewards brave fighters
and inspiring leaders, while punishing weaklings and cowards. A theocracy rewards those who display
piety and knowledge of religious tradition, and punishes skeptics and taboo-breakers. Tyrannies
reward cunning, ruthless schemers while punishing the squeamish and naive. Bureaucratic societies
reward pernickety types who love rules and regulationsn, and punish those who are careless of
jots and tittles. And so on.
A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort
and talents
It does. In fact, it does in all societies to some extent, even societies that strive to be egalitarian,
and societies that try to restrict social mobility by imposing a rigid caste system. There are
always individuals who fall or rise through society as a result of their abilities or lack thereof.
The freer society is, the more this happens.
For those who believe in the fairytale of unrestricted choice, self-government and self-management
are the pre-eminent political messages, especially if they appear to promise freedom.
Straw man. Even anarchists don't believe in completely unrestricted choice, let alone neoliberals.
Neoliberalism accepts that people are inevitably limited by their abilities and their situation.
Personal responsibility does not depend on complete freedom. It depends on there being some
freedom. If you have enough freedom to make good or bad choices, then you have personal responsibility.
Along with the idea of the perfectible individual, the freedom we perceive ourselves as
having in the west is the greatest untruth of this day and age.
The idea of the perfectible individual has nothing to do with neoliberalism. On the other hand,
it is one of the central pillars of Marxism. In philosophy, Marx is noted as an example of thinker
who follows a perfectionist ethical theory.
A frightening article, detailing now the psychological strenngths of people are recruited, perverted
and rotted by this rat-race ethic.
Ironic that the photo, of Canary Wharf, shows one of the biggest "socialist" gifts of the country
(was paid largely by the British taxpayer, if memory serves me correctly, and more or less gifted
to the merchant bankers by Thatcher).
Meritocratic neoliberalism; superficial articulateness which I used to call 'the gift of the gab'.
In my job, I was told to be 'extrovert' and I bucked against this, as a prejudice against anyone
with a different personality and people wanting CLONES. Not sensible people, or people that could
do a job, but a clone; setting the system up for a specific type of person as stated above. Those
who quickly tell you, you are wrong. Those that make you think perhaps you are, owing to their
confidence. Until your quietness proves them to be totally incorrect, and their naff confidence
demonstrates the falseness of what they state.
Most of the richest people in the world are not bullshitters. There are some, to be sure, but
the majority are either technical or financial engineers of genius, and they've made their fortune
through those skills, rather than through bullshit.
Hague lied to the camera about GCHQ having permission to access anyone's electronic devices. He
did not blush, he merely stated that a warrant was required. Only the night before we were shown
a letter from GCHQ stating that they had access without any warrant.
The ability to LIE has become a VIRTUE that all of us could well LIVE WITHOUT.
That's not new. It has been widely held that rulers have a right (and sometimes a duty) to lie
ever since Machiavelli's Prince was published some 500 years ago.
The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the paradox of our era as: "Never have
we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed freer than before, in the
sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex
and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer
have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference.
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left lose.
-Janice Joplin
Actually it was written by Kris Kristofferson and, having a house, a job pension and an Old Age
Pension, frankly, I disagree. The Grateful Dead version is better anyway.
.... economic change is having a profound effect not only on our values but also on our
personalities.
I have long thought that introverts are being marginalised in our society. Being introvert
seems to be seen by some as almost an illness, by others as virtually a crime.
Not keen on attending that "team bonding" weekend? There must be something wrong with you.
Unwilling to set out your life online for all to see? What have you got to hide?
A few very driven and talented introverts have managed to find a niche in the world of IT and
computers, earnig fortunes from their bedrooms. But for most, being unwilling or unable to scream
their demands and desires across a crowded room is interpreted as "not trying" or being not worth
listening to.
It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a
lot of people, you've got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a
major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that
they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and
feel little guilt. That's why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.
Perfectly describes our new ruling-class, doesn't it!
It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a
lot of people, you've got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a
major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that
they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and
feel little guilt. That's why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.
Sounds like a perfect description of newspaper columnists to me.
It's just the general spirit of the place: it's on such a downer and no amount of theorising and
talking will ever solve anything. There isn't a good feeling about this country anymore just a
lot of tying everyone up in in repressive knots with a lot of hooey like talk and put downs. We
need to find freedom again or maybe shove all the pricks into one part of the country and leave
them there to fuck each other over so the rest of us can create a new world free of bullcrap.
I don't know. Place is a superficial mess: 'look at me; look at what I own; I can cook Coq Au
Vin and drink bottles of expensive plonk and keep ten cars on my driveway'
Nah. Fortuneately there are still some decent people left but it's been like Hamlet now for quite
some time - "show me an honest man and I'll show you one man in ten thousand" Sucks.
This article is spot on and reflects Karl Marx's analysis regarding the economic base informing
and determining the superstructure of a given society, that is, its social, cultural aspects.
A neo-liberal, monetarist economy will shape and influence social and work relationships in ways
that are not beneficial for the many but as the commentator states, will benefit those possessed
of certain thrusting,domineering character traits. The common use of the word "loser" in contemporary
society to describe those who haven't "succeeded" financially is in itself telling.
It would be the perfect first chapter (foreword/introduction) in a best seller that goes on,
chapter by chapter, to show that neoliberalism destroys everything it touches:
Personal relationships;
trust;
personal integrity;
trust;
relationships;
trust;
transactions and trade;
trust;
market systems;
trust;
communities;
trust;
political relationships;
trust;
James Meek seems to have nailed it in his recent book, where he pointed out that the socially
conservative Thatcher, who wanted a society based on good old fashioned values, helped to create
the precise opposite with her enthusiasm for the neoliberal model. Now we are sinking into a dog-eat-dog
dystopia.
Many of the good old fashioned conservatives had time honoured values. They believed in taking
care of yourself but they also believed in integrity and honesty. They believed in living modestly
and would save much of their money rather than just spend it, and so would put some aside for
a rainy day. They believed in the community and were often active about local issues. They cared
about the countryside and the wildlife. They often recycled which went along with their thriftiness
and hatred of waste.
This all vanished when Thatcher came in with her selfish 'greed is good' brigade. Loads of
money!
We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage
of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can
do all these things because they no longer have any significance –
Capitalist alienation is a daily practise. The daily practise of competing with and using people.
This gives rise to the ideology that society and other people are but a means to an end rather
than an end in themselves that is of course when they are not a frightening a existential competitive
threat. Contempt and fear. That is what we are reduced to by the buying and selling of labour
power and yes, only a psychopath can thrive under such conditions.
According to the left if your only ambition is to watch Jeremy Kyle, pick up a welfare cheque
once a week and vote for which ever party will promise to give you £10 a week more in welfare:
you're an almost saint like figure.
If you actually do something to try to create a better and more independent life for yourself,
your family and your community: you're "displaying psychopathic tendencies" .
If you actually do something to try to create a better and more independent life for yourself,
your family and your community: you're "displaying psychopathic tendencies".
So how do you create a better community ?
By paying your taxes on your wealth that so many of you try to avoid. Here lies the crux of
the matter. There would be no deficit if taxes were paid.
Some of the rich are so psychpathic they think jsut because they employ people they shouldn't
pay any tax. They think the employees should pay thier tax for them.
Why has tax become such a dirty word ? Think about it before you answer.
The conclusion is for me is that it is a brilliant economic model. It is the sheer apathy of
the voters and that they are cowards because they don't make it work for them. They allow the
people who own the theory to run it for themselves and thus they get all the benefits from it.
I'll try and explain.
Their business plan.
The truth is neoliberalism has infact made the rich western countries poorer and helped so
many other poorer countries around the world get richer. Let's face facts here giving to charities
would never have achieved this and something needed to be done to even up this world inequality.
The only way you are ever going to achieve world peace is if everybody is equal. It's not by chance
this theory was introduced by America. They are trying to bring that equality to everyone so that
world peace can be achieved. How many more illegal wars and deaths this will take and for how
long nobody knows. They are also very sinister and selfish and greedy because if the Americans
do achieve what they are trying to do. They will own and countrol the world via washington and
the dollar. The way the Americans see it is that the inequality created within each country is
a bribe to each power structure within that country which helps America achieve it's long term
goals. It creates inequality within each country but at the same time creates equality on the
world stage. It might take 100 years to achieve and millions of deaths but eventually every country
will be another state of America and look and act like any American state. Once that is achieved
world peace will follow. America see it as a war and they also see millions of deaths as acceptable
to achieve their end game. I of course disagree there must be a better way. How will history look
at this dark period in history in 300 years time if it does achieve world peace in 150 years time
?
In each country neoliberalism works but at the moment it only works for the few because the
voters allow it. The voters allow them to get away with it through submission. They've allowed
their parliaments to be taken over without a fight and allowed their brains to be brainwashed
by the media controlled by the few. Which means the the whole story of neoliberalism has been
skewed into a very narrow view which always suits and promotes the voices of the few.
Why did the voters allow that to happen ?
Their biggest success the few had over the many was to create an illusion that made tax a toxic
word. They attacked tax with everything they had to form an illusion in the voters minds that
paying tax was a bad thing and it was everybodys enemy. Then they passed laws to enhance that
view and trotted out scare stories around tax and that if they had to pay it then everybody would
leave that country. They created a world set up for them and ulitimately destroyed any chance
at all, for the success of neoliberalism to be shared by the many. This was their biggest success
to make sure the wealth of neoliberalism stayed with them.
As the author of this piece says quite clearly. "An economic system that rewards psychopathic
personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities"
One of these traits is that they believe they shouldn't pay tax because they are creating jobs
and the tax their employees pay should be the amount of tax these companies pay. Again this makes
sure that the wealth is not shared.
Since they now own and control parliaments they also use the state to pay these wages in the
way of tax credits and subsidies and grants as they refuse to pay their employees a living wage.
It is our taxes they use to do this. Again this is to make sure that the wealth is not shared.
There are too many examples to list of how they make sure that the wealth generated by neoliberalism
is not shared. Then surely it is up to the voters to make sure it does. Neoliberalism works and
it would work for everybody if the voters would just grow a set of balls. Tax avoidance was the
battle that won the war for the few. It is time the voters revisited that battle and re write
it so that the outcome was that the many won not just the few. For example there would be no deficit
if the many had won that battle. Of course they wouldn't have left a market of 60 million people
with money in their pockets, it would have been business suicide.
This is a great example of how they created an illusion, a false culture, a world that does
not exist. The focus is all on the deficit and how to fix it, as they socialise the losses and
privatise the profits. There is no eyes or light shed on why there is a deficit due to tax avoidance.
It's time we changed that and made Neoliberlaism work for us. If we don't then we can't complain
when it only works for the few.
Neoliberlaism works. It's about time we owned it for ourselves. Otherwise we'll always be slaves
to it. It's not the theory that is corrupt it is the people who own it.
There is no eyes or light shed on why there is a deficit due to tax avoidance.
... or because politicians have discovered that you can buy votes by giving handouts even to
those who don't need them, thereby making everyone dependent on the largesse of the state and,
by extension, promoting the interests of the most irresponsible politicians and the bureaucracies
they represent.
You seem to regard what you call neoliberalism as a creator of wealth. You then claim that the
reason for this wealth accruing almost entirely to an elite few is the "the voters" have prevented
neoliberalism from distributing the wealth more equitably.
I can't really follow the logic of your argument.
Neoliberalism seems to be working perfectly for those few who are in a position to exploit
it. It's doing what it's designed to do.
I agree that the ignorance of "the voters" is allowing the elite to get away with it. But the
voters should be voting for those who propose an alternative economic model. Unfortunately, in
the western world at the present time, they have no viable alternative to vote for, because the
neoliberals have captured all of the mainstream political parties and institutions.
However, you missed one of the main points. Our parliament has been taken over by the few.
One man used to and probably still does strike fear into the government. Murdoch. Problem is
there are millions like him that lobby and control policy and the media.
..."There are regulations about everything,"... Yes, but higher up the scale you go, the less
this regulation is enforced, less individual accountability and less transparency. Neoliberalism
has turned society on its head. We see ever growing corporate socialism subsidising the top 1%
and heavily regulated hard nosed market capitalism for the rest of us resulting in massive inequality
in wealth distribution. This inequality by design makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. We've
created a society where people who were once valued as an individual part of that society are
now treated as surplus to requirements and somehow need to be eliminated.
They're mostly tight g*ts who refuse to pay to use the Mail/Telegraph sites. This is just about
the last free forum left now and it's attracting all kinds of undesirables. The level of personal
insult has gone up enormously since they came here. Most of us traditional Ciffers don't bother
with many posts here any more, it's too boring now.
Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is,
"make" something of ourselves.
That's always been the way, I think. It's life.
We are all of us the descendants of a million generations of successful organisms, human and pre-human.
The ones that didn't succeed fel by the wayside.
We're the ones left to tell the tale.
"... As disgusted and determined as we might be, we still have to operate within the 'neoliberal' system. We are all 'us' in this context and we are all a product of our environment to some extent. however crap that environment might be. ..."
"... Combined with offshoring of as many jobs abroad as possible, free movement of unskilled workers and the use of agency labour to undercut pay and conditions, the future looks bleak. ..."
"... There is nothing meritocratic about neoliberlaism. Its about who you know. ..."
"... I understand what you say, and there is definitely an element within society which values Success above all else, but I do not personally know anyone like that. ..."
"... .....By "us" of course, you mean commies. I think you are inadvertently demonstrating another of Hares psychopath test features; a lack of empathy and self awareness. ..."
"... I've worked in a few large private companies over the years, and my experience is they increasingly resemble some sort of cult, with endless brainwashing programmes for the 'members', charismatic leaders who can do no wrong, groupthink, mandatory utilisation of specialist jargon (especially cod-psychological terminology) to differentiate those 'in' and those 'out', increased blurring of the lines between 'private' and 'work' life (your ass belongs to us 24-7) and of course, constant, ever more complex monitoring of the 'members' for 'heretical thoughts or beliefs'. ..."
"... And the most striking idea here: Our characters are partly moulded by society. And neo-liberal society, and it's illusions of freedom, has moulded many of us in ways that bring out the worst in us. ..."
"... Neo-liberalism has however killed off post war social mobility. In fact according to the OECD report into social mobility, the more egalitarian a developed society is, the more social mobility there is, the more productivity and the less poverty and social problems there are. ..."
As disgusted and determined as we might be, we still have to operate within the 'neoliberal'
system. We are all 'us' in this context and we are all a product of our environment to some extent.
however crap that environment might be.
There are constant laments about the so-called loss of norms and values in our culture.
Yet our norms and values make up an integral and essential part of our identity. So they cannot
be lost, only chaned
If you have no mandate for such change, it breeds resentment.
For example, race & immigration was used by NuLabour in a blatant attempt at mass societal
engineering (via approx 8%+ increase in national population over 13 years).
It was the most significant betrayal in modern democratic times, non mandated change extraordinaire,
not only of British Society, but the core traditional voter base for Labour.
To see people still trying to deny it took place and dismiss the fallout of the cultural elephant
rampaging around the United Kingdom is as disingenuous as it is pathetic.
It's a race to the bottom, and has lead to such "success stories" as G4S, Serco, A4E, ATOS, Railtrack,
privatised railways, privatised water and so on.
It's all about to get even worse with TTIP, and if that fails there is always TISA which mandates
privatisation of pretty much everything - breaking state monopolies on public services.
Combined with offshoring of as many jobs abroad as possible, free movement of unskilled
workers and the use of agency labour to undercut pay and conditions, the future looks bleak.
A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort
and talents
There is nothing meritocratic about neoliberlaism. Its about who you know. In the
UK things have gone backwards almost to the 1950s. Changes which were brought about by the expansion
of universities have pretty much been reversed. The establishment - politics, media, business
is dominated by the better=off Oxbridge elite.
It is difficult for me to agree. I have grown up within Neoliberalism being 35, but you describe
no one I know. People I know weigh up the extra work involved in a promotion and decide whether
the sacrifice is worth the extra money/success.
People I know go after their dreams, whether that be farming or finance. I understand what
you say, and there is definitely an element within society which values Success above all else,
but I do not personally know anyone like that.
He's saying people's characters are changed by their environment. That they aren't set in stone,
but are a function of culture. And that the socio-cultural shift in the last few decades is a
bad thing, and is bad for our characters. In your words: The dreams have changed.
It's convincing, except it isn't as clear as it could be.
I understand his principle but as proof, he sites very specific examples...
A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism.
A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is
seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become
a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master's
degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?
This is used as an example to show the shifting mindset. But as I stated, this describes no
one I know. We, us, commenting here are society. I agree that there has been a shift in culture
and those reaping the biggest financial rewards are the greedy. But has that not always been the
way, the self interested have always walked away with the biggest slice, perhaps at the moment
that slice has become larger still, but most people still want to have a comfortable life, lived
their way. People haven't changed as much as the OP believes.
The great lie is that financial reward is success and happiness.
This is used as an example to show the shifting mindset. But as I stated, this describes
no one I know
Indeed even in the "sociopathic" world of fund management and investment banking, the vast
majority of people establish a balance for how they wish to manage their work and professional
lives and evaluate decisions in light of them both.
Indeed. How come G4S keep winning contracts despite their behaviour being incompetent and veering
on criminal, and the fact they are despised pretty much universally. Hardly a meritocracy.
You can add A4E to that list and now Capita who have recruited all of 61 part time soldiers
in their contract to replace all the thousands of sacked professionals
.....By "us" of course, you mean commies. I think you are inadvertently demonstrating another
of Hares psychopath test features; a lack of empathy and self awareness.
"Since the living standards of majority in this country are on a downward trend"
The oil's running out. Living standards, on average, will continue to decline until either
it stops running out or fusion power turns out to work after all.
Whether you have capitalism or socialism won't make any difference to the declining energy
input.
I'm sure I read an article in the 80s predicting what the author has written. Economics and cultural
environment is bound to have an effect on behaviour. We now live in a society that worships at
the altar of the cult of the individual. Society and growth of poverty no longer matters, a lone
success story proves all those people falling into poverty are lazy good for nothing parasites.
The political class claims to be impotent when it comes to making a fairer society because the
political class is made up of people who were affluent in the first place or benefited from a
neo-liberal rigged economy. The claim is, anything to do with a fair society is social engineering
and bound to fail. Well, neo-liberal Britain was socially engineered and it is failing the majority
of people in the country.
There is a cognitive dissonance going on in the political narrative of neo-liberalism, not
everyone can make it in a neo-liberal society and since neo-liberalism destroys social mobility.
Ironically, the height of social mobility in the west, from the gradual rise through the 50s and
60s, was the 70s. The 80s started the the downward trend in social mobility despite all the bribes
that went along with introducing the property owning democracy, which was really about chaining
people to capitalism.
I'm sure I read an article in the 80s predicting what the author has written.
Well, a transformation of human character was the open battle-cry of 1980s proponents of neoliberalism.
Helmut Kohl, the German prime minister, called it the "geistig-moralische Wende", the "spiritual
and moral sea-change" - I think people just misunderstood what he meant by that, and laughed at
what they saw as empty sloganeering. Now we're reaping what his generation sowed.
OK, now can you tell us why individual freedom is such a bad thing?
The previous period of liberal economics ended a century ago, destroyed by the war whose outbreak
we are interminably celebrating. That war and the one that followed a generation later brought
in strict government control, even down to what people could eat and wear. Orwell's dystopia of
1984 actually describes Britain's wartime society continuing long after the real wars had ended.
It was the slow pace of lifting wartime controls, even slower in Eastern Europe, and the lingering
mindset that economies and societies could be directed for "the greater good" no matter what individual
costs there were that led to a revival of liberal economics.
Neoliberalism is a mere offshoot of Neofeudalism. Labour and Capital - those elements of both
not irretrievably bought-out - must demand the return of The Commons . We must extend our
analysis back over centuries , not decades - let's strike to the heart of the matter!
Collectivist ideologies including Fascism, Communism and theocracy are all similar to feudalism.
I've worked in a few large private companies over the years, and my experience is they
increasingly resemble some sort of cult, with endless brainwashing programmes for the 'members',
charismatic leaders who can do no wrong, groupthink, mandatory utilisation of specialist jargon
(especially cod-psychological terminology) to differentiate those 'in' and those 'out', increased
blurring of the lines between 'private' and 'work' life (your ass belongs to us 24-7) and of course,
constant, ever more complex monitoring of the 'members' for 'heretical thoughts or beliefs'.
'Collectivism' is not as incompatible with capitalism as you seem to think.
You sound like one of those 'libertarians'. Frankly, I think the ideals of such are only realisable
as a sole trader, or operating in a very small business.
Progress is restricted because the people are made poor by the predations of the state
Neoliberalism is firmly committed to individual liberty, and therefore to peace and mutual
toleration
It is firmly committed to ensuring that the boundaries between private and public entities
become blurred, with all the ensuing corruption that entails. In other words, that the state becomes
(through the taxpayers) a captured one, delivering a never ending, always growing, revenue stream
for favoured players in private enterprise. This is, of course, deliberate. 'Individual liberties
and mutual toleration' are only important insomuch as they improve, or detract, from profit-centre
activity.
You have difficulty in separating propaganda from reality, but you're barely alone in this.
Lastly, you also misunderstand feudalism, which in the European context, flourished before
there was a developed concept of a centralised nation state, indeed, the most classic examples
occurred after the decentralisation of an empire or suchlike. The primary feudal relation
was between the bondsman/peasant and his local magnate, who in turn, was subject to his liege.
In other words a warrior class bound by vassalage to a nobility, with the peasantry bound by
manorialism and to the estates of the Church.
Apart from that though, you're right on everything.
I completely agree with the general sentiment.
The specifics aren't that solid though:
- That we think our characters are independent of context/society: I certainly don't.
- That statement about "bullying is more widespread" - lacks justification.
The general theme of "meritocracy is a fiction" is compelling though.
As is "We are free-er in many ways because those ways no longer have any significance"
.
And the most striking idea here: Our characters are partly moulded by society. And neo-liberal
society, and it's illusions of freedom, has moulded many of us in ways that bring out the worst
in us.
The Rat Race is a joke. Too many people waste their lives away playing the capitalist game. As
long as you've got enough money to keep living you can be happy. Just ignore the pathetic willy-wavers
with their flashy cars and logos on their shirts and all that guff
All we need is "enough" - Posession isn't that interesting. More a doorway to doing interesting
stuff.
I prefer to cut out the posession and go straight to "do interesting stuff" myself. As long as
the rent gets paid and so on, obviously.
Doesn't always work, obviously, but I reckon not wanting stuff is a good start to the good
life (ref. to series with Felicity Kendall (and some others) intended :)
That, and Epicurus who I keep mentioning on CIF.
Rather naive. History is full of brilliant individuals who made it. Neo-liberalism has however
killed off post war social mobility. In fact according to the OECD report into social mobility,
the more egalitarian a developed society is, the more social mobility there is, the more productivity
and the less poverty and social problems there are.
I agree - the central dilemma is that neither individualism nor collectiviism works.
But is this dilemma real? Is there a third system? Yes there is - Henry George.
George's paradigm in nothing funky, it is simply Classical Liberal Economics - society works
best when individuals get to keep the fruits of thier labour, but pay rent for the use of The
Commons.
At present we have the opposite - labour and capital are taxed heavily and The commons are monopolised
by the 1%.
Hence unemployment
Hence the wealth gap
Hence the environmental crisis
Hence poverty
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
So the values and morals that people have are so wafer thin that a variation in the political
system governing them can strip them away? Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion
of humanity?
"Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion of humanity?"
Open your eyes and take a lokk at the world. There is enough wealth in the world for everyone
to live free from poverty. Yet, the powerful look after themselves and allow poverty to not only
exist but spread.
>If you've ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither
no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. "The City of
London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted
to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people.
Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds
…".<
I agree with much of this. Working in the NHS, as a clinical psychologist, over the past 25 years,
I have seen a huge shift in the behaviour of managers who used to be valued for their support
and nurturing of talent, but now are recognised for their brutal and aggressive approach to those
beneath them. Reorganisations of services, which take place with depressing frequency, provide
opportunities to clear out the older, experienced members of the profession who would have acted
as mentors and teachers to the less experienced staff.
I worked in local authority social care, I can certainly see the very close similarities to what
you describe in the NHS, and my experience in the local authority.
I can well imagine there are big similarities. Friends of mine who work in education say the same
- there is a complete mismatch between the aims of the directors/managers and that of the professionals
actually providing the teaching/therapy/advice to the public. When I go to senior meetings it
is very rare that patients are even mentioned.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.
This is an incredibly broad generalisation. I remember my grandfather telling me about what
went on in the mills he worked in in Glasgow before the war, it sounded like a pretty savage environment
if you didn't fit in. It wasn't called bullying, of course.
I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality
traits and penalises others.
Isn't this true of pretty much any system? And human relationships in general? I cannot think
of a system that is completely blind to the differences between people. If you happen to be lazy
or have a problem with authority you will never do as "well" (for want of a better term).
I have always said to people who claim they are Liberals that you must support capitalism,the
free market,free trade, deregulation etc etc when most of them deny that, I always say you are
not a Liberal then you're just cherry-picking the [Liberal] policies you like and the ones you
don't like,which is dishonest.
There is nothing neo about Liberalism,it has been around since the 19th century[?].People have
been brainwashed in this country [and the USA] since the 1960's to say they are liberals for fear
of being accused of being fascists,which is quite another thing.
I have never supported any political ideology,which is what Liberalism is,and believe all of them
should be challenged.By doing so you can evolve policies which are fair and just and appropriate
to the issue at hand.
Neoliberalism has only benefited a minority. Usually those with well connected and wealthy families.
And of course those who have no hesitation to exploit other's.
In my view, it is characterized by corruption, exploitation and a total lack of social justice.
Economically, the whole system is fully dependent on competition not co-operation. One day, the
consequences of this total failure will end in violence.
One day, the consequences of this total failure will end in violence.
And if we keep consuming all our resources on this finite planet in pursuit of profit and more
profit there will be no human race we will all be extinct.,and all that will be left is an exhausted
polluted planet that once harbored a vast variety of life.
Isent neolibral capitalism great.
As Marx so often claimed, values, ethics, morality and behaviours are themselves determined by
the economic and monetary system under which people live. Stealing is permitted if you are a banker
and call it a bonus or interest, murder is permitted if your government sends you to war, surveillance
and data mining is permitted if your state tells you there is a danger from terrorists, crime
is overlooked if it makes money for the perpetrator, benefit claimants are justified if they belong
to an aristocratic caste or political elite.......
There is no universal right or wrong, only that identified as such by the establishment at
that particular instance in history, and at that specific place on the planet. Outside that, they
have as much relevance today as scriptures instructing that slaves can be raped, adulterers can
be stoned or the hands of thieves amputated. Give me the crime and the punishment, and I will
give you the time and the place.
For a tiny elite sitting on the top everything has been going exactly as it was initially planned.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men
living together in Society, they create for themselves in the
course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a
moral code that glorifies it".
F. Bastiat.
Excellent article.
I'm amazed that more isn't made of the relationship between political environment/systems and
their effect on the individual. Oliver James Affluenza makes a compelling case for the unhappiness
outputs of societies who've embraced neo liberalism yet we still blindly pursue it.
The US has long been world leader in both the demand and supply of psychotherapy and the relentless
pursuit of free market economics. these stats are not unconnected.
I once had a colleague with the knack of slipping into his conversation complimentary remarks
that other people had made about him. It wasn't the only reason for his rapid ascent to great
heights, but perhaps it helped.
That's one of my favourite characteristics of David Brent from 'The Office'. "You're all looking
at me, you're going, "Well yeah, you're a success, you've achieved you're goals, you're reaping
the rewards, sure. But, OI, Brent. Is all you care about chasing the Yankee dollar?"
Neoliberalism is another Social Darwinist driven philosophy popularised after leading figures
of our times (or rather former times) decided Malthus was probably correct.
So here we have it, serious growth in population, possibly unsustainable, and a growing 'weak
will perish, strong will survive' mentality. The worst thing is I used to believe in neoliberal
policies, until of course I understood the long term ramifications.
And the reality is that "neoliberalism" has, in the last few decades, freed hundreds of millions
in the developing word from a subsistence living to something resembling a middle class lifestyle.
This has resulted in both plummeting global poverty statistics and in greatly reduced fecundity,
so that we will likely see a leveling off of global population in the next few decades. And this
slowing down of population growth is the most critical thing we could for increasing sustainability.
The problem is a judeo-christian idea of "free choice" when experiments, undertaken by Benjamin
Libet and since, indicate that it is near to unlikely for there to be volitionally controlled
conscious decisions.
If we are not even free to intend and control our decisions, thoughts and ambitions, how can
anyone claim to be morally entitled to ownership of their property and have a 'right' to anything
as a reward for what decisions they made? Happening is pure luck: meaningful [intended] responsibility
and accountability cannot be claimed for decisions and actions and so entitlement cannot be claimed
for what acquisitions are causally obtained from those decisions and actions.There is no 'just
desserts' or decision-derived entitlement justification for wealth and owning property unless
the justifier has a superstitious and scientifically unfounded belief in free choice.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace
Compared to say, that experienced by domestic staff in big houses, small children in factories,
perhaps even amongst miners, dockers and steel workers in the halcyon days of the post-war decade
when apparently everything was rosy?
This whole article is a hodge podge of anecdote and flawed observations designed to shoehorn
behaviour into a pattern that supports an economic hypothesis - it is factually groundless.
Compared to say, that experienced by domestic staff in big houses, small children in factories
Yes, but if it was left to people like you, children would still be working in factories. So
please do not take credit for improvements that you would fight tooth and nail against
perhaps even amongst miners, dockers and steel workers in the halcyon days of the post-war
decade when apparently everything was rosy?
They had wages coming to them and didn't need to rely on housing benefit to keep a roof over
their head. Now people like you bitterly complain about poorly paid workers getting benefits to
sustain them.
People who "work hard and play hard" are nearly always kidding themselves about the second bit.
It seems to me that the trend in the world of neoliberalism is to think that "playing hard"
is defined as "playing with expensive, branded toys" during your two week annual holiday.
'Playing hard' in the careerist lexicon = getting blind drunk to mollify the feelings of despair
and emptiness which typify a hollow, debt-soaked life defined by motor cars and houses.
The "Max Factor" life. Selfishness and Greed. The compaction of life. Was it not in a scripture
in text?. The Bible. We as humans and followers of "Faith" in christian beliefs and the culture
of love they fellow man. The culture of words are a root to all "Evil. Depending on "Who's" the
Author and Scrolling the words; and for what reason?. The only way we can save what is left on
this planet and save man kind. Is eradicate the above "Selfishness and Greed" ?
We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage
of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can
do all these things because they no longer have any significance – freedom of this kind is
prompted by indifference.
These changes listed (and then casually dismissed) are monumental social achievements. Many
countries in the world do not permit their 'citizens' such freedom of choice and I for one am
very grateful to live in a country where these things are possible.
Of course there is much more to be done. But I would suggest that to be born in Western Europe
today is probably about as safe, comfortable, and free than at any time and any place in human
history. I'm not being complacent about what we still have to achieve. But we won't achieve anything
if we take such a flippant attitude towards all the amazing things that have been bequeathed to
us.
Excellent observation, it's the same way that technology that has quite clearly changed our lives
and given us access to information, opportunity to travel and entertainment that would have been
beyond the comprehension of our grandparents is dismissed as irrelevant because its just a smart
phone and a not a job for life in a British Leyland factory.
It takes a peculairly spoilt and arrogant Westerner to claim that the freedom to criticise religion
isn't significant or that we're only allowed to do so because it's no longer important. Tell that
to a girl seeking to escape an arranged marriage in Bradford...
OK. Now off you go and apply the same methodology to people living in statist societies, or just
have a go at our own civil service or local government workers. Try social workers or the benefits
agency or the police.
The author makes some good points, although I wouldn't necessarily call our system a meritocracy.
I guess the key one is how unaware we are about the influence of economic policy on our values.
This kind of systems hurts everyday people and rewards psychopaths, and is damaging to society
as a whole over the long term.
Targetising everything is really insidious.
That neoliberalism puts tremendous pressure on individuals to conform to materialistic norms is
undeniable, but for a psychotherapist to disallow the choice of those individuals to nevertheless
choose how to live is an admission of failure.
In fact, many people today experience the shallowness and corrupt character of market society
and elect either to be in it, but not of it, or to opt out early having made enough money, often
making a conscious choice to relinquish the 'trappings' in return for a more meaningful existence.
Some do selfless service to their fellow human beings, to the environment or both, and thereby
find a degree of fulfillment that they always wanted.
To surrender to the external demands of a superficial and corrupting life is to ignore the
tremendous opportunity human life offers to all: self realization.
It's not either-or, system or individual, but some combination of the two.
Decision making may be 80% structure and 20% individual choice for the mainstream - or maybe the
other way round for the rebels amongst us that try to reject the system.
The theory of structuration (Giddens) provides one explanation of how social systems develop
through the interactions between the system and actors in it.
I partly agree with you but I think examples of complete self realisation are extremely rare.
That means stepping completely out of the system and out of our own personality. Neither this
nor that.
The point is that the individual has the choice to move in the right direction. When and if they
do make a decision to change their life, it will be fulfilling for them and for the system.
Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is,
"make" something of ourselves. You don't need to look far for examples. A highly skilled individual
who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person with a good job who
turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy – unless those
other things ensure success.
I have been in the private sector for generations, and know tons of people who have behaved
precisely as described above. I don't know anyone who calls them crazy. In fact, I see the exact
opposite tendency - the growing acceptance that money isn't everything, and that once one has
achieved a certain level of success and financial security that it is fine to put other priorities
first rather than simply trying to acquire ever more.
The ATL article is rather stuffed full of stereotypes.
And speaking personally, I have turned down two offers of promotion to a management position
in the last ten years and neither time did I get the sense people thought I was crazy. They might
have done if I were in my late twenties rather than mid-fifties but that does reinforce the notion
that people - even bosses - can accept that there is more to life than a career.
I agree about the stereotypes. Also, has anyone ever seriously advised a primary school teacher
that they need a masters degree of economics?! I highly doubt that that is the norm!
I hate to break it to you but no matter how you organise society the nasty people get to the
top and the nice people end up doing all the work. "Neo-liberalism" is no different.
Or you could put it another way - 'neoliberalism' is the least worst economic/social system, because
most people are far more powerless and far more worse off under any other system that has ever
been developed by man...
For a start you need a system that is not based on rewarding and encouraging the worst aspects
of our characters. I try to encourage my kids not to be greedy, to be honest and to care about
others but in this day and age it's an uphill struggle.
"A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and
talents, meaning responsibility lies entirely with the individual and authorities should give
people as much freedom as possible to achieve this goal."
In the UK we have nothing like a meritocracy with a privately educated elite.
Success and failure are just about parental wealth.
"So the values and morals that people have are so wafer thin that a variation in the political
system governing them can strip them away? Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion
of humanity?"
RidleyWalker, I can assue you that it is not the left but the right who consistently have a
low opinion of humanity. Anyway, what has left and right got to do with this? There are millions
of ordinary decent people whose lives are blighted by the obscentity that is neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism
is designed to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor. Neo-liberalism is responsible
for the misery for millions across the globe. The only happy ones are those at the top of the
heap...until even their bloated selfish world inevitably implodes.
Of course these disgusting parasites are primitive thinkers and cannot see that we could have
a better, happier world for everyone if societies become more equal. Studies demonstrate that
more equal societies are more stable and content than those with ever-widening gaps in wealth
between rich and poor.
Neoliberalism...disgusting parasites...primitive thinkers...misery of millions...bloated selfish
world
This reads like a Soviet pamphlet from the 1930's. Granted you've replaced the word 'capitalism'
with 'neoliberalism' - in other words subsstituted one meaningless abstraction for another. It
wasn't true then and it certainly isnt true now...
Not sure why you think all this is new or attributable to neoliberalism. Things were much the
same in the 1960's and 1970's. All that has changed is that instead of working on assembly lines
in factories under the watchful gaze of a foreman we now have university degrees and sit in cubicles
pressing buttons on keyboards. Micromanagement, bureaucracy, rules and regulations are as old
as the hills. Office politics has replaced shop floor politics; the rich are still rich and the
poor are still poor.
Well, except that people have more money, live longer and have more opportunities in life than
before - most people anyway. The ones left behind are the ones we need to worry about
Not sure why you think all this is new or attributable to neoliberalism. Things were much
the same in the 1960's and 1970's.
And you can read far more excoriating critiques of our shallow materialistic capitalism, culture
from those decades, now recast as some sort of prelapsarian Golden Age.
Actually, the 1929 crash was not the first by any means. The boom and bust cycle of modern economics
goes back a lot further. When my grandparents talked about the "Great Depression" they were referring
to the 1890's.
The nineteenth century saw major financial crises in almost every decade, 1825, 1837, 1847, 1857,
1866 before we even get to the Great Depression of 1873-96.
Socialism seems to be happy home of corruption & nepotism. The old saw that Tory MP's are brought
down by sex scandals whilst Labour MP's have issues with money still holds.
Why is that relevant? This is a critique of neo liberalism and it is a very accurate one at that.
It isn't suggesting that Socialism is better or even offers an alternative, just that neo liberalism
has failed society and explores some of how and why.
The main problem is that neoliberalism is a faith dressed up as a science and any evidence that
disproves the hypothesis (e.g. the 2008 financial collapse) only helps to reinforce the faith
of the fundamentalists supporting it.
The reason why "neoliberalism" is so successful is precisely because the evidence shows it does
work. It has not escaped peoples' notice that nations where governments heavily curtail individual
and commercial freedom are often rather wretched places to live.
It would be nice to curtail coprorate freedom without curtailing the freedom of individuals. I
don't see how that might work.
"hubris over free markets" might well be it.
But I might be understanding that in a different way from you. People were making irrational decisions
that didn't seem to take on basic logic of a free market, or even common sense. Such as "where
is all this money coming from" (madoff, house ladder), "of course this will work" (fred goodwin
and his takeovers) and even "will i get my money back" (sub-prime lending).
So why don't we do something about it....genuinely? There appears to be no power left in voting
unless people are given an actual choice....Is it not time then to to provide a well grounded
articulate choice? The research, in many different disciplines, is already out there.
What can we do? It appears we are stuck between the Labour party and the Conservatives. Is it
even possible for another party to come to power with the next couple of elections?
The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the paradox of our era as: "Never have
we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed freer than before, in the
sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex
and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer
have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference. Yet, on the other
hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a bureaucracy that would make Kafka
weak at the knees. There are regulations about everything, from the salt content of bread to
urban poultry-keeping.
Verhaeghe begins by criticizing free markets and "neo-liberalism", but ends by criticizing
the huge, stifling government bureaucracy that endeavours to micro-manage every aspect of its
citizens lives, and is the opposite of true classic liberalism.
probably not as confusing as it seems to be for you.
this is just the difference between neoliberalism in theory and in practise.
like the "real existierende sozialismus" in eastern germany fell somewhat short of the brilliant
utopia of the theorists.
verhaeghe does not criticise the theoretical model, but the practical outcome. And the worst governmant
and corporate bureaucracy that mankind has ever seen is part of it. The result of 30+ years of
neoliberal policies.
In my experience this buerocracy is gets worse in anglo saxon countries closest to the singularity
at the bottom of the neolib black hole.
I am aware that this is only a correlation, but correlations, while they do not prove causation,
still require explanation.
Some time ago, and perhaps still, it was/is fashionable for Toryish persons to denigrate the 1960s.
I look back to that decade with much nostalgia. Nearly everyone had a job of sorts, not terribly
well paid but at least it was a job. And now? You are compelled to toil your guts out, kiss somebody's
backside, run up unpayable debts - and, in the UK, live in a house that in many other countries
would have been demolished decades ago. Scarcely a day passes when I am not partly disgusted at
what has overtaken my beloved country.
An excellent article! The culture of the 80's has ruled for too long and its damage done.... its
down to our youth to start to shape things now and I think that's beginning to happen.
Neo-Liberalism as operated today. "Greed is Good" and senior bankers and those who sell and buy
money, commodities etc; are diven by this trait of humankind.
But we, the People are just as guilty with our drives for 'More'. More over everything, even
shopping at the supermarket - "Buy one & get ten free", must have.
Designer ;bling;, clothes, shoes, bags, I-Pads etc etc, etc. It is never ending. People seem
to be scared that they haven't got what next has, and next will think that they are 'Not Cool'.
We, the people should be satisfied with what have got, NOT what what we havn't got.
Those who "want" (masses of material goods) usually "Dont get!"
The current system is unsustainable as the World' population rises and rises. Nature (Gaia)
will take care of this through disease, famine, and of course the stupidity of Humankind - wars,
destruction and general stupidity.
What's a meritocracy? Oh, that's right - a fable that people who have a lot of money deserve it
somehow because they're so much better than the people who work for a living.
The world was an even nastier place before the current era. During the 1970s and early 1980s there
was huge inflation which robbed people of their saving, high unemployment, and (shudder) Disco.
People tend to view the past with rose-coloured glasses.
What neoliberalism? We've got a mixed economy, which seemingly upsets both those on the right
who wish to cut back the state and those on the left who'd bolster it.
I work in a law firm specialising in M&A, hardly the cuddliest of environments, but I recognise
almost nothing here as a description of my work place. Sure, some people are wankers but that's
true everywhere.
FDR, the Antichrist of the American Right, famously said that the only thing we have to fear is
fear itself. And here we are with this ideology which in many ways stokes the fear. The one thing
these bastards don't want most of us to feel is secure.
There is no "free market" anywhere. That is a fantasy. It is a term used when corporations want
to complain about regulations. What we have in most industrialized countries is corporate socialism
wherein corporations get to internalize profits and externalize costs and losses. It has killed
of our economies and our middle class.
Socialism or barbarism -- a starker choice today than when the phrase was coined.
So long, at least, as we have an evolved notion of what socialism entails. Which means, please,
not the state capitalism + benign paternalism that it's unfortunately come to mean for
most people, in the course of its parasitical relationship with capitalism proper, and so with
all capitalism's inventions (the 'nation', the modern bureaucracy, ever-more-efficient exploitation
to cumulatively alienating ends......)
It's just as unfortunate, in this light, that the term 'self-management' has been appropriated
by the ideologues of pseudo-meritocracy, in just the way the article describes..
Because it's also a term (from the French autogestion) used to describe what I'd argue is the
most nuanced and sophisticated collectivist alternative to capitalism -- an alternative that is
at one and the same time a rejection of capitalism.... and of the central role of the state
and 'nation' (that phony, illusory community that plays a more central role in empowering the
modern state than does its monopoly on violence)... and of the ideology of growth, and
of the ideal of monolithic, ruthlessly efficient economic totalities organised to this end....
It's a rejection, in other words, of all those things contemplation of which reminds us just
how little fundamental difference there is between capitalism and the system cobbled together
on the fly by the Bolsheviks -- same vertical organisation to the ends of the same exploitation,
same exploitation to the ends of expanding the scope and scale of vertical organisation, all of
it with the same destructive effects on the sociabilities of everyday life....
Self-management in this sense goes beyond 'workers control'; (I'd argue that) it envisions
a society in which most aspects of life have been cut free from the ties that bind people
vertically to sources of influence and control, however they're constituted (private and public
bureaucracies, market pressures, the illusory narratives of nation, mass media and commodity...).
The horizontal ties of workplace and local community would thus be constitutive, by default,
and society as a whole would become very little more than the sum of its parts -- mutating on
a molecular local level as people collectively and democratically decided, in circumstances that
actually granted them the power to do so, how to balance the conflicting needs and desires and
necessities that a complex society and a complex division of labour present. 'Balance' because
there really isn't any prospect of a utopian resolution of these conflicts -- they come with civilisation
-- or with barbarism, for than matter, in any of its modern incarnations.
What about those who disagree with such a radical reordering of society? How would the collective
deal with those who wished to exploit it?
I'm genuinely interested, beats working...
The horizontal ties of workplace and local community would thus be constitutive, by default,
and society as a whole would become very little more than the sum of its parts -- mutating
on a molecular local level as people collectively and democratically decided, in circumstances
that actually granted them the power to do so, how to balance the conflicting needs and desires
and necessities that a complex society and a complex division of labour present.
Why do socialists so often resort to such turgid, impenetrable prose? Could it be an attempt
to mask the vacuity of their position?
I read this article skeptically, but then realised how accurately he described my workplace. Most
people I know on the outside have nice middle class lives, but underneath it suffer from anxiety,
about 1 not putting enough into their careers 2 not spending enough time with their kids. When
I decided to cut my work hours in half when I had a child, 2 of my colleagues were genuinely concerned
for me over things like, I might be let go, how would I cope with the drop in money, I was cutting
my chances of promotion, how would it look in a review. The level of anxiety was frightening.
People on the forum seem to be criticizing what they see as the authors flippant attitude to
sexual freedom and lack of religious hold, but I see the authors point, what good are these freedoms
when we are stuck in the stranglehold of no job security and huge mortgage debt. Yes you can have
a quick shag with whoever you want and don't need to answer to anyone over it on a Sunday, but
come Monday morning its back to the the ever sharpening grindstone.
This reminds me of the world I started to work in in 1955. I accept that by 1985 it was ten times
worse and by the time I retired in 2002, after 47 years, I was very glad to have what I called
"survived". At its worst was the increasing difference between the knowledge base of "the boss"
when technology started to kick in. I was called into the boss's office once to be criticised
for the length of a report. It had a two page summery of the issue and options for resolving the
problem. I very meekly inquired if he had decided on any of the options to resolve the problem.
What options are you talking about? was his response, which told me that either he had not read
the report or did not understand the problem. This was the least of my problems as I later had
to spend two days in his office explaining the analysis we (I) were submitting to the Board.
A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism.
A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is
seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become
a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master's
degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?
Speak for yourself.
The current economic situation affects each of us as much as we allow it to. Some may well love
neo-liberalism and the concomitant dog eat dog attitude, but there are some of us who regard it
as little more than a culture of self-enrichment through lies and aggression. I see it as such,
and want nothing to do with it.
If you live by money and power, you'll die by money and power. I prefer to live and work with
consensus and co-operation.
I'll never be rich, but I'll never have many enemies.
Hedge-fund and private-equity managers, investment bankers, corporate lawyers, management consultants,
high-frequency traders, and top lobbyists.They're getting paid vast sums for their labors. Yet
it seems doubtful that society is really that much better off because of what they do. They play
zero-sum games that take money out of one set of pockets and put it into another. They demand
ever more cunning innovations but they create no social value. High-frequency traders who win
by a thousandth of a second can reap a fortune, but society as a whole is no better off. the games
consume the energies of loads of talented people who might otherwise be making real contributions
to society - if not by tending to human needs or enriching our culture then by curing diseases
or devising new technological breakthroughs, or helping solve some of our most intractable social
problems. Robert Reich said this and I am compelled to agree with him!
Brilliant article. It is not going to change anything, of course, because majority of people of
this planet would cooperate with just about any psychopath clever enough not to take away from
them that last bit of stinking warm mud to wallow in.
Proof? Read history books and take a look around you. We are the dumbest animals on Earth.
Rubbish. We are the most intelligent and successful creature that this planet has ever seen. We
have become capable of transforming it, leaving it and destroying it.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.
I started work nearly 40 years ago and there were always some bullies in the workplace. Maybe
there are more now, I don't know but I suspect it is more widely reported now. Workplace bullies
were something of a given when I started work and it was an accepted part of the working environment.
Be careful about re-inventing history to suit your own arguments.
I'm surprised the normalization of debt was not mentioned. If you are debt free you have more
chance of making decisions that don't fit into the model.
So what do we do now, we train nearly 50% of our young that having large amounts of debt is
perfectly normal. When I was a student I lived off the grant and had a much lower standard of
living than I can see students having now, but of course I had no debt when I graduated. I know
student debt is administered differently, I'm talking about the way we are training them to accept
debt of all sorts.
Same applies to consumerism inducing the 'I want it and I want it now', increases personal
debt, therefore forcing people to fit in, same applies to credit cards and lax personal lending.
Although occasionally there are economic questions about large amounts of personal debt, politically
high personal debt is ideal.
Not sure if you're in the sector, in large parts that's kind of how academia works?
This is also what's referred to in the trade as an opinion piece, where an author will be presenting
his views and substantiating them with reference to the researches of others.
There is no mystery to neoliberalism -- it is an economic system designed to benefit the 0.1%
and leave the rest of us neck deep in shit. That's why our children will be paying for the bankers'
bonuses to the day they die. Let's celebrate this new found freedom with all the rest of the Tory
lickspittle apologists. Yippee for moral bankruptcy -- three cheers!
The Simple Summary is the state/ royality used to hold all the power over the merchants and the
public for centuries. Bit by bit the merchants stripped that power away from royality, until eventually
the merchants have now taken over everybody. The merchants hold all the power now and they will
never give that up as there is nobody to take it from them. By owning the state the merchants
now have everything that go with it. The army, police and the laws and the media.
David Harvey puts it all under the microscope and explains in great detail how they've achieved
their end game over the last 40 years.
There are millions of economists and many economic theories in our universities. Unfortunately,
the merchants will only fund and advertise and support economic theories that further their power
and wealth.
As history shows time and time again it will be the public who rip this power from their hands.
If they don't give it up it is only a matter of time. The merchants may now own the army, the
police, the laws and the parliament. They'll need all of that and more if the public decide to
say enough is enough.
Bullying used to be confined to schools? Can't agree with that at all. Bullying is an ingrained
human tendency which manifests in many contexts, from school to work to military to politics to
matters of faith. It is only bad when abused, and can help to form self-confidence.
I am not sure what "neo" means but liberal economics is the basis of the Western economies
since the end of feudalism. Some countries have had periods of pronounced social democracy or
even socialism but most of western Europe has reverted to the capitalist model and much of the
former east bloc is turning to it. As others have noted in the CiF, this does not preclude social
policies designed to alleviate the unfair effects of the liberal economies.
But this ship has sailed in other words, the treaties which founded the EU make it clear the
system is based on Adam Smith-type free market thinking. (Short of leaving the EU I don't see
how that can be changed in its essentials).
Finally, socialist countries require much more conformity of individuals than capitalist ones.
So you have to look at the alternatives, which this article does not from what I could see.
To be honest I don't think Neoliberalism has made much of a difference in the UK where personal
responsibility has always been king. In the Victorian age people were quite happy to have people
staving to death on the streets and before that people's problems were usually seen as either
their own fault or an act of God (which would also be your own fault due to sin). If anything
we are kinder to strangers now, than we have been, but are slipping back into our old habits.
I think the best way to combat extreme liberalism is to be knowing about our culture and realise
that liberalism is something which is embedded in British culture and is not something imposed
on us from else where or by some -ism. It is strengthen not just by politics but also by language
and the way we deal with personal and social issues in our own lives. We also need to acknowledge
that we get both good and bad things out of living in a liberal society but that doesn't mean
we have to put up with the bad stuff. We can put measures in place to prevent the bad stuff and
still enjoy the positives even though some capitalists may throw their toys out of the pram.
Personal responsibility is EXACTLY what neoliberalism avoids, even as it advocates it with every
breath.
What it means is that you get as much responsibility as you can afford to foist onto someone
else, so a very wealthy person gets none at all. It's always someone else's fault.
Neoliberalism has actually undermined personal responsibility at every single step, delegating
it according to wealth or perceived worth.
If Liberalism is the mindset of the British how come we created the NHS, Legal Aid, universal
education and social security? These were massive achievements of a post war generation and about
as far removed from today's evil shyster politics as it is possible to be.
"Our society constantly proclaims that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough, all the
while reinforcing privilege and putting increasing pressure on its overstretched and exhausted
citizens"
What to people mean when they use the word "society" in this context?
When we stopped having jobs and had careers instead, the rot set in. A career is the promotion
of the self and a job the means to realise that goal at the expense of everyone else around you.
The description of psychopathic behaviour perfectly describes a former boss of mine (female).
I liked her but knew how dangerous she was. She went easy on me because she knew that I could
do the job that she would claim credit for.
The pressure and stress of, for example open plan offices and evaluation reports are all part
of the conscious effort on behalf of employers to ensure compliance with this poisonous attitude.
The greatest promoter of this philosophy is the Media, step forward Evan Davies, the slobbering
lap dog of the rich and powerful.
On the positive side I detect a growing realisation among normal people of the folly of this worldview.
Self promoters are generally psychopaths who don't have any empathy for the people around them
who carry them everyday and make them look good. We call these people show bags. Full of shit
and you have to carry them all the time....
"meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others..."
I put to you the simple premsie that you can substitute "meritocratic neoliberalism" with any
political system (communism, fascism, social democracy even) and it the same truism would emerge.
"Neoliberalism promotes individual freedom, limited government, and deregulation of the economy...whilst
individual freedom is a laudable idea, neoliberalism taken to a dogmatic extreme can be used to
justify exploitation of the less powerful and pillaging of the natural environment." - Don Ambrose.
Contrast with this:
"Neoliberal democracy, with its notion of the market uber alles ...instead of citizens,
it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an
atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralised and socially powerless." - Robert
W. McChesney in Profit over People, Noam Chomsky.
It is fairly clear that the neoliberal system is designed to exploit the less powerfull when
it becomes dogmatic, and that is exactly what it has become: beaurocracy, deregulation, privatisation,
and government power .
Neoliberalism is a virus that destroys people's power of reason and replaces it with extra greed
and self entitlement. Until it is kicked back to the insane asylum it came from it will only keep
trying to make us it's indentured labourers. The only creeds more vile were Nazism and Apartheid.
Eventually the neoliberals will kill us all, so they can have the freedom to have everything they
think they're worth.
Yet, on the other hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a bureaucracy
that would make Kafka weak at the knees. There are regulations about everything, from the salt
content of bread to urban poultry-keeping.
Isn't a key feature of neo-liberalism that governments de-regulate? It seems you're willing
to blame absolutely everything on neoliberalism, even those things that neoliberalism ostensibly
opposes.
The Professor is correct. We have crafted a nightmare of a society where what is considered good
is often to the detriment of the whole community. It is reflected in our TV shows of choice, Survivor,
Big Brother, voting off the weakest or the greatest rival. A half a million bucks for being the
meanest most sociopathic person in the group, what great entertainment.
Always a treat to read your articles, Mr Verhaeghe; well written and supported with examples and
external good links. I especially like the link to Hare's site which is a rich resource of information
and current discussions and presentations on the subject.
The rise of the psychopath in society has been noted for some time, as have the consequences
of this behaviour in wider society and and a growing indifference and increased tolerance for
this behaviour.
But what are practical solutions? MRI brain scans and early intervention? We know that behaviour
modification does not work, we know that antipsychotic and other psychiatric medication does not
alter this behaviour, we know little of genetic causes or if diet and nutrition play a role.
Maybe it is because successful psychopaths leverage themselves into positions of influence
and power and reduce the voice, choices and influence of their victims that psychopathy has become
such an unsolvable problem, or at least a problem that has been removed from the stage of awareness.
It is so much easier to see the social consequences of psychopathy than it is to see the causal
activity of psychopaths themselves.
Neoliberalism has entered centre stage politics not as a solution, it is just socialism with a
crowd pleasing face. What could the labour party do to get voted in when the leadership consisted
of self professed intellectuals in Donkey Jackets which they wore to patronise the working classes.
Like the animal reflected in the name they became a laughing stock. Nobody understood their language
or cared for it. The people who could understand it claimed that it was full of irrelevant hyperbole
and patronising sentiment.
It still is but with nice sounding buzz words and an endless sound bites, the face of politics
has been transformed into a hollow shell. Neither of the party's faithful are happy with their
leaders. They have become centre stage by understanding process more than substance. As long as
your face fits, a person has every chance of success. Real merit on the other hand is either sadly
lacking or non existant.
Most people's personalities and behaviour are environment driven, they are moulded by the social
context in which they find themselves. The system we currently inhabit is one which is constructed
on behalf of the holders of capital, it is a construct of the need to create wealth through interest
bearing debt.
The values of this civilisation are consumer ones, we validate and actualise ourselves through
ownership of goods, and also the middle-class norms of family life, which are in and of themselves
constructs of a liberal consumer based society.
We pride ourselves on tolerance, which is just veiled indifference to anything which we feel
as no importance to our own desires. People are becoming automatons, directed through media devices
and advertising, and also the implanted desires which the consumer society needs us to act upon
to maintain the current system of economy.
None of this can of course survive indefinitely, hence the constant state of underlying anxiety
within society as it ploughs along on this suicidal route.
Good article, however I would just like to add that the new breed of 'business psychopath' you
allude to are fairly easy to spot these days, and as such more people are aware of them, so they
could be displaced quite soon, hopefully.
Cameron and the Conservatives have long been condemning the lazy and feckless at the bottom of
society, but has Cameron ever looked at his aristocratic in-laws.
His father-in-law, Sir Reginald Sheffield, can be checked out on Wikipedia.
His only work seems to have been eight years as a conservative councillor (lazy).
He is a member of three clubs, so he likes to go pissing it up with his rich friends (feckless).
This seems to be total sum of his life's achievements.
He also gets Government subsidies for wind turbines on his land (on benefits).
His estate has been in the family since the 16th Century and the family have probably done very
little since, yet we worry about the lower classes having two generations without work, in the
upper classes this can go on for centuries.
Wasters don't just exist at the bottom of society.
Mr. Cameron have a closer look at your aristocratic in-laws.
This is the consequence of a system that prevents people from thinking independently and
that fails to treat employees as adults.
Fundamentally the whole concept is saying "real talent is to be hunted down since, if you do
not destroy it, it will destroy you". As a result we have a whole army of useless twats in high
positions with not an independent thought between them. The concept of the old boys network has
really taken over except now the members are any mental age from zero upwards.
And then we wonder why nothing is done prperly these days....
Neoliberalism is fine in some areas of self-development and actualization of potential, but taken
as a kind of religion or as the be-all and end-all it is a manifest failure. For a start it neglects
to acknowledge what people have in common, the idea of shared values, the notion of society, the
effects of synergy and the geo-biological fact that we are one species all inhabiting the same
single planet, a planet that is uniquely adapted to ourselves, and to which we are uniquely adapted.
Generally it works on the micro-scale to free up initiative, but on the macro-scale it is hugely
destructive, since its goals are not the welfare of the entire human race and the planet but something
far more self-interested.
I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality
traits and penalises others.
This is inevitable. All societies have this property. A warrior society rewards brave fighters
and inspiring leaders, while punishing weaklings and cowards. A theocracy rewards those who display
piety and knowledge of religious tradition, and punishes skeptics and taboo-breakers. Tyrannies
reward cunning, ruthless schemers while punishing the squeamish and naive. Bureaucratic societies
reward pernickety types who love rules and regulationsn, and punish those who are careless of
jots and tittles. And so on.
A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort
and talents
It does. In fact, it does in all societies to some extent, even societies that strive to be egalitarian,
and societies that try to restrict social mobility by imposing a rigid caste system. There are
always individuals who fall or rise through society as a result of their abilities or lack thereof.
The freer society is, the more this happens.
For those who believe in the fairytale of unrestricted choice, self-government and self-management
are the pre-eminent political messages, especially if they appear to promise freedom.
Straw man. Even anarchists don't believe in completely unrestricted choice, let alone neoliberals.
Neoliberalism accepts that people are inevitably limited by their abilities and their situation.
Personal responsibility does not depend on complete freedom. It depends on there being some
freedom. If you have enough freedom to make good or bad choices, then you have personal responsibility.
Along with the idea of the perfectible individual, the freedom we perceive ourselves as
having in the west is the greatest untruth of this day and age.
The idea of the perfectible individual has nothing to do with neoliberalism. On the other hand,
it is one of the central pillars of Marxism. In philosophy, Marx is noted as an example of thinker
who follows a perfectionist ethical theory.
A frightening article, detailing now the psychological strenngths of people are recruited, perverted
and rotted by this rat-race ethic.
Ironic that the photo, of Canary Wharf, shows one of the biggest "socialist" gifts of the country
(was paid largely by the British taxpayer, if memory serves me correctly, and more or less gifted
to the merchant bankers by Thatcher).
Meritocratic neoliberalism; superficial articulateness which I used to call 'the gift of the gab'.
In my job, I was told to be 'extrovert' and I bucked against this, as a prejudice against anyone
with a different personality and people wanting CLONES. Not sensible people, or people that could
do a job, but a clone; setting the system up for a specific type of person as stated above. Those
who quickly tell you, you are wrong. Those that make you think perhaps you are, owing to their
confidence. Until your quietness proves them to be totally incorrect, and their naff confidence
demonstrates the falseness of what they state.
Most of the richest people in the world are not bullshitters. There are some, to be sure, but
the majority are either technical or financial engineers of genius, and they've made their fortune
through those skills, rather than through bullshit.
Hague lied to the camera about GCHQ having permission to access anyone's electronic devices. He
did not blush, he merely stated that a warrant was required. Only the night before we were shown
a letter from GCHQ stating that they had access without any warrant.
The ability to LIE has become a VIRTUE that all of us could well LIVE WITHOUT.
That's not new. It has been widely held that rulers have a right (and sometimes a duty) to lie
ever since Machiavelli's Prince was published some 500 years ago.
The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the paradox of our era as: "Never have
we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed freer than before, in the
sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex
and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer
have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference.
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left lose.
-Janice Joplin
Actually it was written by Kris Kristofferson and, having a house, a job pension and an Old Age
Pension, frankly, I disagree. The Grateful Dead version is better anyway.
.... economic change is having a profound effect not only on our values but also on our
personalities.
I have long thought that introverts are being marginalised in our society. Being introvert
seems to be seen by some as almost an illness, by others as virtually a crime.
Not keen on attending that "team bonding" weekend? There must be something wrong with you.
Unwilling to set out your life online for all to see? What have you got to hide?
A few very driven and talented introverts have managed to find a niche in the world of IT and
computers, earnig fortunes from their bedrooms. But for most, being unwilling or unable to scream
their demands and desires across a crowded room is interpreted as "not trying" or being not worth
listening to.
It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a
lot of people, you've got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a
major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that
they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and
feel little guilt. That's why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.
Perfectly describes our new ruling-class, doesn't it!
It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a
lot of people, you've got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a
major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that
they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and
feel little guilt. That's why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.
Sounds like a perfect description of newspaper columnists to me.
It's just the general spirit of the place: it's on such a downer and no amount of theorising and
talking will ever solve anything. There isn't a good feeling about this country anymore just a
lot of tying everyone up in in repressive knots with a lot of hooey like talk and put downs. We
need to find freedom again or maybe shove all the pricks into one part of the country and leave
them there to fuck each other over so the rest of us can create a new world free of bullcrap.
I don't know. Place is a superficial mess: 'look at me; look at what I own; I can cook Coq Au
Vin and drink bottles of expensive plonk and keep ten cars on my driveway'
Nah. Fortuneately there are still some decent people left but it's been like Hamlet now for quite
some time - "show me an honest man and I'll show you one man in ten thousand" Sucks.
This article is spot on and reflects Karl Marx's analysis regarding the economic base informing
and determining the superstructure of a given society, that is, its social, cultural aspects.
A neo-liberal, monetarist economy will shape and influence social and work relationships in ways
that are not beneficial for the many but as the commentator states, will benefit those possessed
of certain thrusting,domineering character traits. The common use of the word "loser" in contemporary
society to describe those who haven't "succeeded" financially is in itself telling.
It would be the perfect first chapter (foreword/introduction) in a best seller that goes on,
chapter by chapter, to show that neoliberalism destroys everything it touches:
Personal relationships;
trust;
personal integrity;
trust;
relationships;
trust;
transactions and trade;
trust;
market systems;
trust;
communities;
trust;
political relationships;
trust;
James Meek seems to have nailed it in his recent book, where he pointed out that the socially
conservative Thatcher, who wanted a society based on good old fashioned values, helped to create
the precise opposite with her enthusiasm for the neoliberal model. Now we are sinking into a dog-eat-dog
dystopia.
Many of the good old fashioned conservatives had time honoured values. They believed in taking
care of yourself but they also believed in integrity and honesty. They believed in living modestly
and would save much of their money rather than just spend it, and so would put some aside for
a rainy day. They believed in the community and were often active about local issues. They cared
about the countryside and the wildlife. They often recycled which went along with their thriftiness
and hatred of waste.
This all vanished when Thatcher came in with her selfish 'greed is good' brigade. Loads of
money!
We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage
of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can
do all these things because they no longer have any significance –
Capitalist alienation is a daily practise. The daily practise of competing with and using people.
This gives rise to the ideology that society and other people are but a means to an end rather
than an end in themselves that is of course when they are not a frightening a existential competitive
threat. Contempt and fear. That is what we are reduced to by the buying and selling of labour
power and yes, only a psychopath can thrive under such conditions.
According to the left if your only ambition is to watch Jeremy Kyle, pick up a welfare cheque
once a week and vote for which ever party will promise to give you £10 a week more in welfare:
you're an almost saint like figure.
If you actually do something to try to create a better and more independent life for yourself,
your family and your community: you're "displaying psychopathic tendencies" .
If you actually do something to try to create a better and more independent life for yourself,
your family and your community: you're "displaying psychopathic tendencies".
So how do you create a better community ?
By paying your taxes on your wealth that so many of you try to avoid. Here lies the crux of
the matter. There would be no deficit if taxes were paid.
Some of the rich are so psychpathic they think jsut because they employ people they shouldn't
pay any tax. They think the employees should pay thier tax for them.
Why has tax become such a dirty word ? Think about it before you answer.
The conclusion is for me is that it is a brilliant economic model. It is the sheer apathy of
the voters and that they are cowards because they don't make it work for them. They allow the
people who own the theory to run it for themselves and thus they get all the benefits from it.
I'll try and explain.
Their business plan.
The truth is neoliberalism has infact made the rich western countries poorer and helped so
many other poorer countries around the world get richer. Let's face facts here giving to charities
would never have achieved this and something needed to be done to even up this world inequality.
The only way you are ever going to achieve world peace is if everybody is equal. It's not by chance
this theory was introduced by America. They are trying to bring that equality to everyone so that
world peace can be achieved. How many more illegal wars and deaths this will take and for how
long nobody knows. They are also very sinister and selfish and greedy because if the Americans
do achieve what they are trying to do. They will own and countrol the world via washington and
the dollar. The way the Americans see it is that the inequality created within each country is
a bribe to each power structure within that country which helps America achieve it's long term
goals. It creates inequality within each country but at the same time creates equality on the
world stage. It might take 100 years to achieve and millions of deaths but eventually every country
will be another state of America and look and act like any American state. Once that is achieved
world peace will follow. America see it as a war and they also see millions of deaths as acceptable
to achieve their end game. I of course disagree there must be a better way. How will history look
at this dark period in history in 300 years time if it does achieve world peace in 150 years time
?
In each country neoliberalism works but at the moment it only works for the few because the
voters allow it. The voters allow them to get away with it through submission. They've allowed
their parliaments to be taken over without a fight and allowed their brains to be brainwashed
by the media controlled by the few. Which means the the whole story of neoliberalism has been
skewed into a very narrow view which always suits and promotes the voices of the few.
Why did the voters allow that to happen ?
Their biggest success the few had over the many was to create an illusion that made tax a toxic
word. They attacked tax with everything they had to form an illusion in the voters minds that
paying tax was a bad thing and it was everybodys enemy. Then they passed laws to enhance that
view and trotted out scare stories around tax and that if they had to pay it then everybody would
leave that country. They created a world set up for them and ulitimately destroyed any chance
at all, for the success of neoliberalism to be shared by the many. This was their biggest success
to make sure the wealth of neoliberalism stayed with them.
As the author of this piece says quite clearly. "An economic system that rewards psychopathic
personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities"
One of these traits is that they believe they shouldn't pay tax because they are creating jobs
and the tax their employees pay should be the amount of tax these companies pay. Again this makes
sure that the wealth is not shared.
Since they now own and control parliaments they also use the state to pay these wages in the
way of tax credits and subsidies and grants as they refuse to pay their employees a living wage.
It is our taxes they use to do this. Again this is to make sure that the wealth is not shared.
There are too many examples to list of how they make sure that the wealth generated by neoliberalism
is not shared. Then surely it is up to the voters to make sure it does. Neoliberalism works and
it would work for everybody if the voters would just grow a set of balls. Tax avoidance was the
battle that won the war for the few. It is time the voters revisited that battle and re write
it so that the outcome was that the many won not just the few. For example there would be no deficit
if the many had won that battle. Of course they wouldn't have left a market of 60 million people
with money in their pockets, it would have been business suicide.
This is a great example of how they created an illusion, a false culture, a world that does
not exist. The focus is all on the deficit and how to fix it, as they socialise the losses and
privatise the profits. There is no eyes or light shed on why there is a deficit due to tax avoidance.
It's time we changed that and made Neoliberlaism work for us. If we don't then we can't complain
when it only works for the few.
Neoliberlaism works. It's about time we owned it for ourselves. Otherwise we'll always be slaves
to it. It's not the theory that is corrupt it is the people who own it.
There is no eyes or light shed on why there is a deficit due to tax avoidance.
... or because politicians have discovered that you can buy votes by giving handouts even to
those who don't need them, thereby making everyone dependent on the largesse of the state and,
by extension, promoting the interests of the most irresponsible politicians and the bureaucracies
they represent.
You seem to regard what you call neoliberalism as a creator of wealth. You then claim that the
reason for this wealth accruing almost entirely to an elite few is the "the voters" have prevented
neoliberalism from distributing the wealth more equitably.
I can't really follow the logic of your argument.
Neoliberalism seems to be working perfectly for those few who are in a position to exploit
it. It's doing what it's designed to do.
I agree that the ignorance of "the voters" is allowing the elite to get away with it. But the
voters should be voting for those who propose an alternative economic model. Unfortunately, in
the western world at the present time, they have no viable alternative to vote for, because the
neoliberals have captured all of the mainstream political parties and institutions.
However, you missed one of the main points. Our parliament has been taken over by the few.
One man used to and probably still does strike fear into the government. Murdoch. Problem is
there are millions like him that lobby and control policy and the media.
..."There are regulations about everything,"... Yes, but higher up the scale you go, the less
this regulation is enforced, less individual accountability and less transparency. Neoliberalism
has turned society on its head. We see ever growing corporate socialism subsidising the top 1%
and heavily regulated hard nosed market capitalism for the rest of us resulting in massive inequality
in wealth distribution. This inequality by design makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. We've
created a society where people who were once valued as an individual part of that society are
now treated as surplus to requirements and somehow need to be eliminated.
They're mostly tight g*ts who refuse to pay to use the Mail/Telegraph sites. This is just about
the last free forum left now and it's attracting all kinds of undesirables. The level of personal
insult has gone up enormously since they came here. Most of us traditional Ciffers don't bother
with many posts here any more, it's too boring now.
Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is,
"make" something of ourselves.
That's always been the way, I think. It's life.
We are all of us the descendants of a million generations of successful organisms, human and pre-human.
The ones that didn't succeed fel by the wayside.
We're the ones left to tell the tale.
Those who already think Clinton is too sleazy won't be voting for her, but those who
think she is too sick, or that she will be impeached, might
Notable quotes:
"... I would like to vote for Hillary because she's already harmless and looks friendly with her mild seizures, it's like nehi-nehi Indian dance. But I am so afraid of her corporate backers that they will exploit Hillary and Bill's weakness as ageing senior illuminati couple, how can you unite the Fed with CIA, FBI and US military, not too mention Wall Street. ..."
"... Are you talking about Hillary and Bill Clinton? Your are describing Hillary and her politics of corruption, bad judgment; incompetence, job outsourcing and total disregard for American people. if anyone is remotely suitable to become POTUS it is her. Only those who really hate America will be happy with its further decline and will vote for Hillary. However, Trump will become America's next President. ..."
"... After 40 years of EU lies they are more than imbued to being lied to by politicians - no wonder the people are utterly and totally disillusioned with the established parties who show such appalling contempt for the people and democracy. Nothing better explains the growing success of mavericks like Trump and Farage: frankly the people need them as a safety valve for their frustrations. ..."
"... Ok, let's forget that Farage was the only major political party leader to stand up for democracy. We also should forget that, despite all the horrific personal abuse he suffered, he carried on year after year against the almighty power of the establishment and managed to win us our sovereignty back. We definitely must forget that he is a libertarian and his party is the ONLY major political party that bans all previous members of racist parties from applying. ..."
"... Her beliefs change with her lobbyist's wishes, she lies openly on camera and in office, puts donors and enormous backhanders before the electorate that voted for her, uses her Clinton Foundation as a cream skimming perk where all cash is welcome and Gov policy a Clinton Foundation sellable asset and entertains despots, juntas and murderous thugs using State Dept as a gun-for-hire. ..."
"... Neocons seek power through creating social division so can never win more than a small majority and only for a short time. Exhibit A: Tony Useless Abbott, worst PM in Australia's history. ..."
"... Quote: "For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate," -- Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... The ethics pledge Hillary violated at least 85 times, but go ahead and believe that she won't ever do it again... ..."
I would like to vote for Hillary because she's already harmless and looks friendly with her
mild seizures, it's like nehi-nehi Indian dance. But I am so afraid of her corporate backers
that they will exploit Hillary and Bill's weakness as ageing senior illuminati couple, how
can you unite the Fed with CIA, FBI and US military, not too mention Wall Street.
The real problem here is a political vacuum so huge you could fit trump's ego inside it. Just
a guess but from what I've seen this last year about half of trump supporters are wwhat could
be called die-hard racists. The one major failing of the workers movement that Sanders started
in the US was an inability to pull off the 50% of trump supporters who are not fundamentally
racist. T
here was no major appeal to the more rural agricultural communities by Sanders that
I ever heard. They may only represent 20% of the population but they are the backbone of the
US as they are unable to compete with large scale corporate farming they suffer the same ideological
loss that the rest of the working class suffer from. If the progressive movement cannot or
will not appeal to this group through small farming and organic farming subsidies then they
will go with someone like trump even though he promises them nothing. T
hey will, in the absence
of an alternative political path just choose 'f**k you' for their candidate. Probably too late
this time around but in the future the progressive movement needs to include these people or
they will be the 'third rail' the left dies on.
My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has cheated on me from the beginning and when I confront
him, he denies everything. What's worse, everyone knows he cheats on me. It's so humiliating.
Also, since he lost his job 14 years ago, he hasn't even looked for a new one. All he does
all day is smoke cigars, play golf, cruise around and shoot ball with his buddies and has sex
with hookers, while I work so hard to pay our bills.
Since our daughter went away to college and then got married; he doesn't even pretend to like
me, and hints that I may be a lesbian. What should I do?
Signed:
Confused
Answer..
Dear Confused:
Grow up and dump him.
You don't need him anymore!
Good grief woman, you're running for President of the United States!
Are you talking about Hillary and Bill Clinton? Your are describing Hillary and her politics
of corruption, bad judgment; incompetence, job outsourcing and total disregard for American
people. if anyone is remotely suitable to become POTUS it is her. Only those who really hate
America will be happy with its further decline and will vote for Hillary. However, Trump will
become America's next President.
Listen to his peaches - that would be time better spent than to spend time of defending
Hillary, who soon be either behind the bars or forgotten.
After 40 years of EU lies they are more than imbued to being lied to by politicians -
no wonder the people are utterly and totally disillusioned with the established parties who show
such appalling contempt for the people and democracy. Nothing better explains the growing success
of mavericks like Trump and Farage: frankly the people need them as a safety valve for their frustrations.
Nigel is not making any threats to USA as Obama did in UK (you'll be in back of the queue).
It was not Nigel who spoke about obama's ancestry. America has a tough choice Trump/Clinton. My brother
lives in Florida - he says he wouldn't vote for Clinton.
I voted UKIP and for LEAVE and think Nigel
Farage will go down in history as one of the most important men in politics for a very long time.
We supported him because he spoke for us and the other politicians stopped listening to us. These
snidey nasty comments are typical of leftie guardian readers. After all - they're probably going
to vote for Corby who hasn't a cat in hells chance of ever being PM!
Yes, you're right. It's this sentiment that has pushed the proletariat into the arms of Trump and
Farage. Funnily enough, during my time working with the EU there was a very strong push towards less
democracy and more population management. Most of it is being done via education and other soft power
platforms - reforming children's attitudes, self-awareness training, behavioral feedback and gender
confusion. This is being done under the guise of tolerance, diversity and identity politics. It keeps
the masses fighting amongst themselves while those in charge of them steal everything.
Ok, let's forget that Farage was the only major political party leader to stand up for democracy. We also should forget that, despite all the horrific personal abuse he suffered, he carried on year
after year against the almighty power of the establishment and managed to win us our sovereignty
back. We definitely must forget that he is a libertarian and his party is the ONLY major political party
that bans all previous members of racist parties from applying.
Now hand me some of that racism juice and point me to the bandwagon!
Her beliefs change with her lobbyist's wishes, she lies openly on camera and in office, puts donors
and enormous backhanders before the electorate that voted for her, uses her Clinton Foundation as
a cream skimming perk where all cash is welcome and Gov policy a Clinton Foundation sellable asset
and entertains despots, juntas and murderous thugs using State Dept as a gun-for-hire.
I see the Bremain crowd still out for some revenge. And who would Hillary invite from "Brits?"
Let's face it most Americans have no clue about other foreign leaders unless they are being splashed
across their TV screens as some evil incarnates ready to be bombed by American bombs. Thus Guardian
cheap shot at Farage as unknown is just cheap.
Indeed the whole reporting of that meeting between Farage and Trump is distasteful for a newsmedia
like Guardian. Purely designed to belittle Farage and, of course, portray Trump as a non-starter
in the race for White House.
Btw, i was going through list of media giants that have contributed and donated to the Clinton
Foundation. Let me confirm whether Guardian or its associates/affiliates are on the list!
The MSM is trying to make Hillary look popular at the few rallies she conducts when the reality is
her crowds are tiny.
You then have Trump doing multiple rallies a day where he regularly fills large sports stadiums.
It just goes to show how corrupt the MSM is and how they manipulate footage to create false impressions.
Neocons seek power through creating social division so can never win more than a small majority
and only for a short time. Exhibit A: Tony Useless Abbott, worst PM in Australia's history.
Isn't it strange to see so much bile and bitterness being directed towards Mr Farage? We've had
the referendum and Brexit won. Please can the many complainers here show some respect to the millions
who voted and who did so of the own volition (and without the nonsense of being under some spell
cast by imaginary bogeymen!). Can those complaining not accept that after 40 years of effort to
make the EU work people are entitled to say - sorry, its over - but hopefully we can still be
friends.
Farage was a good choice for a support speaker. He is the one person in Europe who has produced
a stunning electoral upset and then quit the scene. All the pollsters got it wrong.
It's distressing that some members of the audience knew nothing about the Brexit, despite efforts
by The Guardian and many others to relieve their ignorance. However, might not the same criticism
be applied to most American voters, of whatever ilk?
Quote: "For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate
personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The
William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party,
unless I am first authorized to participate," -- Hillary Clinton.
The ethics pledge Hillary
violated at least 85 times, but go ahead and believe that she won't ever do it again...
"... That said, what I believe is needed in the USA is a doubling down on Corporate Boards of Directors and CEOs to create a crisis, an American intervention, if you will, that demands companies bring back the idea that Profits alone are not all that matters. Serving the Nation you are born in, raised in, educated in, and then making a profitable income from certainly needs to be focused in on. ..."
"... An additional factor in the financial woes of the falling middle class is the changing demographics here in the US - the growing numbers of single mothers, who are far more likely to struggle financially than a two income household. I make no judgment regarding how people form their family units, but life is especially hard for single mothers. ..."
"... Its even more difficult for journalists in Guardian. They have to destroy chances of only candidate addressing inequality and climate change (Bernie), completely surrender their integrity to corporations, lament over those issues post factum, and yet be paid miserably only in hundreds of thousands for such colossal betrayal of humanity. Its worth at billions to actively participate in destroying future of your kids. Or is it? ..."
"... We need a new Federal Minimum Wage, and the wealthiest need to start paying up. Trump claims that business in the US pay the highest tax rate. That's just not true. I'm not talking about putting the burden on small business, but the multi-nationals and Wall Street. ..."
"... And we can blame Billary and Hussein for it. Their "free-trade" decisions, along with their shameful endorsement of open-borders, have lowered wages for everyone, except for financiers. Interestingly, it was those who've suffered the brunt of the elites' decisions who voted for Britain to leave the EU. Ironically, those who professed to stand for the middle and lower classes, revealed their hypocrisy when they joined the Mandarins in opposing for Britain to leave the totalitarian EU. ..."
"... Like the Trojans fearing present-giving presents, so should the working man loath the elites who promised to have their best interests at heart. That is the same promise communism gave the workers, only to turn on and enslave them. Today the workers don't stand a chance: the Marxists and bankers are on the same side sneering at the working classes who are demeaned as being racist, jingoistic xenophobes. ..."
"... An article in Forbes that explains why Obamacare is a scam. ObamaCare Enriches Only The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders ..."
"... I agree with you that he never did. Obama is a corporatist and globalist. If you think Obamacare is bad wait until his trade deals are past. He sold Americans out for the profits of multinational corporations. Hillary will continue his work. I understand the true meaning of his words now. ..."
"... The US middle class has been disintegrating for decades as inequity grows ..."
"... Clinton is in hiding. I can't find her in the Guardian today. She is a habitual liar and the whole world has all the evidence it needs. All of her promises are bullshit. Bernie has been right the whole time and he is smart not to endorse. Bernie has always known what she is and Bernie's supporters have no reason to support her. ..."
"... It means she is corrupt, dishonest, and unqualified to be anything but an inmate. ..."
"... the middle class has been decimated.. This financial category is only about 35% of was it was in the early 70's.. additionally the definition of middle class has changed drastically as well.. believe it or not your middle class if your earn more than 50k a year!.. this is part of the reason we are as a nation borrowing a trillion dollars a year.. when will the silenced majority wake up and start voting and stop spending on products that are vastly over priced. ..."
"... My kid had a persistent tummy ache. Doc said intestinal blockage; take him to the ER immediately. Seven hours and one inconclusive CAT scan later, he's home again with symptoms unchanged. Two days later the pain went away. Cost: $12,000 with about $10,000 covered by union health insurance. So that's at least $2,000 out of pocket to me for seven hours in hospital, zero diagnosis and zero relief from symptoms. Medicine as a criminal enterprise? So what? Who's gonna stop it? The press? The law? ..."
"... I sympathize. I also agree with you. The US medical system is criminal. It is cruel, discriminatory, ruthless, often ineffective, and often incompetent. The only reason the administrators ("health" maintenance corporations) aren't in jail is because they use some of their obscene profits to buy Congress -- which passes laws like Obama's ACA or Bush's big Pharma swindle. I have no idea what to do about it though -- maybe if everyone refused to pay their premiums and medical bills, the money managers would notice. A sort of strike. ..."
"... SIngle-payer is the answer. Of course, the insurance companies and big pharma use scare tactics to stop that from happening. They talk about government waste, completely ignoring their own waste. They ignore the billions of dollars that they skim off of the top each year before applying any money for actual medical care. Wake up, people. Medical care should be run by the government or non-profit organizations, not by for-profit corporations. ..."
"... Despite the financial situation in middle-and lower income families that has been steadily declining under the past 8 years of the Obama administration, most in that group will support Hillary and propagate the Same problems for 4 more years. They stand no hope unless they break from the knee-jerk support of the "Democratic" Party. ..."
"... So they should support Donald Trump and the conservative party? Last time I checked raising taxes on the middle class while lowering taxes on the rich didn't really help anyone but the rich. The Republican party never gave two shits about middle and lower class, and there's no point believing they will start now. ..."
"... Isn't choosing to have three children very selfish if you cannot support them financially. People always find someone else to blame. ..."
"... "Race" card!!?? Where the hell did I mention anything about race or are you really as dumb as your reply suggests. Plus, you don't require a test to decide if you can afford children or not. It basic family planning. It's people like you in society that has the place in a mess with your "blame anyone but meself attitude" If I'm considered horrible, at least I'm not totally dumb and irrisponsible like you. ..."
"... Bill Maher recently (July 1, 2016; Overtime) editorialized about the state "laboratories" where new ideas are tested and evaluated. Maher compared the divergent fates of California and Kansas plus Louisiana. ..."
"... It's interesting. According to my household income I'm in the "upper" tier for the DC-metro region. But it really doesn't feel that way. Even those of us who make a good income are more and more stretched. In comparison to most of the country, I am well off. I own a car, just bought a house, I can afford to go out to eat a couple times a week. But, I even get to the end of the month with only $100 in the bank. That's because other downward pressures on pay aren't taken into account, such as student debt. My expensive undergraduate and graduate education didn't come cheap, and while that education affords people higher pay, if you end up taking less of it home. It kinda equals out. ..."
"... Sometimes my husband and I think about having kids, and then we realise that even with our good paying jobs, we can't afford day care in our area. I get paid the most, so I can't quit my job but if my husband quit to care for a child, we would really be strapped. Can I really be considered an upper tier household if I can't afford to have kids? If I can't afford to go on vacation once a year? If I haven't bought new clothes in two years? If I have no savings and a freak medical bill might just tip me over the edge? ..."
"... Suggest you give Andrew Tobias' book a read to think outside the box a good education often constructs for us: https://www.amazon.com/Only-Investment-Guide-Youll-Ever/dp/0544781937?ie=UTF8&ref_=asap_bc ..."
"... You can cut student debt in the U.S. by attending a good community college for two years and then transferring to a state university. Most kids are unwilling to do this--no frats or prestige in community colleges! ..."
"... Beginning in the 1970s, a majority of the middle class began to resent the taxation needed to continue support for these liberal policies, and they began to vote for conservative politicians who promised to remove them as they "only helped the undeserving poor." White racism played a role in this as the lower class was invariably portrayed in political speeches and advertising as group of lazy black people. ..."
"... No, it was created in response to the Bolshevik revolution, in particular, to that genius who said "Let's just shoot the royal family and be done with this." ..."
"... All of these things have come under attack since the USSR fell apart, probably on that exact day. And who overthrew the USSR? Overeducated middle class, not the poor or the rich. Who was Occupy Wall Street, Arab Spring... the recent protests against the French labor law tightenings, ALL the middle class. ..."
"... The greatest threat to governments has, and always will be, from within. And this threat is from the middle class, almost exclusively. Therefore, we are to be crushed and controlled tightly ..."
"... funny how this media outlet didn't publish these types of reports while the primary was hot. It was all "Hilary is inevitable and supporting Bernie is supporting Trump" type garbage. ..."
"... Probably he means to say Americans habitually ask new acquaintances, "What do you do for a living?" That's absolutely a query about income and personal worth, though slightly disguised, and it's a question I have never widely encountered anywhere else in the world, nor while living overseas the last ten years. ..."
"... This article is extremely dishonest. First, it claims that she has 'three other jobs'. Second, she has children, for whom she presumably gets child support. So what's her *real* income? ..."
"... When those in poverty or on the verge of it are single mothers, you tend to wonder if there are some other issues as well. I don't recall a time in American history where a single mother of several children could take care of herself when completely on her own. ..."
"... I teach in inner city schools. There are so many problems, money is one of them but all the money won't solve the problem of poor learning attitudes, disaffection, poor discipline and nonexistent work ethic . ..."
"... A lot of the students get no discipline at home and their parents don't expect them to learn anything. They are resistant to the whole process of focus on new knowledge , absorb, drill, recall , deploy newly learned thing. ..."
"... I don't know what solution there is to this. My nieces and nephews did well in school, studied hard, and went on to university. They didn't do drugs, rape or be raped, and stayed away from unsavory kids. BUT--they went home to two parents every night, a father and mother, which I think would have made them successful at school no matter what their income. ..."
"... The US economy isn't competitive anymore. It started with the labor cost being too high, so factories moved out. Then the entire supply chain moved out. Now the main consumer market is also moving out. Once that is gone, we will have no more leverage. ..."
"... The US education is good, but students are lazy, undisciplined, and incurious. In silicon valley, more than 75% of highly paid technical personnel are foreign born. Corporations making money with foreign workers here and abroad, on foreign markets. Taking these away and you will see the economy crash. ..."
"... Labor costs were too high. Have some more kool-aid. The elite didn't want labor to have any bargaining power whatsoever . They wanted to dictate the terms to labor believing that they were the only ones who should have any say in matters. The elite wanted to maximize their profits at the expense of their own citizens. They wanted slave labor . They wanted powerless people to dance to their tune. How could an advanced nation's labor possibly compete with slave labor . ..."
"... Sadly ..... thee isn't any hope for these people in the foreseeable future . Their economic decline has been happening for quite some time now and shows no sign of abating whatsoever . The economic foundations of their lives have been steadily pulled out from under them by the financial elite and their subservient political cultures , the Republican and Democratic Parties . The Republicans have never really given a damn about them and the Democrats have long abandoned them . These poor people of North Carolina are adrift on a sinking raft on easy ocean of indifference by the political cultures of America . To those in power , they don't exist . They don't count . They don't matter . ..."
"... The trend in the U.S, along with almost every other major nation in the world over the past 35 years has been to exclusively serve the interests of the financial elite and only their needs . All sense of fairness , justice and decency have been totally discarded . ..."
"... Tax breaks after tax breaks , tax shelters , free movement of capital , etc., etc. would sum up the experience of the financial elite over the past 35 years . They have become incredibly wealthy now and are still not satisfied . They want more . They want it all . They want what little you have and their political servants which help them get . ..."
"... Political discourse pertaining to the plight of those like these folks in North Carolina is all window dressing . In the end , you can be certain that it will amount to nothing . Just like it has for decades now . The financial elite are in control and they are not going to give any of that control up . As a matter of fact , they are going to tighten their grip . They will invent crisis to have their agendas imposed upon an increasingly powerless and bewildered public . They will take advantage of every naturally occurring crisis to advance their agenda . ..."
"... The problem is the job exporting American elite class. NAFTA was an economics, political, and social experiment with all the downside on the former, mostly lower middle class. Non-aligned examination of the available data shows how disastrous NAFTA has been to America's bubbas. Thanks to Bush 41 and Bill Clinton. WTO was all Bill. Of the mistakes Obama has made TPP would be the worst. The question is, really, do we favor global fairness (an even playing field for all earth's peoples) and a climate-killing consumerist world, or our own disadvantaged (courtesy of our financial and political elite) citizens. Not an easy choice. Death by poison or hanging. No treaty can benegotiated fairly in secret. ..."
"... The tragic irony is that the anger against rule by the 1% manifests in things like support for Trump, a typical example of the greed and excess of the 1%. Americans need to question outside their desperately constrained paradigms more. It will help focus their anger more strategically, and possibly lead to solutions. Don't hold your breath, the inequality gap is accelerating the wrong way. ..."
"... I think the US is heDing for trouble. It is the middle class that maintains civil society and gives a sense of hope. This is an interesting open letter by a zillionaire to his peers warning them what happens without a string middle class. A thought provoking read. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014 ..."
"... The elite of the USA have done exactly what the Romans did and what the Pre-Revolutionary French did.... drain the lower classes while enriching themselves. "Taxes are for little people" is not just a pithy quote, it has become the reality as the elite rig the system so they benefit and the lower classes pay. They need to wake up or they will get exactly what the Romans Got (collapsed empire) or the French got (Violent Revolution). Wake up America! It is time to choose your side in the class war the elite continue to execute while telling us there is no "Class War" - you can't pull yourself up by your boot straps while they are pulling the rug out from under you! ..."
"... My wife used to employ recent graduates from Georgetown University with poli. sci., psychology, sociology degrees, to stack books for $10/hr. It took them on average 2-3 years, before finding work in their field. ..."
"... Education is NOT about finding a job! It's about learning ways to seek wisdom and rationality, and to assimilate (not deny) new knowledge throughout your life--and that's exactly what's lacking in the US! Our schools are factories to turn out standard robots to be used by the owners of this country, whether they practice law or flip burgers. ..."
I was stumped by the very idea that someone has the $money, the time, the energy to
go out and study for 3 bachelor degrees. This woman doesn't look old enough to have had time to get
3 degrees.
That said, what I believe is needed in the USA is a doubling down on Corporate Boards
of Directors and CEOs to create a crisis, an American intervention, if you will, that demands companies
bring back the idea that Profits alone are not all that matters. Serving the Nation you are born
in, raised in, educated in, and then making a profitable income from certainly needs to be focused
in on.
Why on earth isn't Main Stream Media doing this, along with all of CONGRESS and the President?
What is their excuse? Even if you brought back all the robotic jobs to US soil, you would also end
up bringing a large number of administrative jobs back here, too, just to keep up with the business
at hand. It is critical that we rebuild our infrastructure, yet we see NO immediate or Long-term
plans to do so. How can we, without the support of the Business Class to support the whole nation
through Paying their Taxes to the US Tax System? There is no excuse that will do, in my book. Profits
to the top tier need to be STOPPED so long as businesses are going outside of the United States Borders.
Period.
Typical of what's happening around the world. The trillions of dollars lurking in tax havens is
the reason why economies are stagnating. Money makes the world go round, however detouring to
the Cayman Islands, the flow stops and the poverty begins. Spend locally and reject multi national
corporations. Give your local communities a chance to prosper,
An additional factor in the financial woes of the falling middle class is the changing demographics
here in the US - the growing numbers of single mothers, who are far more likely to struggle financially
than a two income household. I make no judgment regarding how people form their family units,
but life is especially hard for single mothers.
"The 2016 presidential race has superficially been dominated by talk of this declining middle.
First from Bernie Sanders, then Hillary Clinton and even Donald Trump's promise to Make America
Great Again"
"And even"??? What a laugh. Even if you hate Trump its clear The Guardian has written every
article possible to prevent his rise and they have failed miserably. Hillary amd Sanders are dominating
conversatiin. Trump is by far.
One thing us for sure. 15 million illegals and thousands more every month is not making the
middle class more secure.
They are shrinking, and you expect them to tolerate "Make America Mexico Again"? In these times?
Donor money is ruining the country. They hate Trump because he doesnt need these arrogant donors
who have never heard "no" their whole lives.
Its even more difficult for journalists in Guardian. They have to destroy chances of only candidate
addressing inequality and climate change (Bernie), completely surrender their integrity to corporations,
lament over those issues post factum, and yet be paid miserably only in hundreds of thousands
for such colossal betrayal of humanity. Its worth at billions to actively participate in destroying
future of your kids. Or is it?
It isn't immigration that costing jobs - it's employers who know they can pay these people
less for their work. We need a new Federal Minimum Wage, and the wealthiest need to start
paying up. Trump claims that business in the US pay the highest tax rate. That's just not
true. I'm not talking about putting the burden on small business, but the multi-nationals and
Wall Street.
You can see in western Europe at the moment that a minimum wage desn't work without a whole host
of other protective legislation. A minimum wage doesn't reach to the self employed, and it doesn't
prevent the use of flexible or non-guaranteed hours contracts making use of a larger than is required
labour pool. Not to mention the black market / cash in hand trade.
And we can blame Billary and Hussein for it.
Their "free-trade" decisions, along with their shameful endorsement of open-borders, have lowered
wages for everyone, except for financiers.
Interestingly, it was those who've suffered the brunt of the elites' decisions who voted for Britain
to leave the EU.
Ironically, those who professed to stand for the middle and lower classes, revealed their hypocrisy
when they joined the Mandarins in opposing for Britain to leave the totalitarian EU.
Like the Trojans fearing present-giving presents, so should the working man loath the elites
who promised to have their best interests at heart.
That is the same promise communism gave the workers, only to turn on and enslave them.
Today the workers don't stand a chance: the Marxists and bankers are on the same side sneering
at the working classes who are demeaned as being racist, jingoistic xenophobes.
You realize most of the votes in favor of NAFTA were Republican and most against were Democratic,
right? You know that "free trade" has been an item in the Republican platform (and increasingly
the Democratic one) for years before Clinton and Obama were ever in office, right? Know some elementary
facts about U.S, politics before posting nonsense.
Ed Thurmann: it's not teacher-bashing, it's just the old recycled "black family values" spiel
that was introduced into the poverty debate in the '60s by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Moynihan,
not so BTW, is Hillary Clinton's intellectual hero. So you can expect a hell of a lot more of
these cliches after January of next year.
An article in Forbes that explains why Obamacare is a scam. ObamaCare Enriches Only The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders
Robert Lenzner , CONTRIBUTOR
I'm trying to wise up 300 million people about money & finance
So far in 2013 the value of the S& P health insurance index has gained 43%. Thats more than
double the gains made in the broad stock market index, the S & P 500. The shares of CIGNA are
up 63%, Wellpoint 47% and United Healthcare 28%. And if you go back to the early 2010 passage
of ObamaCare, you will find that Obama's sellout of the public interest has allowed the public
companies the ability to raise their premiums, especially on small business, dramatically multiply
their profits and send the value of their common stocks up by 200%-300%. This is bloody scandalous
and should be a cause for concern even as the Republican opponents of the bill threaten the close-down
of the government.
We warned you back on December4, 2009 in my blog " The Horrendous Truth About Health Care Reform"
that the Obama White House was handing a " free ride for the health insurance industry" that would
allow premium hikes of 8%-10% a year by CIGNA, Humana HUM +1.56%, Aetna AET +0.45%, UnitedHealth
Group UNH +0.58% and Wellpoint, and as well a $500 billion taxpayer subsidy, a half trillion dollars
without any requirement that the health insurers had to spend the subsidy on medical care. Several
US Senators including Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia spoke to me openly of the outrageous sellout
being foisted on the nation's uninsured citizens.
At the time I wrote, Goldman Sachs research operation estimated that the 5 giants would increase
profits by 10% a year from 2010 to 2019, sending their shares up an average of 59%. In truth,
the shares of CIGNA and some others are up a multiple of several times since the contest was resolved
by a very tight vote in early 2010. One startling reason for this amazing performance was that
Obama took off the table "proposals to significantly reduce health care costs" as the giveaway
in getting the bill through, according to Ron Susskind's best-selling book ,"Confidence Men,"
which I wrote about in a blog on September 24, 2011. ( "Obama's Incoherent Policy-Making") Some
3 years later, UnitedHealthCare Group(UNH) was rewarded by being added to the elite list of the
Dow 30 industrials.
I understood belatedly that there would have been no Affordable Care Act of 2010 if the White
House had not given into demands from the giant profit-making health insurance companies. Had
he not done so, I am being assured that there would have been no bill passed, a priority goal
that Obama promised in his 2008 Presidential campaign. How the profits have risen so impressively
requires further investigation as the bill is meant to limit the profits earned to 20% of the
revenues.
One of the other downsides to the supposed reform bill was the surprisingly unfair treatment
of small business owners who faced even larger potential premiums for their employees. It has
been the fear of these higher health costs that has resulted in the overwhelming trend toward
hiring part-time employees whom the employers need not offer healthcare insurance.
So much for the reforms embedded in the mis-labeled Affordable Care Act of 2010. It may not
die a bloody demise this month, but it is certain to be reformed itself, let's hope for the benefit
of the 300 million, not just the millions of lucky shareholders who may have understood the ramification
of ObamaCare, which was to multiply the profits of five giant insurance companies, just as the
major bank oligopoly was rewarded by the federal bailouts and Fed monetary policy.
I agree with you that he never did. Obama is a corporatist and globalist. If you think Obamacare
is bad wait until his trade deals are past. He sold Americans out for the profits of multinational
corporations. Hillary will continue his work. I understand the true meaning of his words now.
"We are a nation of immigrants" meaning he prefers cheap illegal labor when 46 million Americans
live in poverty. Soon cheap foriegn will be unlimited and legal in the US with worker mobility.
Even for professional jobs. Can you imagine competing with foreigners in the US who make 30 cents
an hour? It's depressing really. Here are some of the highlights of the TPP that will throw Americans
further into poverty.
My heart goes out to these beleaguered families. In the late 1970s/80s I held down a full-time
job in DC and freelanced feverishly to make ends meet. I lived below the official poverty line
in an expensive, yet thoroughly crappy, flat. That recession-riddled era of energy chaos, leading
into Reagan's 'voodoo' economics regime (the risible idea of 'trickle-down', the US becoming the
world's largest debtor), was another hot mess.
The US middle class has been disintegrating for
decades as inequity grows, thanks in large part to the poor governance of Republican presidents
(Nixon's stagflation, the disastrous shifts under GW Bush).
Clinton is in hiding.
I can't find her in the Guardian today.
She is a habitual liar and the whole world has all the evidence it needs.
All of her promises are bullshit.
Bernie has been right the whole time and he is smart not to endorse.
Bernie has always known what she is and Bernie's supporters have no reason to support her.
Her disapproval ratings will top Trump now.
The voters are now going to show her what the meaning of is, really is.
It means she is corrupt, dishonest, and unqualified to be anything but an inmate.
Her disapproval ratings are high, but not up with Trump's and they never will be. You can vote
for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, in November. Or Gary Johnson, the Libertarian. But
Bernie will not be a candidate, and he will eventually endorse Clinton -- after he is sure he's
won certain concessions in the Democratic platform. That's your reality in July 2016, not in February.
the middle class has been decimated.. This financial category is only about 35% of was it was
in the early 70's.. additionally the definition of middle class has changed drastically as well..
believe it or not your middle class if your earn more than 50k a year!.. this is part of the reason
we are as a nation borrowing a trillion dollars a year.. when will the silenced majority wake
up and start voting and stop spending on products that are vastly over priced..Turn off your phone,
stop buying all but essentials.. we need to force prices down until we complain and start voting
with our dollars little will change
What about the millions of married couples with kids..when the parents lose their jobs? That happens
very frequently. Should we take the kids away? Are you suggesting that poor people not be allowed to have children?
Then we have the religious nutcases that are against contraception and abortion, yet demonize
poor women for having children.
My kid had a persistent tummy ache. Doc said intestinal blockage; take him to the ER immediately.
Seven hours and one inconclusive CAT scan later, he's home again with symptoms unchanged. Two
days later the pain went away. Cost: $12,000 with about $10,000 covered by union health insurance. So that's at least $2,000 out of pocket to me for seven hours in hospital, zero diagnosis and
zero relief from symptoms. Medicine as a criminal enterprise? So what?
Who's gonna stop it? The press? The law?
Medicine as a criminal enterprise? So what?
Who's gonna stop it? The press? The law?
I sympathize. I also agree with you. The US medical system is criminal. It is cruel, discriminatory, ruthless, often ineffective, and often incompetent. The only reason the administrators ("health" maintenance corporations) aren't in jail is because
they use some of their obscene profits to buy Congress -- which passes laws like Obama's ACA or
Bush's big Pharma swindle. I have no idea what to do about it though -- maybe if everyone refused to pay their premiums
and medical bills, the money managers would notice. A sort of strike.
SIngle-payer is the answer. Of course, the insurance companies and big pharma use scare tactics to stop that from happening.
They talk about government waste, completely ignoring their own waste. They ignore the billions
of dollars that they skim off of the top each year before applying any money for actual medical
care. Wake up, people. Medical care should be run by the government or non-profit organizations,
not by for-profit corporations.
Corporations have only one goal...to make as much money as possible for themselves. Health
care is just a necessary nuisance.
Despite the financial situation in middle-and lower income families that has been steadily declining
under the past 8 years of the Obama administration, most in that group will support Hillary and
propagate the Same problems for 4 more years. They stand no hope unless they break from the knee-jerk
support of the "Democratic" Party.
So they should support Donald Trump and the conservative party? Last time I checked raising taxes
on the middle class while lowering taxes on the rich didn't really help anyone but the rich. The
Republican party never gave two shits about middle and lower class, and there's no point believing
they will start now.
This article mentions Latonia Best and her three children.
Is there a Mr Best around? It has always been tough to raise a family on the salary of a single parent.
The breakdown of the American family is a probably the biggest reason for the supposed struggles
of the middle class. People have to take responsibility for their lives.
traditionally, the middle class had the guy going out to work, and his wife staying at home to
look after the kids. Once children are in school and childcare is reduced, I don't see how a
woman working and raising her kids alone, is any more expensive than a man supporting himself,
his wife and their kids.
It used to be possible. It used to be doable. wealth disparity ind income inequality mean that
is no longer the case, at least certainly not for the average middle class. In the UK anyway,
it's now a sign of wealth. This has nothing top do with the family and everything to do with income
disparity.
Ah. I was waiting for some "bubba" to pull the race card. Congratulations.
Maybe we should make everyone take a test to prove that they can afford children. No children for poor people. Nice.
"Race" card!!?? Where the hell did I mention anything about race or are you really as dumb as
your reply suggests.
Plus, you don't require a test to decide if you can afford children or not. It basic family planning.
It's people like you in society that has the place in a mess with your "blame anyone but meself
attitude" If I'm considered horrible, at least I'm not totally dumb and irrisponsible like you.
$3,333.33 is actually not a lot of money to raise a family of four on. Let's do some math, shall
we?!
Taxes: $800 (rough estimate)
Health Insurance: I'm going to estimate $300 because she probably has dependents on her coverage
and that's what I paid one dependent a while back.
Car: I'm going to estimate $150. My car payment is $300, but let's say she got a cheaper, used
car.
Rent: Let's say $1,000/month (I did a quick search and found that this seemed like a good price
for a two bedroom)
Bills: Let's round up to $150/month for gas, electricity, water, sewage
Food: Let's say she spends $80/week, so roughly $320 a month (you know, she's a thrifty shopper)
All of that leaves about $313 left for gas, phone, college tuition, maybe internet and cable
at home. I don't know how she does it.
Worst of all was the town of Goldsboro – one of three metropolitan areas in North Carolina
at the bottom of the national league table.
North Carolina, Michigan, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma ... more ...
Sad stories in states run by Republicans. Toxic rivers, shootings, poisoned tap water, bankruptcy,
daily earthquakes ...
Bill Maher recently (July 1, 2016; Overtime) editorialized about the state "laboratories"
where new ideas are tested and evaluated. Maher compared the divergent fates of California and
Kansas plus Louisiana.
Only five countries produced more last year than California: the U.S., China, Japan, Germany
and the United Kingdom.
So -- North Carolina with fouled rivers, a collapsing middle class, discriminatory laws --
or a thriving California?
Goldsboro remains far from the sort of economic catastrophe seen in parts of the rust belt,
but these are signs of financial stress that are hard to ignore. The strain on the middle class
across much of the country may not have gone unnoticed by politicians, but locals here fear
there is little talk of the investment in skills, high-paying jobs and civic infrastructure
needed to arrest the slide.
Republican shills will have to admit -- finally that Republican policies ruin lives, ruin the
economy and ruin the environment. Truth appears more powerful than slogans and slanders. Who knows?
They might even acknowledge climate change.
I believe it is the wars and needs of the military-industrial-banking complex that sap far too
much from the economy. Both parties are guilty of supporting them.
North Carolina with fouled rivers, a collapsing middle class, discriminatory laws -- or a thriving
California?
Since 2013, North Carolina has the fastest GDP growth of any state. The NC economy is not in bad
shape. This lady lives in one of the poorest areas in the state, she should move 45 minutes north
to thriving Raleigh or Durham - the population in that area is booming, they need teachers.
The dumping of coal ash into the Dan river was a corporate crime, not a policy decision. Neither
party is responsible for criminal actions by individuals or corporations, that's just silly. (The
republicans have been too lax in holding Duke Energy to account but the damage done is not a political
issue)
HB2 is a disgrace but the legislature is in the process of correcting it and the Governor is likely
to lose the election in the fall which bodes well for anti-HB2 people. Don't forget that California
voters voted to ban gay marriage not even 10 years ago. It's not a paradise of wealth and enlightenment,
no place is.
Why should we feel sorry for the American middle class they have elected for all the misery that
has befallen them!
If America was a fascist state I could sympathise but it's not. Americans have let their social
rights being eroded by a mendacious and cunning establishment.
One good example of how Americans don't give a shit is the very expensive wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan which have cost gazillions to the US taxpayer and not a whimper from the US population.
If one can compare that to the Vietnam war which created its own critical cinema genre, protest
songs, large demonstrations etc...you know that todays average Americans responsibility for the
mess they find themselves in is non existent. They just bend over and take it and have little
whine about it from time to time.
What about the people that didn't vote for the "misery" as you call it?
What about the fact that whichever way you vote in the US you're screwed?
And I don't know about you, but you must not know many Americans. The number of my friends
who have been tear gassed during marches against the Iraq war flies in the face of your argument.
Have you, yourself, even uttered a whimper against it?
I will support proper child-support and healthcare and everything that can be done to make this
woman's life easier and secure her kids' futures BUT
Three kids is a LOT for two people to handle, let alone one.
To paraphrase Lady Bracknell, to raise one child alone may be regarded as a misfortune; to
attempt to raise three looks like carelessness. To try to raise three alone in the United States
is MADNESS.
I live in the USA. I'm in a stable long-term relationship. I don't make much money. I can't
afford kids.
2 + 2 = 4
Poor me. I don't say I have a right to kids because I need them or I have so much love to give
or blah, blah, blah. I just can't. Not here. This is a cruelly individualistic country. It is
built to serve those who serve themselves. Namely, the young, healthy, smart, motivated and single.
There is no political foundation or tradition of altruism here. Maybe back in Ireland where there's
a system to support me and some healthcare and family. Not here. Madness.
But she's got the kids now. What is she supposed to do? Hand them back to someone? If she and
the childrens' father had them when life was looking more stable and she didn't have to work 4
jobs to make ends meet, she can hardly be blamed now for their existence.
You are living in the now and choose not to have children because you feel you can't afford
them. However, in the future, you may find that you can afford them, and therefore choose to conceive.
If your circumstances change after that and you are no longer able to afford to care for them
without working excessive hours and living in poverty, there's not a lot you can do other than
get on with it. No point blaming her for something that is irreversible.
It's interesting. According to my household income I'm in the "upper" tier for the DC-metro region.
But it really doesn't feel that way. Even those of us who make a good income are more and more
stretched. In comparison to most of the country, I am well off. I own a car, just bought a house,
I can afford to go out to eat a couple times a week. But, I even get to the end of the month with
only $100 in the bank. That's because other downward pressures on pay aren't taken into account,
such as student debt. My expensive undergraduate and graduate education didn't come cheap, and
while that education affords people higher pay, if you end up taking less of it home. It kinda
equals out.
Sometimes my husband and I think about having kids, and then we realise that even with our
good paying jobs, we can't afford day care in our area. I get paid the most, so I can't quit my
job but if my husband quit to care for a child, we would really be strapped. Can I really be considered
an upper tier household if I can't afford to have kids? If I can't afford to go on vacation once
a year? If I haven't bought new clothes in two years? If I have no savings and a freak medical
bill might just tip me over the edge?
There's something very, very wrong. How rich do you need to be before you don't feel like you're
struggling?
You can cut student debt in the U.S. by attending a good community college for two years and then
transferring to a state university. Most kids are unwilling to do this--no frats or prestige in
community colleges!
The huge middle class in the USA was created by the liberal economic polices of the 1930s, which
were designed to help the lower class.
Beginning in the 1970s, a majority of the middle class began to resent the taxation needed
to continue support for these liberal policies, and they began to vote for conservative politicians
who promised to remove them as they "only helped the undeserving poor." White racism played a
role in this as the lower class was invariably portrayed in political speeches and advertising
as group of lazy black people.
What the middle class did not understand was that their continued existence depended on these
liberal programs, as most of the benefits went to the middle class, not the lower class as they
assumed. As the liberal programs began to disappear, so did the economic security of the middle
class.
One would think they would have figured all of this out by now, but they have not, and they
continue to vote for conservatives.
No, it was created in response to the Bolshevik revolution, in particular, to that genius who
said "Let's just shoot the royal family and be done with this."
When that happened, the ruling class got scared, and said "OK, minimum wage, vacation, sick
pay, 40 hr work week, no child labor, great schooling, etc"
All of these things have come under attack since the USSR fell apart, probably on that exact
day. And who overthrew the USSR? Overeducated middle class, not the poor or the rich. Who was
Occupy Wall Street, Arab Spring... the recent protests against the French labor law tightenings,
ALL the middle class.
The greatest threat to governments has, and always will be, from within. And this threat is
from the middle class, almost exclusively. Therefore, we are to be crushed and controlled tightly.
" squeezed middle class tell tales of struggle " Too bad they voted for the big squeeze herself -- Bernie
could have set them free from the path of exploitation she has planned for them immediately after
her election by imposing the TPP upon the very fools who will elect her. Stop watching
the Kartrashians and read about actual policy implications for your family and especially your
children, if you had, none of you would have supported Clinton.
funny how this media outlet didn't publish these types of reports while the primary was hot. It
was all "Hilary is inevitable and supporting Bernie is supporting Trump" type garbage.
I lived in Pittsburgh for 8 years, being European I sent them to public school...well, after a
year in which my six years old son was suspended twice for running around at lunchtime when he
shouldn't (six years old tend to do that), numerous recesses where they were put in front of a
TV (we cannot send them outside, insurance doesn't cover if they get hurt and we got sued before),
and notes from teachers full of spelling mistakes......I had to send them to private school perpetuating
a cycle of poor people in public system and rich people (or middle class as i was at the time)
to private schools....
i don't know what needs to be done to fix the issue but it's the whole society that is really
divided along money lines and race lines and inequality is getting worse. But money trumps everything,
the US is the only place int he world where it's not considered unpolite to ask people :"what's
your worth?" meaning how much you make, what are your assets, etc.....instilling in people a mentality
of self worth based on money and consequentially a cutthroat environment where the more you have
the more you are worth, so at the top they squeeze the lower end, to make more money but also
because they think they are really not that worthy....its a perverse cycle that history taught
us doesn't bring any good because at a certain point the poor reach a critical mass that will
just revolt......I'm waiting for that, good luck...
I'm afraid my friend we disagree on that, excellent public schools are exceptions, there are some
but they are a minority (International statistics on education quality validate that), I don't
live in the US anymore but travel a lot there for business (at least 20 times a year). As for
the worth question I had it asked to me quite a few times and kind of everywhere, maybe it's unpolite,
I believe it's unpolite, but it happens regularly and only in the US (let me rephrase, in the
rest of the world it wouldn't be considered unpolite, that's too mild of a term, it would be considered
inconceivable). Said that I hope the US makes it and the "American Values" that you talk about
prevail, but i am afraid those values have changed and being substituted by less noble ones...
Probably he means to say Americans habitually ask new acquaintances, "What do you do for a living?"
That's absolutely a query about income and personal worth, though slightly disguised, and it's
a question I have never widely encountered anywhere else in the world, nor while living overseas
the last ten years. The question is so ingrained, though, that Americans who ask it don't think
of it as a query about net worth. They do, however, react with overflowing respect toward those
who answer in certain ways, and something akin to sympathy to those who answer in other ways.
All my foreign friends have noticed it, and all think it's weird.
This article is extremely dishonest. First, it claims that she has 'three other jobs'. Second,
she has children, for whom she presumably gets child support. So what's her *real* income?
Agree, I did my last year of high school in the US, in North Carolina of all places, in a top
private school, i was a middling student in Europe with flashes of brilliance in some subjects
but definitely far from the top of the class. When I arrived (it was in the 80s) I didn't speak
English. Well, I graduated with high honors int he top 5% and got my high school diploma, honestly
without having to study that much, school was not totally comparable but definitely way less challenging.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, a lot of private schools in the United States are severely lacking
in the rigor department. This is even true for many--not all--private schools that cater to well-to-do
families.
When those in poverty or on the verge of it are single mothers, you tend to wonder if there are
some other issues as well. I don't recall a time in American history where a single mother of
several children could take care of herself when completely on her own.
I know of single mothers
who are doing fine, but they employed and are also being helped by siblings and parents who already
have some wealth and free time to take care of the child. Maybe the issue is the fact that these
people are having kids at the wrong time or without enough thought. Divorce rates are incredibly
high in the US, and the percentage of children who have non-birth parents is very high as well.
What this all means is that the USA isn't teaching its citizens about having kids and the responsibility.
The USA is also not teaching men and women about birth control, or about being holding potential
partners to higher standards (and I don't mean looks). A lot of people in the USA are too shallow
and focus too much on aesthetics over reliability and now we have single mothers with fathers
who refuse to pay child support at all costs. There are too many problems with the USA, but I
feel that personal hygiene and responsibility with sexual partners should be on the top.
I teach in inner city schools. There are so many problems, money is one of them but all the money
won't solve the problem of poor learning attitudes, disaffection, poor discipline and nonexistent
work ethic .
A lot of the students get no discipline at home and their parents don't expect them
to learn anything. They are resistant to the whole process of focus on new knowledge , absorb,
drill, recall , deploy newly learned thing.
Americans have a religious reverence for individualism
and learning new things is a humbling experience and many people don't like it. Sure the adults
bang on about education but they aren't serious about it. They think all you need is to spend
more money , not do any actual work.
The problems in the inner city are so intransigent that I doubt anything can fix it. I have three
friends, all dedicated teachers, who taught in inner city schools in New Jersey and the stories
they have told me make my mind reel: a mother who punched a teacher (and gave her a concussion)
who "disrespected" her kid (by failing him, deservedly, in algebra), 15-year-olds who had pagers
so their pimps could call them, children who had five brothers and sisters--all with different
fathers. You couldn't make this stuff up.
I don't know what solution there is to this. My nieces and nephews did well in school, studied
hard, and went on to university. They didn't do drugs, rape or be raped, and stayed away from
unsavory kids. BUT--they went home to two parents every night, a father and mother, which I think
would have made them successful at school no matter what their income.
The Pew survey you cited noted that "...the share living in middle-income households fell from
55% in 2000 to 51% in 2014. Reflecting the accumulation of changes at the metropolitan level,
the nationwide share of adults in lower-income households increased from 28% to 29% and the share
in upper-income households rose from 17% to 20% during the period." In other words, most of the
decline in the middle class was due to their moving into the upper class.
The article was mostly about a declining rural area. The Guardian grinding its usual axes and
reaching the conclusion it intended to reach?
Middle class job death inflicted by cronie capitalism entertained by the political establishment
(examples): Private equity is not scrutinized by anti-trust legislation, buys any company and
sends jobs overseas. Cronie supporters of politicians get help in that some industry gets indicted
(e.g. more or less entire coal industry) or regulated into oblivion, for fake reasons, so that
cronie (solar panel) company gets subsidies. Of course, the latter goes under, no company on IV
survives without IV. Banks get bailed out, others not. GM gets bailed out, to maintain jobs, then
outsources.
The old members of middle class are not tolerated by our government and the cronies. Who is tolerated
as middle class is any kind of civil servant, and new immigrants. Revenge from 2 sides. Or call
it cultural revolution Mao style: Take their habitat.
Growing up in the SF Bay Area during the 70's there was a large disparity in academics between
schools even in the same district. At 11 years old the school district was rezoned and the new
school that I attended had much lower standards. So much so, that I came home the very first day
and complained to my mother that I had been assigned to a class for slow learners. Being so bored,
my grades started to drop. At 13 years, I tested out of mathematics and eventually tested out
of high school altogether and joined the military.
There my intelligence was appreciated (believe
it or not). The military provided a valuable work ethic and training in technology that have provided
a decent career and lifestyle since. It's too bad that America can't seem to provide adequate learning to the vast majority.
The US economy isn't competitive anymore. It started with the labor cost being too high, so factories
moved out. Then the entire supply chain moved out. Now the main consumer market is also moving
out. Once that is gone, we will have no more leverage.
The US education is good, but students are lazy, undisciplined, and incurious. In silicon valley,
more than 75% of highly paid technical personnel are foreign born. Corporations making money with
foreign workers here and abroad, on foreign markets. Taking these away and you will see the economy
crash.
Then you have Hillary wanting to sub divide a rapidly diminishing pie, and Trump wanting to
return to 1946. Good luck to them both.
Labor costs were too high. Have some more kool-aid. The elite didn't want labor to have any bargaining power whatsoever . They wanted to dictate
the terms to labor believing that they were the only ones who should have any say in matters. The elite wanted to maximize their profits at the expense of their own citizens. They wanted slave labor . They wanted powerless people to dance to their tune. How could an advanced nation's labor possibly compete with slave labor .
This is the same argument that slave owning , southern plantation owners used to fight against
the freeing of slaves . They to said that they would not longer be competitive and the overall
economy would suffer .
Are you telling us that an economy needs slave labor to exist ?
Sadly ..... thee isn't any hope for these people in the foreseeable future .
Their economic decline has been happening for quite some time now and shows no sign of abating
whatsoever . The economic foundations of their lives have been steadily pulled out from under them by the
financial elite and their subservient political cultures , the Republican and Democratic Parties
. The Republicans have never really given a damn about them and the Democrats have long abandoned
them . These poor people of North Carolina are adrift on a sinking raft on easy ocean of indifference
by the political cultures of America . To those in power , they don't exist . They don't count . They don't matter .
The trend in the U.S, along with almost every other major nation in the world over the past
35 years has been to exclusively serve the interests of the financial elite and only their needs
. All sense of fairness , justice and decency have been totally discarded .
Tax breaks after tax breaks , tax shelters , free movement of capital , etc., etc. would sum
up the experience of the financial elite over the past 35 years . They have become incredibly wealthy now and are still not satisfied . They want more . They
want it all . They want what little you have and their political servants which help them get
.
Political discourse pertaining to the plight of those like these folks in North Carolina is
all window dressing . In the end , you can be certain that it will amount to nothing . Just like
it has for decades now . The financial elite are in control and they are not going to give any of that control up .
As a matter of fact , they are going to tighten their grip . They will invent crisis to have their
agendas imposed upon an increasingly powerless and bewildered public . They will take advantage
of every naturally occurring crisis to advance their agenda .
There will be an end to their abuse , greed and domination until one day when everything changes
. The day when people have had enough . When people can't take it any more . History has demonstrated
this fact so often before . The mighty do fall . They always fall ..... but their fall is nowhere
to be seen at this time .
There is going to a great deal more pain for average folk before things get better .
A Presidential election featuring Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is clear evidence of this
fact.
Hopefully , these two bottom feeding , utter human failures represent the bottom of the barrel
but I doubt if they do .
Good luck to the good folks of North Carolina and countless others like them .... they / we
/ myself are going to need it .
On the contrary .... it's money that the elite have not paid out in wages .
It's money that the elite have illegally hidden from the taxman . It's money the the elite need to pay for the infrastructure that makes it possible to do business
in the first place . It's money that has been made from insider trading and backroom deals . It's money from the wealth that labour has basically created in the first place .
It's money that contributes to the social maintenance on a safe , civil society . It's money that the wealthy do not need .... they have all they could ever need now .
It is money that when distributed fairly keeps money in motion creating it's transfer into
additional hands which further circulates that money creating even more spending by people and
the consumption of goods and services which result in the creation of even more wealth .
Static capital kills economies .
I know that the elite like to think that they are the exclusive ones to create wealth but wealth
creation is the marriage between capital and labour . You can have all of the capital in the world
but without labour transforming it into greater wealth it can not possibly grow .
If anyone is guilty of stealing money it is the elite who steal from the economy causing the
economy's ill health .
The last 35 years are more than testimony to this fact .
Economies are dying wherever the elite have gotten their way .
The elite are the real killers of wealth and economies . Just look at any economy in the world
throughout history where the elite had all of the wealth to themselves . Their economies are highly
dysfunctional and their societies are full of social problems and crime .
This is an indisputable fact .
Greed kills wealth development .
Wealth development is directly tied to the well being of labour which allows for mass consumption
of goods and services .
You would have to be a complete idiot not to see this fact .
So my good doctor .... the money in any given economy really belongs to everyone , not just
the greedy elite .
You need to get a real perspective instead of constantly eyeing you own pile of wealth .
so the woman chose to have 3 daughters, is now choosing to foot the bill for their college education,
and wants me to feel sorry because she has to work her ass off to do all these things? how about
this.... don't have children you can't afford. a little personal responsibility in one's life
goes a long, long way.
We need to redefine middle class. I grew up middle class. We had one TV. Not a lot of clothes.
Took short, cheap vacations. Had no credit cards. Our lives were perfectly enjoyable. Many people
here in the US live way beyond their means.
We piled into the station wagon and headed out on short trips in the region. We visited historic
sites and were enriched by the experience. None of this $1000s on the trip to Disneyland. We didn't
feel deprived or entitled.
The key is not money but optimism. America is still richer, cleaner, and better run than most
other places. But the gap is rapidly closing. Scaling back the spending would not help here. It
would only further reduce the drive.
As a North Carolinian, there are two major issues. One, the right to bear arms and also, teacher
tenure and working conditions. Republicans have already taken away tenure from my younger colleagues,
but as an older teacher, I still have mine. Secondly, democrats want to take away gun rights on
the federal level, but state dems are usually more pro-gun in the conservative state.
SO for me, I will vote for a democratic state government and a republican federal government.
I will be proudly putting a Roy Cooper bumper sticker on my car. But due to the peaceful liberals,
I would be afraid to put a TRUMP sticker on my car because of recent violence against Trump supporters.
The problem is the job exporting American elite class. NAFTA was an economics, political, and
social experiment with all the downside on the former, mostly lower middle class. Non-aligned
examination of the available data shows how disastrous NAFTA has been to America's bubbas. Thanks
to Bush 41 and Bill Clinton. WTO was all Bill. Of the mistakes Obama has made TPP would be the
worst. The question is, really, do we favor global fairness (an even playing field for all earth's
peoples) and a climate-killing consumerist world, or our own disadvantaged (courtesy of our financial
and political elite) citizens. Not an easy choice. Death by poison or hanging. No treaty can benegotiated
fairly in secret.
The tragic irony is that the anger against rule by the 1% manifests in things like support for
Trump, a typical example of the greed and excess of the 1%.
Americans need to question outside their desperately constrained paradigms more. It will help
focus their anger more strategically, and possibly lead to solutions. Don't hold your breath, the inequality gap is accelerating the wrong way.
Fake, fake fake.
A woman with $40k and three children would *not* be paying 1/3 of her income in tax.
This woman does *not* live on $40k net or gross - she has three other jobs.
And her name looks *very* made up.
The elite of the USA have done exactly what the Romans did and what the Pre-Revolutionary French
did.... drain the lower classes while enriching themselves. "Taxes are for little people" is not
just a pithy quote, it has become the reality as the elite rig the system so they benefit and
the lower classes pay. They need to wake up or they will get exactly what the Romans Got (collapsed
empire) or the French got (Violent Revolution). Wake up America! It is time to choose your side
in the class war the elite continue to execute while telling us there is no "Class War" - you
can't pull yourself up by your boot straps while they are pulling the rug out from under you!
My wife used to employ recent graduates from Georgetown University with poli. sci., psychology,
sociology degrees, to stack books for $10/hr. It took them on average 2-3 years, before finding
work in their field. I keep telling my kids you need to earn a degree that has a skill for life
and will always be in demand, i.e. doctor, dentist, vet, engineer, scientist. Additionally, include
work oversees in your career.
Education is NOT about finding a job! It's about learning ways to seek wisdom and rationality,
and to assimilate (not deny) new knowledge throughout your life--and that's exactly what's lacking
in the US! Our schools are factories to turn out standard robots to be used by the owners of this
country, whether they practice law or flip burgers.
I was lucky that my parents were born and
raised before that happened. They went to what used to be called "country schools"--my dad to
a 1-room schoolhouse. Some of the so-called "knowledge" was patriotic trash, serving only the
rich elites, but they learned to be sturdy and to think for themselves, so I was lucky and learned
a lot at home. Without parents who practice the empathetic, rational morality needed in a democracy,
all the jobs in the world--especially if most are for flipping burgers--won't save this dreary
country.
You make an excellent point. Thinking about your life rather than just going for a crip major
in college would be an excellent way NOT to wind up stacking books for $10 an hour with a degree.
I can't count the number of my kids friends who select communications majors, or sociology or
women's studies and then are completely surprised when there are no jobs demanding their educational
background. What is it that they think they will be qualified to do after college?
From the article....
"Some lucky families saw themselves promoted to the upper income bracket." Here in a nutshell we see the author's underlying worldview. Getting to the upper income bracket has nothing to do with effort. Rather it's the result of
luck. It's something that is done to you by an outside force.
Anti-Russian hysteria and demonization of Trump is the key strategies for neoliberal media to secure
Hillary victory in November.
Anti-Russian hysteria is also a tool to maintain solidarity and suppress dissent against neoliberal
globalization. Those presstitutes will stop at nothing, even provocations and swiftboating are OK for them (See Khan
Gambit)
Notable quotes:
"... Oh, and I suppose Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton's vitriol is okay, right? Typical [neo]liberal ranting. Point the finger at someone else, but do the same thing and it's okay. ..."
"... When candidates wish to distinguish themselves or appeal to various segments of the electorate, there is nothing like a lot of demagoguery and fear mongering to bring attention to a candidate and his issues. ..."
"... It then becomes all the more necessary to drive hysteria and to rely on fear and the hyped common threat to maintain solidarity. While some may fantasize about a society run by women, what we know from experience is that women in power act and speak just like men, that is, they also act solely in their own parochial personal political interest and say whatever is necessary to win their next election. ..."
"... I think the divisions are easier to exploit in part because the society has become so greatly divided based of income inequality. ..."
"... WWII's impact on media tended to paper over many of the differences and tensions that have been present in American life. Aside from the period during WWII and in the few decades after, vitriol has been the norm in U.S. media going back to the 1790s. ..."
"... The media became more fragmented as well. Broadcast media also used to be seen as a public service. But in the 1970s the major networks started to understand that it could also be a profit center -- and you had another shift in values, where the public function took a back-seat to profit maximization. The market also has become more cut-throat as the media environment has become more fragmented. ..."
"... [Neo]Liberals are largely to blame - they regarded their opponents as "uneducated" "swivel-eyed" etc. They ruthlessly played "identity politics" for all it was worth. They shut down meaningful debate. ..."
"... This is very true. Screaming racist at anyone challenging the liberal orthodoxy of black = victim and white = oppressor . ..."
"... The same is true of ignoring the many black lives that are ended by the type of people the police frequently come into contact with - other young black men. ..."
"... Politics: policies are never discussed in detail in ANY election. The WHAT, HOW, WHERE, WHEN, WHY and COST is never provided in detail by the politicians. ..."
"... That is the disaster that what current politicians totally fail. That needs to change. Will such, I doubt it. The current so called political platforms or manifestos, are basically useless and used only for propaganda. ..."
"... You left out WHO does the dirty work of the politicians. ..."
"... I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse. ..."
"... I have always wondered if "spin" is taught in journalism schools, or if it is taught by newspapers after graduation from journalism school. ..."
"... I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse. ..."
"... Politically, the Reagan/Thatcher period broke the socially-democratic post-WWII consensus in favour of economic neo-liberalism, which became the new consensus... and once the Cold War was over, there was no real 'peace dividend' and the agreements for global free-trade/globalisation were struck. ..."
"... That lead to the banking crisis/collapse in 2008, and to the 'solution' whereby most governments imposed 'austerity' and debt on ordinary people to keep most of the bankers 'functional' and 'solvent' ...and not only were the bankers not adequately regulated to curtail their activities, but they carried on paying themselves mega-currency bonuses for using taxpayer guarantees to rescue their dysfunctional businesses. ..."
"... I agree, its an entirely artificial construct. And the globalists are in a position to punish countries like Britain for its Brexit decision. But they cannot destroy Britain. Rather, it is the globalists who may be destroyed by the nationalism spreading across the globe. Many globalists are actually terrified by all this. General Electric has read the tea leaves and is already reacting: ..."
"... GE's Immelt Signals End to 7 Decades of Globalization http://fortune.com/2016/05/20/ge-immelt-globalization/ ..."
"... Fascinating link. The global corporate overlords only respond to sustained political pressure. Brexit was a wakeup call for them and the November election in the U.S. may be another... ..."
Oh, and I suppose Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton's vitriol is okay, right? Typical
[neo]liberal ranting. Point the finger at someone else, but do the same thing and it's okay.
The only difference today is that Donald Trump doesn't take the finger pointing and Democratic
vitriol laying down, he fires it right back at them and guess what, he keeps winning!
Vitriolic and polemical speech has been a ubiquitous ritual since the earliest democracies.
When candidates wish to distinguish themselves or appeal to various segments of the electorate,
there is nothing like a lot of demagoguery and fear mongering to bring attention to a candidate
and his issues. In the end, self-interest motivates voters, and fear is the biggest self-interest
of all. Using the specter of the opposition to scare small children and those who think like them
is a time honored tradition and well alive today. Further, as groups begin to prosper and start
being assimilated into the broader society, the individual self-interests diverge and it becomes
harder to hold them together as a cohesive group whose votes can be counted on. It then becomes
all the more necessary to drive hysteria and to rely on fear and the hyped common threat to maintain
solidarity. While some may fantasize about a society run by women, what we know from experience
is that women in power act and speak just like men, that is, they also act solely in their own
parochial personal political interest and say whatever is necessary to win their next election.
Noam Chomsky talked about this in "The Corporation." Our division and increased level of emotional
isolation is a direct result of marketing attacks on the human psyche designed to get us to buy
more products and services. I'm not sure how much of it is Machiavellian and how much is just
pure greed reaping it's inevitable harvest.
A smart comment. Greed and fear are indeed the primary drivers of behaviour in many arenas now,
and it's partly driven by corporations. This-or-that, black-and-white thinking is largely a product
of high emotion, which essentially makes us 'stupid' and unable to reason.
The impact of viewing - consciously or unconsciously - dozens of ads a day on the Internet,
or hours of tranced staring at screens, may be shown to be a major factor in the increasingly
mesmerised state of the populace.
That and, as these venerable politicos point out, the demise of political nous generally.
Many excellent points. I think the divisions are easier to exploit in part because the society
has become so greatly divided based of income inequality. People have completely different
frames of reference in terms of their experience, and anxieties, and so it becomes easier to dismiss
the concerns of others out-of-hand as illegitimate. You can also overlay racism as part of the
equation, which has always been present with varying degrees of intensity in the U.S.
WWII's impact on media tended to paper over many of the differences and tensions that have
been present in American life. Aside from the period during WWII and in the few decades after,
vitriol has been the norm in U.S. media going back to the 1790s.
The idea of a media culture that was objective and bipartisan is a newer idea. It was codified
by things like the Fairness Doctrine as well, which tended to moderate, and censor, public discussion
through broadcast media. When the Fairness Doctrine fell apart you had people like Limbaugh go
national with a highly partisan infotainment model.
The media became more fragmented as well. Broadcast media also used to be seen as a public
service. But in the 1970s the major networks started to understand that it could also be a profit
center -- and you had another shift in values, where the public function took a back-seat to profit
maximization. The market also has become more cut-throat as the media environment has become more
fragmented.
[Neo]Liberals are largely to blame - they regarded their opponents as "uneducated" "swivel-eyed"
etc. They ruthlessly played "identity politics" for all it was worth. They shut down meaningful
debate. Now it's come back to bite them in the form of Donald Trump. They don't like it now
they are on the receiving end.
This is the type of over-stating a position that they are prone to. But saying that "liberals"
are largely to blame is no different to them pointing the finger at "the right" for all the issues.
There's plenty of blame to go around, and it's evenly spread.
They ruthlessly played "identity politics" for all it was worth. They shut down meaningful
debate.
This is very true. Screaming racist at anyone challenging the liberal orthodoxy
of black = victim and white = oppressor .
A prime example of one of the issues is BLM. Pushing the view that any black person killed
by the police as dying at the hand of a racist cop.
Using whole population stats to compare the chances of being shot by the police, instead of
comparing socio-economic groups. It's not exactly unbiased to compare the chances of a poor black
man, and a white lawyer, of being stopped or shot by the police.
The same is true of ignoring the many black lives that are ended by the type of people
the police frequently come into contact with - other young black men.
Until both sides are truthful about what's happening, nothing is going to change. Both sides
- police and young black men - currently approach an interaction with each other fearful of the
other. This is made worse on both sides by the rhetoric.
If you listen to BLM and its supporters, then every cop is racist and wamnts to kill them.
Why would you do what the police officer tells you if you think you're just opening yourself up
to a racist cop killing you?
On the other side, the police apparently often assume that every young black man they encounter
both has a gun, and thinks they're racist, and therefore operates on that assumption and goes
for a shoot first and be safe option.
Neither of these will get any better while there is this lying and entrenched positions on
either side. You could also ask why anyone who's white would support an organization which doesn't
appear to care about the white victims of the police (of which AIUI there are an equal number).
Or the black murder victims who aren't killed by the police.
Politics: policies are never discussed in detail in ANY election. The WHAT, HOW, WHERE, WHEN,
WHY and COST is never provided in detail by the politicians. Every thing in the politicians
mind is open ended, and may or may not be adopted, considered, or maybe a totally different thing
than what they were elected for.
That is the disaster that what current politicians totally fail. That needs to change.
Will such, I doubt it. The current so called political platforms or manifestos, are basically
useless and used only for propaganda.
I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention
and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading
as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse.
Even my beloved Guardian is succumbing, publishing more and more pointless newsy opinion pieces
and less and less fact-based, hard news. I don't want to read five takes on a single world event.
I'd rather read the facts about five different world events and feel more informed at the end
of the day.
I have always wondered if "spin" is taught in journalism schools, or if it is taught by newspapers
after graduation from journalism school.
It gets so far out, you wonder what journalists think the readers think. It would be great
to be in on a backroom discussion about headlines and all paraphrasing in articles at the Washington
Post and Guardian.
I'll bet they sit around and chuckle as they try to cook up positive or negative spins. Its
more than facts.
I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention
and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading
as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse.
Even my beloved Guardian is succumbing, publishing more and more pointless newsy opinion pieces
and less and less fact-based, hard news. I don't want to read five takes on a single world event.
I'd rather read the facts about five different world events and feel more informed at the end
of the day.
I suspect we're seeing the consequences of two events... one political, the other financial (heavily
determined by the political, which happened first).
Politically, the Reagan/Thatcher period broke the socially-democratic post-WWII consensus
in favour of economic neo-liberalism, which became the new consensus... and once the Cold War
was over, there was no real 'peace dividend' and the agreements for global free-trade/globalisation
were struck.
That lead to the banking crisis/collapse in 2008, and to the 'solution' whereby most governments
imposed 'austerity' and debt on ordinary people to keep most of the bankers 'functional' and 'solvent'
...and not only were the bankers not adequately regulated to curtail their activities, but they
carried on paying themselves mega-currency bonuses for using taxpayer guarantees to rescue their
dysfunctional businesses.
As the UK-EU Referendum result has proved, populist politicians spouting bullsh*t can succeed
in this environment; especially when 'decent politicians' abdicate their responsibilities.
I agree, its an entirely artificial construct. And the globalists are in a position to punish
countries like Britain for its Brexit decision. But they cannot destroy Britain. Rather, it is
the globalists who may be destroyed by the nationalism spreading across the globe. Many globalists
are actually terrified by all this. General Electric has read the tea leaves and is already reacting:
Fascinating link. The global corporate overlords only respond to sustained political pressure.
Brexit was a wakeup call for them and the November election in the U.S. may be another...
What about Hillary Clinton my friend ? What a presstitute...
Notable quotes:
"... The media are completely biased...And spread utter lies about Trump, while Hillary immediately hires Debbie wasserman Schultz after she resigned in disgrace when exposed by DNC leaks/Europeans as cheating and colluding against another candidate. ..."
"The media is like an extension of the DNC at this point. They'll intentionally misinterpret
or exaggerate anything Trump says to try to help Hillary win the election," said a 50-year-old
college professor from California.
Of all the risible, most easily shucked off charges, this one takes the toupee. You cannot misinterpret
or exaggerate this:
"Barack Hussein Obama is the creator of ISIS. I mean...he's the literal inventor of ISIS."
Let that treasonous libel stand for the innumerable times Trump has demonstrated that he's a mental
dwarf, a vicious idiot, an unhinged loon. And that's calling it like it is, on his
express terms.
This man belongs in one of two cells: a padded one where he can be safe from his own mental
illnesses or a prison one for his financial shenanigans, death threats against others, incitement
to violence, "cruel and inhumane" abuse of his first wife (the actual charges that stuck, the
rape ones were retracted) and treason. I guess money really can buy anything.
But hell, I'd settle for seeing him safely ensconced in his own Towers. Anywhere but the White
House.
Thete's a certain sort of university-educated, somewhat cosmopolitan person, who probably places
a premium on rationality and an expectation that the world works in reasonably orderly manner.
And they're not just on the left. They read the newspaper - the Guardian or the Telegraph or the
New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. They plan their careers and their retirements.
And they cannot CONCEIVE of how Trump supporters (or many Brexit supporters) see the world.
They don't get it; they can't wrap their heads around the anger and resentment. And they can't
believe that that there are tens of MILLIONS of people like that. All of whom will vote.
Just as we've seen with recent mass shootings, the rational cannot process the IRrational.
'. . . he was trying to be distasteful/politically incorrect as usual, which is why I will
vote for the man. PC has ventured into thought policing on things, and along with the ultra
surveillance state we have moved towards, I don't want to be answering questions by the Gestapo
after I text a tacky joke to someone.'
This amazes me. It shouldn't, as it seems to be a commonly-held sentiment even here, but it
amazes me that people like this feel they have such a strong need to say "tacky" - or, more realistically,
racist, misogynistic, and xenophobic - things that somehow they stand no chance of being able
to continue saying unless an unhinged 70-year old man who is widely denounced for being
disreputable is elected to represent them. It just does not add up as a pile of emotions, let
alone as part of a political platform. This guy also seems to have such a poor grasp of history
and a hysteric sense of melodrama as to believe that someone who criticizes him for making "a
tacky joke" (or possibly just makes him feel awkward for having done so?) is the equivalent of
"the Gestapo." He's more melodramatic about the reception his jokes might receive than a maladjusted
teen who acts out in class.
I'm a former Democrat...And I'm voting for trump. Hillary Clinton is one of the most blatantly
corrupt politician I have ever seen.
The media are completely biased...And spread utter lies about Trump, while Hillary immediately
hires Debbie wasserman Schultz after she resigned in disgrace when exposed by DNC leaks/Europeans
as cheating and colluding against another candidate.
Hillary didn't address this disgusting, illegal, unethical behavior , but she rewards and condones
cheating voters with a JOB.
Arguments of Sanders supporters against Hillary are not perfectly applicable to Hillary vs Trump
contest.
Notable quotes:
"... If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere. ..."
"... You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what party is in office. ..."
"... What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . ..."
"... Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change and motives of votes become transparent. ..."
"... the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard. ..."
"... I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc. ..."
"... I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences . ..."
"... One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? ..."
"... Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance. ..."
"... Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well. Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and Independents is already under way. This is one of the forms it may take. ..."
"... Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance. Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless of what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified relief by western representatives. ..."
"... Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged and non powerful in todays' America. ..."
"... If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. ..."
"... Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it). ..."
"... Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST. ..."
"... Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures. But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill Clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive. ..."
Robin is relentless is arguing AGAINST, but he is quite light on arguing for anything. It is an
interesting question as to what he stands for.
His main argument is that zero information from "right wing" press is true. He seems unaware
that at times, actual facts are presented or not presented or suppressed by either media outlet,
depending on their corporate ownership and management slant of what should be reported. Me? I
read everything and decide if something is a fact. It is strange that factual reporting about
the actual many many FOIA lawsuits only gets printed in right wing press. They of course have
an agenda, but does not negate the facts they report. Like Clinton being allowed to be deposed
in a civil FOIA suit. That is a fact, with quotes from the Judge. CNN? I guess they couldn't afford
to report this factual development.
When you only read the press looking for a partisan set of narratives, you end up being partisan
and ill informed. When you read all the flavours of press in an desire to inform yourself, when
your goal is not a narrative but factual accounts of the truth, then you can be better informed.
So we have partisans, who only view Fox and we also have partisans who only view CNN. Both are
as bad as each other. One must be capable of decreeing the motives of each, and discarding the
nonfactual narratives, and then one can be fully informed.
Robin makes the assumption that facts only occur in his selected set of informational partisan
sources. Why? Because he is partisan. This then enables him to argue against a narrative, rather
than support his own narrative. He plays the neat trick of simply discarding any factual reporting
from places like Breibart. One can see interesting lacks of coverage on google search.
"Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any
communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a
person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession."
So surely in America, Clinton with her wealth would take some legal action? I would if I
had her money, and wealth. Interesting that she has not? Perhaps you could write to her and
suggest she defend herself in a real and palpable way?
Yes and a lot of the press are trying to bury the news about another Sanders success. When you
look at how many voting districts he comes out top in, in is a large percentage. Clinton tends
to get closer or take the district if their is a higher population density.
The influence of the super delegates is a scandal in a "democratic process".
First I would be very careful taking what G gives, it is nowadays "fixing" news like Fox. Most
reliable, if speaking about polls the word can be used, is results of metastudies:
If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters
no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere.
Clinton won't cut it and she won't beat Trump. Trump will out her on every crooked deal she
has been involved in.
You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed
to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what
party is in office.
Is this is a Fox News plant article? yeah yeah, let's vote Clinton who promises a continuation
of Obama's policies. Will Trump make this much worse? Maybe. Trump or Clinton will in my opinion
do little to improve these issues quoted below. You have a different opinion. Great.
"Like the rest of America, Black America, in the aggregate, is better off now than it was when
I came into office," said President Obama on December 19, in response to a question by Urban Radio
Networks White House Correspondent April Ryan.
What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that
President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation
since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in
office illustrates that.
Unemployment. The average Black unemployment under President Bush was 10 percent. The average
under President Obama after six years is 14 percent. Black unemployment, "has always been double"
[that of Whites] but it hasn't always been 14 percent. The administration was silent when Black
unemployment hit 16 percent – a 27-year high – in late 2011 .
Poverty. The percentage of Blacks in poverty in 2009 was 25 percent; it is now 27 percent.
The issue of poverty is rarely mentioned by the president or any members of his cabinet. Currently,
more than 45 million people – 1 in 7 Americans – live below the poverty line.
The Black/White Wealth Gap. The wealth gap between Blacks and Whites in America is at a 24-year
high. A December study by PEW Research Center revealed the average White household is worth $141,900,
and the average Black household is worth $11,000. From 2010 to 2013, the median income for Black
households plunged 9 percent.
Income inequality. "Between 2009 and 2012 the top one percent of Americans enjoyed 95 percent
of all income gains, according to research from U.C. Berkeley," reported The Atlantic. It was
the worst since 1928. As income inequality has widened during President Obama's time in office,
the president has endorsed tax policy that has widened inequality, such as the Bush Tax cuts.
Education: The high school dropout rate has improved during the Obama administration. However,
currently 42 percent of Black children attend high poverty schools, compared to only 6 percent
of White students. The Department of Education's change to Parent PLUS loans requirements cost HBCU's more than $150 million and interrupted the educations of 28,000-plus HBCU students.
SBA Loans. In March 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that only 1.7 percent of $23 billion
in SBA loans went to Black-owned businesses in 2013, the lowest loan of SBA lending to Black businesses
on record. During the Bush presidency, the percentage of SBA loans to Black businesses was 8 percent
– more than four times the Obama rate.
"All the equations showed strikingly uni- form statistical results: racism as we have measured
it was a significantly disequalizing force on the white income distribution, even when other factors
were held constant. A 1 percent increase in the ratio of black to white median incomes (that is,
a 1 percent decrease in racism) was associated with a .2 percent decrease in white inequality,
as measured by the Gini coefficient. The corresponding effect on top 1 percent share of white
income was two and a half times as large, indicating that most of the inequality among whites
generated by racism was associated with increased income for the richest 1 percent of white families.
Further statistical investigation reveals that increases in the racism variable had an insignifi-
cant effect on the. share received by the poorest whites and resulted in a decrease in the income
share of the whites in the middle income brackets."
"What I said, and still maintain, is that the struggle against racism is as important as the struggle
against other forms of oppression, including those with economic and financial causes."
We can agree on this statement. However, do we need to recognise that legislation alone will
not solve racism. A percentage of poor people turn against the "other" and apportion blame for
their issues.
" that campaign finance and banking reform will fix everything"
Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms
or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is
that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service
to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are
very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates
a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress
them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change
and motives of votes become transparent.
"The various forms of discrimination are not separable in real life. Employers' hiring and
promotion practices; resource allocation in city schools; the structure of transportation sys-
tems; residential segregation and housing quality; availability of decent health care; be- havior
of policemen and judges; foremen's prejudices; images of blacks presented in the media and the
schools; price gouging in ghetto stores-these and the other forms of social and economic discrimination
interact strongly with each other in determining the occupational status and annual income, and
welfare, of black people. The processes are not simply additive but are mutually reinforcing.
Often, a decrease in one narrow form of discrimination is accompanied by an increase in another
form. Since all aspects of racism interact, an analysis of racism should incorporate all its as-
pects in a unified manner."
My thesis is this: build economic equality and the the pressing toxins of racism diminish.
But yeah dismiss Sanders as a one issue candidate. he is a politician, which I acknowledge. He
has a different approach to clinton who will micro triangulate constantly depending on who she
in front of. I find his approach ore honest. Your mileage may vary.
" money spent on campaigns does not correlate very highly to winning"
No but overall money gets to decide on a narrow set of compliance in the candidates. But it
still correlates to winning. Look at the Greens with no cash. Without the cash, they will never
win. Sanders has proved that 1. We do not need to depend on the rich power brokers to select narrowly
who will be presented as a candidate. 2. He has proved that a voter can donate and compete with
corporate donations. I would rather scads of voter cash financing rather than corporate cash buying
influence. ABSCAM was a brief flash, never repeated to show us what really happens in back rooms
when a wad of cash arrives with a politician. That we cannot PROVE what happens off the grid,
we can and should rely on common sense about the influence of money. 85% of the American people
believe cash buys influence. The only influence on a politician should be the will of the people.
Sure, corporates can speak. Speech is free. Corporate cash as speech is a different matter. It
is a moral corruption.
"most contributions come after electoral success"
Yes part of the implied contract of corporates and people like the Koch Brothers: Look after
us and we will look after you. We will keep you in power, as long as you slant the legislation
to favour us over the voters.
You do realise the Clinton Foundation bought the assets of the DLC, a defunct organisation.
Part of the assets are the documents and records that contain the information about the Koch Brothers
donations and their executives joining the "management" of the DLC. Why would a Charity be interested
in the DLC documents? Ah it is a Clinton Foundation. Yeah yeah, there is no proof of anything
is there. No law was broken. Do I smell something ? Does human nature guide my interpretation
absent a clear statement from the Foundation of this "investment"?? Yes.
We have to start SOMEWHERE. Root causes are the best place to start.
Democrat or Republican, Blacks and Whites at the bottom are thrown in a race for the bottom
and this helps fuel the impoverishment of both. It is fuel to feed racism. My genuine belief.
Why is it wrong for democrats to pick their own party leader? Also Obama beat Hilary last time
so what's Bernies problem now? Also why moan about a system that's been in place for decades now,
surely the onus was on Sanders to attract more middle of the road dem voters? Finally I'm sure
republicans would also love to vote in Sanders, easy to demolish with attack ads before the election
(you'll note they've studiously ignored him so far).
the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in
admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy
is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and
deserves to get it good and hard.
explain to me why the blacks and Hispanics vote for her because it is a mystery to me. She
stands for everything they have had to fight against. So you have a 1%er-Wall St.-invade
Iraq-subprime-cheat the EU-Goldman Sachs-arms dealing-despot cuddling-fuck the environment
coalition. And blacks and Hispanics too? Are they out of their minds?
BERNIE SANDERS - OR ZIG AGAINST ZAG
.
If the American people don't come to their senses and give Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination,
we're going to end up with a choice between Zig and Zag. Zig is Donald Trump, and Zag is Hillary
Clinton. To paraphrase Mort Sahl back in the sixties, the only difference between the two is if
Donald 'Zig' Trump sees a Black child lying in the street, he'd simply order his chauffeur to
run over him. If Hillary 'Zag' Clinton saw the kid, she'd also order her chauffeur to run over
him, but she'd weep, and go apologize to the NAACP, after she felt the bump.
.
WAKE UP, BLACK PEOPLE!!!
Giving aid to the Republicans? If you honestly believe that any criticisms I have is worse than
what I discuss, you need to give up politics and get a hobby. Trump will for example use her FOIA/email
issues like a stick to beat her with. This is not Soviet Russia where we all adopt the party line.
I'm not not ever have been a member of the Democratic Party. I COULD have been this year. Now?
Never. The solution to the nations problems will come from outside this party.
I prefer neither. You love fearmongering about how worse it will be under trump. Hmmm. I don't
buy that tale. Take Black family incomes. In the toilet. Under either party it goes south. Abortion?
Like slavery nothing ...... Nothing is going to change. It's too late to change that one. But
it's a useful tool to make us believe ONLY Clinton can protect us. Economically the Democrats
are essentially the same as the Republicans, more of the same corporate welfare. Would Clinton
cut Social Security? Maybe. I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just
can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to
lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved
she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the
same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching
support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc.
You believe a black family gays and women will sing Kumbaya under Clinton and all will be well.
I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences .
It would be perhaps remotely marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats,
socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing marxist about
it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that
we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans.
I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about
fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his
ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn
about laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. Those groups believe in
changing the society through struggle into a model that fits their idea of the world whatever
that may be. He simply states his beliefs and suggests laws to adjust the society to human
needs, to eat, to live, to prosper in an equal footing.
It is a rather sad commentary on how the bar of integrity and honesty has been so lowered
that it doesn't even faze them
One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? Their stance on gun and abortion issues?
Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance.
Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well.
Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic
party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and
Independents is already under way. This
is one of the forms it may take.
Recharging is always a good idea ... and never more so than in an election year as turbulent,
crazy, uplifting, disillusioning, energizing, maddening and fascinating as this one. I'll also
be away (for weeks) toward the end of this month.
Before you go, here's Carl Bernstein's interview with Don Lemon, in case you missed it:
Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum.
Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter.
This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance.
Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless of
what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like
this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told
me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified
relief by western representatives.
Add to that the continual lies that are being aired in public and this is why the USA has lost
its way.
Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice for
their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing the
savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy
Hilary is to these people.
And since when does the USA have the ethical superiority to attack countries like Russia for cronyism
etc? This is unbelievable - a presidential nominee candidate is being investigated by the FBI
and she doesn't stand down?
Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose
name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged
and non powerful in todays' America.
I recall David Bowie's beautiful song This Is Not America. The Bernie supporters understand
that, all power to him, those who think like him, and his supporters.
Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro,
called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively.
You can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a
Dem. Up until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never
heard of Obama. Things changed real fast.
Like its not obvious? There is now no paper trail to enable ensuring computer votes are true.
A man on the moon can now ensure who is going to be President, that was said by a premier computer
security expert.
Along with extensive disenfranchisement, numerous ways its pretty clear these outcomes are
preordained. Guess I am not going to be voting for either of the two appointed runners, its
pointless. I will vote for Bernie when its time in California.
And to branch out a bit, there are so many empty stock phrases to choose from in her 2016 campaign
alone, including "I'm with her" and "Breaking down barriers" courtesy of her 2008 campaign manager,
Mark Penn. Speaking of Penn, there's a hilarious little passage in "Clinton, Inc" (p. 65) which
describes Penn running through possible campaign slogans for 2008. "Penn began to walk through
all the iterations of Hillary slogans: Solutions for America, Ready for a change, Ready to lead,
Big challenges, Real Solutions; Time to pick a President... but then he seem to get a little lost...Working
for change, Working for you. There was silence, then snickers as Penn tried to remember all the
bumper stickers which run together sounded absurd and indistinguishable. The Hillary I know."....
Oy. ^__^
But to pick out my favorite Hillary statement of the week, in honor of her close associate
and fellow gonif, Hillary superdelegate, Sheldon Silver, who recently got 12 years in the slammer:
In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York Times,
Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support
So I guess the former speaker of the NY assembly is just gonna have to vote for Hillary
from behind bars, instead of at the DNC? How "super-inconvenient."
If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably
more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only
is a distraction from their lack of policy.
Both their economic/domestic policies do little or
worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable
(although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either
is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton
seems to want to expand it).
If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone not
Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters.
Most effective senator for the last 35 years and as Mayor or Burlington stopped corporate real
estate developers from turning Burlington into Aspen east coast version.
She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi,
turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected
president in Honduras and said nothing,
takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to disclose the transcripts because she
KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted manufacturing in the USA....should I
go on?
So please please explain how Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to wave a wand and fix racism? I
already know she will not fix poverty, she will slap a few ersatz bandaids onto bills that won't
pass and like the spoiled child will seek praise every time mommy gets him to shit on the potty.
You might recall a guy called Martin Luther King. he had some words about economic fairness and
poverty.
"" In the treatment of poverty nationally, one fact stands out: there are twice as many
white poor as Negro poor in the United States. Therefore I will not dwell on the experiences
of poverty that derive from racial discrimination, but will discuss the poverty that affects white
and Negro alike . "
nihilism: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life
is meaningless. The belief that nothing in the world has a real existence.
You love that word but rejection of the dysfunctional state of DNC politics is NOT
nihilism. Moral corruption around campaign finance is real. Moral corruption around money and
lobbyists is real. The desire to fix this, this is real. Seeking real change is not nihilism.
But yes, if it pleases you to continue in every other post with this word, do so. It's misuse
says more about you than Sanders.
Please tell me exactly how much HRC has done for the U.S.? I'm from NYC and when she brought her
carpet bagging ass here and as a 2 term senator she pushed 3 pieces of legislation thru. If you
look at Bernie Sanders voting record:
He's been one of the most effective senators in Congress and has been able to get things done
with cooperation from both sides of the aisle.
So tell me again, what's she done that's so notable?
Uh huh and your supporting a person:
That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta
in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements
that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency,
has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah
she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt....
Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes
a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures.
But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless
they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like
the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill Clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They
didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila
it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive.
This lesser evilness trap is a standard trick inherent in two party system setup, designed to prevent
voting for third party candidate and essentially limiting public discourse to selection between two
oligarchy stooges. Moreover Hillary is definitely greater evil. Invoking of Nader to justify voting
for Hillary is pure neoliberal propaganda designed to get the establishment candidate (who has significant
and dangerous for any politician, to say nothing about POTUS, health problems) into White House. that
why neoliberal MSM are baking non-stop at Trump, trying exaggerate any his misstep to galactic proportions.
...
Notable quotes:
"... Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American ..."
"... Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out, to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks toward Bernie's followers. ..."
"... Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally, she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump. ..."
"... She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. ..."
"... Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will win if she can make the election all about Trump. ..."
"... "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity." ..."
"... I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals. ..."
"... I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public and lied about for decades? ..."
"... The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies, to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess. ..."
"... I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. ..."
"... As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life, and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything ..."
"... You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others who ran the country. ..."
"... Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we have to get rid of. ..."
"... As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind touch that wager? ..."
"... It is unlikely that Trump will be able to deport more people than Obama's record breaking administration. ..."
"... Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's continuous advice for more more more military intervention. ..."
"... I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to the White House. ..."
"... You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective – not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed. ..."
"... Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand), and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very nice way of saying things. ..."
"... Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way. ..."
"... He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed. ..."
"... While Trump is upfront (yikes, I know), I see Hillary as the secretive, conniving, manipulative, scheming, backstabbing type. When someone slights Trump, out comes his response right back at them. It's over. But I would not want to cross her. I see her as cold, with very, very little conscience. I mean, would you ever have tried to pull off the scandals she has been involved in? No. She seeks power and money, and look out if you ever got in her way. She never says she's sorry, not really. Most you get out of her is she made a "mistake". ..."
"... Her outright aggression towards Russia, Syria, Libya, Ukraine should give you a hint of what lurks inside. And she doesn't attack these countries to better the U.S. She's doing it solely for her own person gain: money into the Clinton Foundation, business for her speech-giving husband, all to further the Clinton's. ..."
"... IMO, a very dangerous person, a very dangerous couple. And she has said, if she's elected, she will put Bill Clinton in charge of "economic affairs"! Can you just imagine what more deregulation will do for the banks? He repealed Glass-Steagall and brought us the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, as well as NAFTA. Get ready to hear a "huge" sucking sound if Hillary is elected. The place will be gutted. ..."
"... Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war? ..."
"... It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that "supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV. ..."
"... You might think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective evil" is the evil to fear. ..."
"... If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close, I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which I'm too lazy to look up right now. ..."
"... "Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against, the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.) ..."
"... Beyond backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer." ..."
"... That whole article deals with the "fake liberalism" exhibited by the Clinton's and Obama. It says they only "pretend" to care. ..."
"... clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia, the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign. ..."
"... it's common knowledge that the current "rigged" system, as Donald Trump keeps calling it, has been instrumental in bringing American politics and government to their present state of dysfunction at local, state and national levels. Americans hate and despise this elitist system; everyone is disgusted with the political donor class whose billions of dollars underwrite the election-rigging televised attack ads that dominate it. ..."
"... At the Demo Convention Bernie Sanders neatly pinpointed the topics with which this bogus system is obsessed: "Let me be as clear as I can be. … This election is not about political gossip. It's not about polls. It's not about campaign strategy. It's not about fundraising. It's not about all the things the media spends so much time discussing." ..."
"... Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical ..."
"... The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's not an insider and obviously won't play their games. ..."
"... Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something about it afterwards. ..."
"... HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation, etc. ..."
"... They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain, and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations, arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex ..."
"... "When you join the dots to Trump also preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the meaning becomes clear. But that connected meaning is blacked out. In its place, the corporate media and politicians present an egomaniac blowhard bordering on fascism who preaches hate, racism and sexism. ..."
"... He is on record saying he will cut the Pentagon's budget "by 50%". No winning politician has ever dared to take on the military-industrial complex, with even Eisenhower only naming it in his parting speech. ..."
"... Trump also says that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israeli-Palestine conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics ..."
"... Hillary and her team will try to paint Trump as a lover of Putin, as a racist, bigot, bring the narrative down to this only. This way, no one ends up talking about the corporate elites she represents. Good, read some more, crittermom, and open your eyes even more. There's a lot more going on than meets the eye. ..."
"... Recently I asked a wise person I know what historically follows an oligarchy (which is what I believe we have been in for awhile now). He told me that an oligarchy is usually followed by a dictatorship. ..."
"... A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy". ..."
"... How could Trump become a dictator? Congress will be hostile. Judiciary will be hostile. Pentagon will be hostile (didn't you see all those generals and admirals, in uniform, literally lining up behind Clinton?) Civil administration will be sullen, uncooperative, and leaking like crazy. ..."
"... Trump does not have his own freestanding parallel state organization, ready to move in and take over the bureaucracy and the armed forces. It would be physically impossible for Trump to attempt a mass purge. ..."
"... Just think: if you elect Trump, you would actually get to see the US Constitution's fabled "checks and balances" come into play for once in your life! ..."
"... How could Trump become a dictator? ..."
"... This is complete rhetorical garbage, the same kind of nonsense displayed when he is shock quoted and only the narrative supporting text is copied (such as the convenient omission that the fabled day in which Clinton could be assassinated would be "horrible"). It also fits well with the Democrats' habit of burying themselves instead of putting up a fight. ..."
"... While Trump is a buffoon who might lead us into bad situations as he stumbles around, Hillary Clinton displays an undeniable and proven malice aforethought that he does not. ..."
PERIES: So Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary
Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of
Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American
. Now, this type of association game, which is supposed to make it difficult for Sanders supporters
to criticize Clinton, what implication does this have on the overall politics in this country?
HUDSON: Well, it certainly changed things in earlier elections. The Republican convention was
as is normal, all about their candidate Trump. But surprisingly, so was the Democratic convention.
That was all about Trump too – as the devil. The platform Hillary's running on is "I'm not Trump.
I'm the lesser evil."
She elaborates that by saying that Trump is Putin's ploy. When the Democratic National Committee
(someone within it, or without) leaked the information to Wikileaks, the Democrats and Hillary asked,
"Who benefits from this"? Ah-ha. Becaue Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because
he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out,
to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks
toward Bernie's followers.
Then Assange did an Internet interview and implied that it was not a cyberwar attack but a leak
– indicating that it came from an insider inn the DNC. If this is true, then the Democrats are simply
trying to blame it all on Trump – diverting attention from what the leaks' actual content!
This is old-fashioned red baiting. I saw it 60 years ago when I was a teenager. I went to a high
school where teachers used to turn in reports on what we said in class to the FBI every month. The
State Department was emptied out of "realists" and staffed with Alan Dulles-type Cold Warriors. One
couldn't talk about certain subjects. That is what red-baiting does. So the effect at the Democratic
Convention was about Hillary trying to avoid taking about her own policies and herself. Except for
what her husband said about "I met a girl" (not meaning Jennifer Flowers or Monica Lewinski.)
The red baiting succeeded, and the convention wasn't about Hillary – at least, not her economic
policies. It was more about Obama. She tied herself to Obama, and next to Trump = Putin, the convention's
second underlying theme was that Hillary was going to be Obama's third term. That's what Obama himself
said when he came and addressed the convention.
The problem with this strategy is it's exactly the problem the Republicans faced in 2008, when
voters turned against George Bush's administration. Voters wanted change. And they do today. Hillary
did not say "I'm going to have hope and change from the last years of Obama." She said, in effect,
"I'm not going to change anything. I'm going to continue Obama's policies that have made you all
so prosperous." She talked about how employment is rising and everyone is better off.
Well, the problem is that many people aren't better off than the last eight years. Ten million
families have lost their homes, and most peoples' budgets are being squeezed. Obama saved the banks
not the economy. So Trump's line and the Republican line in this election could well be: "Are you
really better off than you were eight years ago? Or, are you actually worse off? Where are all your
gains? You're further in debt. You're having more difficulty meeting your paychecks, you're running
up your student loans. You're really not better off and we're going to be the party of hope and change."
Hillary can't really counter that with the policies she has. Trump and the Republicans can say
that even though she disavowed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the trade agreement with Europe,
all the Democratic representatives that voted for the TPP have won re-nomination, and it's still
on the burner.
Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she
did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have
become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally,
she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going
to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other
big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump.
What did Hilary actually say at the convention besides "I'm not Trump, Trump is worse." She's
trying to make the whole election over her rival, not over herself.
PERIES: Okay, so everything you say about Hillary Clinton may be true, and it's more in your favor
that it is true. She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported
even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. So
when we opened this interview we were talking about what the Bernie Sanders supporters should now
do, because Trump is starting to appeal like he's the candidate of ordinary people. So what are they
to do?
HUDSON: Well, if the election is between the most unpopular woman candidate in America and the
most unpopular male candidate, the winner is going to be whoever can make the election fought over
the other person. Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will
win if she can make the election all about Trump. It looks like she's able to do this, because
Trump is even more narcissistic than she is.
EndOfTheWorld- totally agree with you. I just shake my head at Bernie. Diametrically opposed
to Clinton, he suddenly turns around and embraces her! What? I will never understand that.
"America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president
that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity."
He's right too. I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes
me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been
involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others,
lies some more. Power and money are her goals.
She has called Putin "Hitler", said she wants to expand NATO, and again said she wants to take
out Assad. Well, how is she going to do that when Russia is in there? God, she is scary. I just
hope that there's a big Clinton Foundation email leak to finish her off.
Trump is out there, but at least he wants to try to negotiate peace (of course, if war wasn't
making so many people rich, it would be stopped tomorrow). He's questioning why NATO is necessary,
never mind its continual expansion, and he wants to stop the TPP.
God, I'd be happy with even one of the above. Hillary will give us TPP, more NATO, more war,
and a cackle. Please, if anyone has some loose emails hanging around, now is the time!
I honestly don't think there's any way to predict what Donald Trump will do if elected. He's
effectively a private citizen who, all of a sudden, will have access to every government secret
and lie, and no culpability for any of it. It's almost impossible to imagine what that would be
like.
And it's what makes him so "dangerous."
I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But
what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every
bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public
and lied about for decades?
The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies,
to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens
have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes
to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess.
I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to
ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. I doubt he would
be able to get much done as there would be an establishment consensus to keep him firmly under
wraps. He would mostly busy himself with jetting around meeting foreign leaders and he might actually
be quite productive at that.
or he'll pass what he campaigns on which is standard Republican policy (sometimes) through
an entirely Republican legislature duh. So tax cuts, cuts to regulation etc.. Really he's campaigning
on these things and they CAN pass a Republican congress.
Yes, if Donnie is elected, we'll see some form of a Regency; that's what Pence is there for.
Donnie will be Clown Prince, while more traditionally evil Republican/DC technocrats "run" things.
It would be a re-doing of the Reagan/Bush-Baker and Bush/Cheney dynamic, as seen on reality TV.
As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit
down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life,
and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully
about anything. Does he lie exactly the way Hillary does? Of course not, she's the accomplished
professional, while Donnie spins plates and tries to misdirect by finding someone to insult when
they fall and shatter.
Vote for Hillary or not (I most likely won't, but can't predict much of anything in this all-bets-are-off
opera buffa), but by believing anything Donnie says, you risk being the chump he already thinks
you are.
You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be
trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does
that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others
who ran the country.
Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we
have to get rid of.
When was the last time a political candidate in any country was as hated by the establishment
as Trump is? That's all you need to know. As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents
our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will
be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that
Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind
touch that wager?
It is unlikely that Trump will be able to deport more people than Obama's record breaking
administration. Something, that for all her rhetoric, there is no reason to believe that
Clinton will change. As for waging war, we have a whole lot of information that for all his massive
drone wars and interventions in the Middle East, Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's
continuous advice for more more more military intervention.
I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known
is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to
the White House.
You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are
willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that
war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective –
not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed.
Once again, people are choosing from known despicable, unknown possibly lesser possibly greater
despicable, and unlikely to win third parties or write ins – everyone can only do that for themselves.
One New York reporter (sorry, I don't have the link) said that he has watched Trump his whole
life and he said, though he could say many bad things about Trump, racism wasn't one of them.
He said he had never in all his years of watching him known Trump to be racist in any way.
Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals
lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand),
and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the
country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very
nice way of saying things.
Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent
and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way.
He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that
just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed.
While Trump is upfront (yikes, I know), I see Hillary as the secretive, conniving, manipulative,
scheming, backstabbing type. When someone slights Trump, out comes his response right back at
them. It's over. But I would not want to cross her. I see her as cold, with very, very little
conscience. I mean, would you ever have tried to pull off the scandals she has been involved in?
No. She seeks power and money, and look out if you ever got in her way. She never says she's sorry,
not really. Most you get out of her is she made a "mistake".
Her outright aggression towards Russia, Syria, Libya, Ukraine should give you a hint of
what lurks inside. And she doesn't attack these countries to better the U.S. She's doing it solely
for her own person gain: money into the Clinton Foundation, business for her speech-giving husband,
all to further the Clinton's.
IMO, a very dangerous person, a very dangerous couple. And she has said, if she's elected,
she will put Bill Clinton in charge of "economic affairs"! Can you just imagine what more deregulation
will do for the banks? He repealed Glass-Steagall and brought us the Commodity Futures Modernization
Act, as well as NAFTA. Get ready to hear a "huge" sucking sound if Hillary is elected. The place
will be gutted.
That's preposterous about Donnie not being racist. When the Central Park Five (released from
prison and compensated by the state for false impisonment) were arrested, Donnie took out full
page ads for days in the NYC papers, all but calling for those (innocent) boy's lynching. He was
raised in an explicitly racist milieu – his father arrested at a KKK tussle in Queens in the 1920's,
and successfully sued by the Nixon DOJ for his discriminatory rental policies…) and has a long
history of saying ignorant, absurd and racist things about "The Blacks."
"Clinton is awful, but that doesn't mean it's a better idea to elect a hateful, racist,
despicable con man"
Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress
just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump
antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war?
It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the
term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with
black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason
except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that
"supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has
Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for
him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV.
Hatred and racism is exhibited in leaders by being a war monger and gutting this nation with
the TPP and lousy trade deals that sell off our national sovereignty and democracy. You might
think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective
evil" is the evil to fear.
I am with
Noam Chomsky on this. If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close,
I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which
I'm too lazy to look up right now.
But as Pat said above, everyone must make up his or her own mind.
Has there ever been any evidence that this type of strategic voting has ever done any good
whatsoever or ever had its intended result? Just speculation but I'm guessing that only a very
few of the very politically astute would even bother. I say vote your conscience regardless and
let the chips fall where they may.
Not the voters fault that this is the best the two major parties could come up with.
Speaking of revolution, I emailed Chomsky yesterday and he replied. The below is my message
to him.
Professor Chomsky,
In the last years of his life, Martin Luther King, Jr. organized the Poor People's Campaign,
which essentially planned to occupy Capitol Hill. The campaign still happened after his death,
but not enough people showed up for it to have a great impact.
I've begun to advocate what would essentially be a continuation of the Poor People's
Campaign, but with a broader focus on the numerous crises facing humanity: climate change,
poverty, illegal wars, etc.
Would you possibly be interested in providing rhetorical support for this action?
Thank you so much for your efforts to make a better world.
The below is Chomsky's reply.
It was a wonderful and very important initiative, cruelly undermined by his assassination.
I hope you manage to revive it.
Butch – "…she helped lead the fight for universal health care." Did she now? Here's a good
quote on how she felt about universal health care:
"Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version
of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against,
the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single
payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.)
"David, tell me something interesting." That was then First Lady Hillary Clinton's weary and
exasperated response – as head of the White House's health reform initiative – to Harvard medical
professor David Himmelstein in 1993. Himmelstein was head of Physicians for a National Health
Program. He had just told her about the remarkable possibilities of a comprehensive, single-payer
"Canadian style" health plan, supported by more than two-thirds of the U.S. public. Beyond
backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive
coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection
and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer."
clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals
who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the
intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia,
the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign.
I love Michael Hudson. But like everyone commenting here he is needlessly thinking inside the
crumbling box of America's existing top-down, money-driven system of political discourse. So what
is it that keeps us from thinking outside this godawful box? I think we're all so deeply and habitually
embedded in the mode of being status quo critics that we're unable to enter the problem-solving
mode of finding alternatives to it. But to make government work in America, we need to think in
both modes.
So let's think outside the box for a minute. After all, it's common knowledge that the
current "rigged" system, as Donald Trump keeps calling it, has been instrumental in bringing American
politics and government to their present state of dysfunction at local, state and national levels.
Americans hate and despise this elitist system; everyone is disgusted with the political donor
class whose billions of dollars underwrite the election-rigging televised attack ads that dominate
it.
At the Demo Convention Bernie Sanders neatly pinpointed the topics with which this bogus
system is obsessed: "Let me be as clear as I can be. … This election is not about political gossip.
It's not about polls. It's not about campaign strategy. It's not about fundraising. It's not about
all the things the media spends so much time discussing." Yet like all presidential candidates
this year Bernie didn't take the next, logical step: he didn't call for the creation of a new
political discourse system. (Note that Hillary alone among the top three candidates never, ever
has a bad word to say against the current system.)
OK, so what might a new system look like? First off, it would be non-partisan, issue-centered
and deliberative. And citizen-participatory. It would make citizens and governments responsive
and accountable to each other in shaping the best futures of their communities. That's its core
principal.
More specifically, the format of a reality TV show like The Voice or American Idol could readily
be adapted to create ongoing, prime-time, issue-centered searches for solutions to any and all
of the issues of the day. And of course problem-solving Reality TV is just of any number of formats
that could work for TV. Other media could develop formats tap their strengths and appeal to their
audiences.
Thanks to the miracle of modern communications technologies, there's nothing to stop Americans
from having a citizen-participatory system of political discourse that gives all Americans an
informed voice in the political and government decisions that affect their lives. Americans will
flock in drove to ongoing, rule-governed problem-solving public forums that earn the respect and
trust of citizens and political leaders alike. When we create them, governments at local, state
and national levels will start working again. If we don't, our politics will continue to sink
deeper into the cesspool we're in now.
Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big
capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical, unless there is a real
socialist-ish movement out there educating and politicizing. In other words, while the political
system is indeed broken, the economy is also broken and it is hard to see "empowered" citizens
fixing the economy. What I think would happen is the politicians elected by these empowered citizens
would be opposed by big business and the politicians they own, nothing good would get done, and
there would be a business-financed media drumbeat that more democracy has been "proven" not to
work.
I don't think our political problems can be solved simply be electing better politicians –
though of course we do need better politicians.
The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of
the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side
of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's
not an insider and obviously won't play their games.
I have not had nearly the hardship you have had crittermom and I have not lived as long either,
but at 27, and being someone who has been discontent with social structure since middle school,
I have absolutely had enough. Genetics, environment, the combination of internal-external factors,
whatever it was I have always had a very ("annoying" and sarcastic) curiousity or oppositional
approach to things, especially things people do not question and accept as is (religion, government…).
Growing older has only led me to greater understanding of the pit we reside within and how
we probably will not get out. This election season in particular has been ridiculously… indescribable.
The utter incompetence of our selfish administrations is finally coming to a head and people are
completely oblivious, pulling the same stale BS that we have seen every four years since before
I was born.
Bernie totally blew it but, outside your hardship, don't ever think you effort was a waste.
For once an honest candidate appeared who was backed by the policies we need and you supported
that (as I did). That is the most we can do at this point. Bernie the man should absolutely be
criticized because he wanted a "revolution" then sold out to the Junta instead of biting back
when it would have really sent a message to the people and high rollers. He wasn't willing to
sacrifice what was necessary to make a stand. Instead he sided with the people that have made
careers sacrificing citizens like you–and that is terrible. The reality these people live in and
teach to others is such a lie.
Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War
Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful
chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even
before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally
one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents
have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something
about it afterwards.
So despite his potty mouth there's something to be said for Mr. Trump Goes to Washington. By
the time he figures out how to be caudillo it may be time for another election.
crittermom – HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting
an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole
time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton
Foundation, etc.
They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain,
and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations,
arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex. Who would have thought
that the guy running for the right wants to keep jobs in America, wants to stop wars, and the
one on the left is for the monied class! Right is left and left is right. Upside down world.
The following article is old now, from April, but it gives you an idea of "Why the Establishment
Hates Trump" and what he is planning on doing. Watch them go after him; they will vilify him.
"When you join the dots to Trump also preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable
corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the meaning
becomes clear. But that connected meaning is blacked out. In its place, the corporate media
and politicians present an egomaniac blowhard bordering on fascism who preaches hate, racism
and sexism.
But the silenced policies he advocates are more like jumping into a crocodile pit. He
is on record saying he will cut the Pentagon's budget "by 50%". No winning politician has ever
dared to take on the military-industrial complex, with even Eisenhower only naming it in his
parting speech.
Trump also says that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israeli-Palestine
conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics.
Big Pharma is also called out with "$400 billion to be saved by government negotiation of
prices". The even more powerful HMO's are confronted by the possibility of a "one-payer system",
the devil incarnate in America's corporate-welfare state."
Hillary and her team will try to paint Trump as a lover of Putin, as a racist, bigot, bring
the narrative down to this only. This way, no one ends up talking about the corporate elites she
represents. Good, read some more, crittermom, and open your eyes even more. There's a lot more
going on than meets the eye.
So I don't usually post here, just mostly read what other folks have to say.
Recently I asked a wise person I know what historically follows an oligarchy (which is
what I believe we have been in for awhile now). He told me that an oligarchy is usually followed
by a dictatorship.
So if that is the case is Trump going to take us into the land of dictatorship (which I believe
is highly likely) or are any of us going to be able to tread water for a little longer with HRC
(who I agree is ugh a non-choice but hopefully the lesser of the two evils).
Looking this up I found the concept of the Tytler Cycle. Interesting and scary. This is off
wikipedia:
Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the
majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority
always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses
because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a
monarchy".
Anyway can someone refute this for me so I can sleep tonight? Thanks, in advance.
How could Trump become a dictator? Congress will be hostile. Judiciary will be hostile.
Pentagon will be hostile (didn't you see all those generals and admirals, in uniform, literally
lining up behind Clinton?) Civil administration will be sullen, uncooperative, and leaking
like crazy.
Trump does not have his own freestanding parallel state organization, ready to move in
and take over the bureaucracy and the armed forces. It would be physically impossible for
Trump to attempt a mass purge.
So exactly how the hell would Trump impose his will on the American masses? Answer: No Way.
President Trump can only be a relatively weak president.
Just think: if you elect Trump, you would actually get to see the US Constitution's fabled
"checks and balances" come into play for once in your life!
Thank you! The same question I have been asking repeatedly throughout this charade. Everyone's
favorite line is "Trump will be a dictator [be afriad]!" The obvious question… how
?!
How is Trump going to have the same or any more power within or over the system than any president
before him?? What is a reasonable strategy with which he could upend and create domination over
this system with? This is complete rhetorical garbage, the same kind of nonsense displayed
when he is shock quoted and only the narrative supporting text is copied (such as the convenient
omission that the fabled day in which Clinton could be assassinated would be "horrible"). It also
fits well with the Democrats' habit of burying themselves instead of putting up a fight.
I have felt for a long time but have struggled to put into words the deep, strong aversion
I have towards Clinton (et al.)and that I feel any time I read about her or see her. There is
a phrase in the song Art War , by the Knack, that caught my ear; what I originally heard as, "malice
of forethought". To me this represents the idea that terrible, harmful, far-reaching, incompetent
decisions are made completely on purpose. After doing some research I discovered that the phrase
is actually "malice aforethought", related to murderous intent in legal definitions. A
second, more appropriate
definition here is "a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned
for the lives of others". This represents my internal shuddering exactly – a sort of willful, deadly
incompetence.
While Trump is a buffoon who might lead us into bad situations as he stumbles around, Hillary
Clinton displays an undeniable and proven malice aforethought that he does not.
High level military commanders are more politicians then commanders. And if they belong to
neocons this is a dangerous and potentially explosive combination. Especially if State
Department is fully aligned with Pentagon, like happened under Secretary Clinton tenure.
Notable quotes:
"... He had exaggerated Russian activities in eastern Ukraine with the overt goal of delivering weapons to Kiev. ..."
"... "I think POTUS sees us as a threat that must be minimized,... ie do not get me into a war????" Breedlove wrote in one email, using the acronym for the president of the United States. How could Obama be persuaded to be more "engaged" in the conflict in Ukraine -- read: deliver weapons -- Breedlove had asked former Secretary of State Colin Powell. ..."
"... Breedlove sought counsel from some very prominent people, his emails show. Among them were Wesley Clark, Breedlove's predecessor at NATO, Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs at the State Department, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Kiev. ..."
"... One name that kept popping up was Phillip Karber, an adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown University in Washington DC and president of the Potomac Foundation, a conservative think tank founded by the former defense contractor BDM. By its own account, the foundation has helped eastern European countries prepare their accession into NATO. Now the Ukrainian parliament and the government in Kiev were asking Karber for help. ..."
"... According to the email, Pakistan had offered, "under the table," to sell Ukraine 500 portable TOW-II launchers and 8,000 TOW-II missiles. The deliveries could begin within two weeks. Even the Poles were willing to start sending "well maintained T-72 tanks, plus several hundred SP 122mm guns, and SP-122 howitzers (along with copious amounts of artillery ammunition for both)" that they had leftover from the Soviet era. The sales would likely go unnoticed, Karber said, because Poland's old weapons were "virtually undistinguishable from those of Ukraine." ..."
"... Karber noted, however, that Pakistan and Poland would not make any deliveries without informal US approval. Furthermore, Warsaw would only be willing to help if its deliveries to Kiev were replaced with new, state-of-the-art weapons from NATO. Karber concluded his letter with a warning: "Time has run out." Without immediate assistance, the Ukrainian army "could face prospect of collapse within 30 days." ..."
"... In March, Karber traveled again to Warsaw in order to, as he told Breedlove, consult with leading members of the ruling party, on the need to "quietly supply arty ( eds: artillery ) and antitank munitions to Ukraine." ..."
"... In an email to Breedlove, Clark described defense expert Karber as "brilliant." After a first visit, Breedlove indicated he had also been impressed. "GREAT visit," he wrote. Karber, an extremely enterprising man, appeared at first glance to be a valuable informant because he often -- at least a dozen times by his own account -- traveled to the front and spoke with Ukrainian commanders. The US embassy in Kiev also relied on Karber for information because it lacked its own sources. "We're largely blind," the embassy's defense attaché wrote in an email. ..."
"... At times, Karber's missives read like prose. In one, he wrote about the 2014 Christmas celebrations he had spent together with Dnipro-1, the ultranationalist volunteer battalion. "The toasts and vodka flow, the women sing the Ukrainian national anthem -- no one has a dry eye." ..."
"... Karber had only good things to report about the unit, which had already been discredited as a private oligarch army. He wrote that the staff and volunteers were dominated by middle class people and that there was a large professional staff that was even "working on the holiday." Breedlove responded that these insights were "quietly finding their way into the right places." ..."
"... In fact, Karber is a highly controversial figure. During the 1980s, the longtime BDM employee, was counted among the fiercest Cold War hawks. Back in 1985, he warned of an impending Soviet attack on the basis of documents he had translated incorrectly. ..."
"... He also blundered during the Ukraine crisis after sending photos to US Senator James Inhofe, claiming to show Russian units in Ukraine. Inhofe released the photos publicly, but it quickly emerged that one had originated from the 2008 war in Georgia. ..."
"... The reasons that Breedlove continued to rely on Karber despite such false reports remain unclear. Was he willing to pay any price for weapons deliveries? Or did he have other motives? The emails illustrate the degree to which Breedlove and his fellow campaigners feared that Congress might reduce the number of US troops in Europe. ..."
"... General Breedlove's departure from his NATO post in May has done little to placate anyone in the German government. After all, the man Breedlove regarded as an obstacle, President Obama, is nearing the end of his second term. His possible successor, the Democrat Hillary Clinton, is considered a hardliner vis-a-vis Russia. ..."
"... What's more: Nuland, a diplomat who shares many of the same views as Breedlove, could move into an even more important role after the November election -- she's considered a potential candidate for secretary of state. ..."
"... The now famous and appropriate quote from President Eisenhower: ..."
"... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. ..."
"... The idea of NATO as a defence organisation, following the 2nd World War was quite rational. The history of this organisation however, has shown, how a well meant intention can be misused to force through policies, which have nothing to do with the original purpose. Currently it would appear to have no other role, than to provide high ranking army officers with well paid employment, which can only be justified by way of international conflicts. In the absence of conflict, NATO would have no other cause for existence. ..."
"... The Cold War continues, only the enemy is not the Soviet Union but Russia. Ever since the war against Napoleon Russia has emerged as a threat to certain European interests, at first liberal and nationalist interests. After the Bolshevik Revolution the enemy was still Russia, now revitalized with extreme Bolshevik ideology. Hitler used this effectively to target liberals, leftists and especially Jews. ..."
"... After the fall of Communism nothing has really changed. The West is still urged to resist the Russian threat, a threat invented by Polish, Baltic, and Ukrainian nationalists and perhaps Fascists. Donald Trump alone seems impervious to this propaganda. Let's at least give him credit in this case, if not in many others. NATO has become a permanent anti-Russian phony alliance, financed by America. ..."
"... These people are hell-bent to bring the world to the brink of war, with lies and excuses about fear of Russian attacks. So Poland was willing to step into the conflict with Ukraine and deliver lethal armament? All the while afraid of Russia invading it? ..."
"... Philip Breedlove is a war monger and should be fired from his position. The efforts of the group around him seeking to secure weapons for the Ukraine to intensify the conflict must have happened with Breedlove's knowledge and support. If not, then he is not capable to meet the demands of his job and should be dismissed for incompetence. Either way, this guy is unacceptable. ..."
"... Ms. Nuland is the same us official recorded by Russian intelligence trying to manipulate events in Ukraine before the overthrow of the president and all the tragic events that followed. That she is still working for US state dept. is puzzling to say the least. ..."
"... Very simple, he is attempting to INVENT a NEW ROLE for NATO, as it is well known in the domain of sociology: any organization strives for survival, especially when it becomes OBSOLETE. ..."
"... nato Breedhate? ..."
"... SPON was always parotting him. And SPON member Benjamin Bidder and many other SPON guys were foaming at the mouth with war rhetoric all the time in 2014-15. Shame on those fools. Finally, with this contribution you are approaching your real job. And this is to distribute information instead of propaganda. ..."
The newly leaked emails reveal a clandestine network of Western agitators around the NATO military
chief, whose presence fueled the conflict in Ukraine. Many allies found in Breedlove's alarmist public
statements about alleged large Russian troop movements cause for concern early on. Earlier this year,
the general was assuring the world that US European Command was "deterring Russia now and preparing
to fight and win if necessary."
The emails document for the first time the questionable sources from whom Breedlove was getting
his information. He had exaggerated Russian activities in eastern Ukraine with the overt goal of
delivering weapons to Kiev.
The general and his likeminded colleagues perceived US President Barack Obama, the commander-in-chief
of all American forces, as well as German Chancellor Angela Merkel as obstacles. Obama and Merkel
were being "politically naive & counter-productive" in their calls for de-escalation, according to
Phillip Karber, a central figure in Breedlove's network who was feeding information from Ukraine
to the general.
"I think POTUS sees us as a threat that must be minimized,... ie do not get me into a war????"
Breedlove wrote in one email, using the acronym for the president of the United States. How could
Obama be persuaded to be more "engaged" in the conflict in Ukraine -- read: deliver weapons -- Breedlove
had asked former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Breedlove sought counsel from some very prominent people, his emails show. Among them were Wesley
Clark, Breedlove's predecessor at NATO, Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European
and Eurasian affairs at the State Department, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Kiev.
One name that kept popping up was Phillip Karber, an adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown
University in Washington DC and president of the Potomac Foundation, a conservative think tank founded
by the former defense contractor BDM. By its own account, the foundation has helped eastern European
countries prepare their accession into NATO. Now the Ukrainian parliament and the government in Kiev
were asking Karber for help.
Surreptitious Channels
On February 16, 2015, when the Ukraine crisis had reached its climax, Karber wrote an email to
Breedlove, Clark, Pyatt and Rose Gottemoeller, the under secretary for arms control and international
security at the State Department, who will be moving to Brussels this fall to take up the post of
deputy secretary general of NATO. Karber was in Warsaw, and he said he had found surreptitious channels
to get weapons to Ukraine -- without the US being directly involved.
According to the email, Pakistan had offered, "under the table," to sell Ukraine 500 portable
TOW-II launchers and 8,000 TOW-II missiles. The deliveries could begin within two weeks. Even the
Poles were willing to start sending "well maintained T-72 tanks, plus several hundred SP 122mm guns,
and SP-122 howitzers (along with copious amounts of artillery ammunition for both)" that they had
leftover from the Soviet era. The sales would likely go unnoticed, Karber said, because Poland's
old weapons were "virtually undistinguishable from those of Ukraine."
AFP
A destroyed airport building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk : Thousands were killed
in fighting during the Ukraine conflict.
Karber noted, however, that Pakistan and Poland would not make any deliveries without informal
US approval. Furthermore, Warsaw would only be willing to help if its deliveries to Kiev were replaced
with new, state-of-the-art weapons from NATO. Karber concluded his letter with a warning: "Time has run out." Without immediate assistance,
the Ukrainian army "could face prospect of collapse within 30 days."
"Stark," Breedlove replied. "I may share some of this but will thoroughly wipe the fingerprints
off."
In March, Karber traveled again to Warsaw in order to, as he told Breedlove, consult with leading
members of the ruling party, on the need to "quietly supply arty ( eds: artillery ) and antitank
munitions to Ukraine."
Much to the irritation of Breedlove, Clark and Karber, nothing happened. Those responsible were
quickly identified. The National Security Council, Obama's circle of advisors, were "slowing things
down," Karber complained. Clark pointed his finger directly at the White House, writing, "Our problem
is higher than State," a reference to the State Department.
... ... ...
'The Front Is Now Everywhere'
Karber's emails constantly made it sound as though the apocalypse was only a few weeks away. "The
front is now everywhere," he told Breedlove in an email at the beginning of 2015, adding that Russian
agents and their proxies "have begun launching a series of terrorist attacks, assassinations, kidnappings
and infrastructure bombings," in an effort to destabilize Kiev and other Ukrainian cities.
In an email to Breedlove, Clark described defense expert Karber as "brilliant." After a first
visit, Breedlove indicated he had also been impressed. "GREAT visit," he wrote. Karber, an extremely
enterprising man, appeared at first glance to be a valuable informant because he often -- at least
a dozen times by his own account -- traveled to the front and spoke with Ukrainian commanders. The
US embassy in Kiev also relied on Karber for information because it lacked its own sources. "We're
largely blind," the embassy's defense attaché wrote in an email.
At times, Karber's missives read like prose. In one, he wrote about the 2014 Christmas celebrations
he had spent together with Dnipro-1, the ultranationalist volunteer battalion. "The toasts and vodka
flow, the women sing the Ukrainian national anthem -- no one has a dry eye."
Karber had only good things to report about the unit, which had already been discredited as a
private oligarch army. He wrote that the staff and volunteers were dominated by middle class people
and that there was a large professional staff that was even "working on the holiday." Breedlove responded
that these insights were "quietly finding their way into the right places."
Highly Controversial Figure
In fact, Karber is a highly controversial figure. During the 1980s, the longtime BDM employee,
was counted among the fiercest Cold War hawks. Back in 1985, he warned of an impending Soviet attack
on the basis of documents he had translated incorrectly.
He also blundered during the Ukraine crisis after sending photos to US Senator James Inhofe, claiming
to show Russian units in Ukraine. Inhofe released the photos publicly, but it quickly emerged that
one had originated from the 2008 war in Georgia.
By November 10, 2014, at the latest, Breedlove must have recognized that his informant was on
thin ice. That's when Karber reported that the separatists were boasting they had a tactical nuclear
warhead for the 2S4 mortar. Karber himself described the news as "weird," but also added that "there
is a lot of 'crazy' things going on" in Ukraine.
The reasons that Breedlove continued to rely on Karber despite such false reports remain unclear.
Was he willing to pay any price for weapons deliveries? Or did he have other motives? The emails
illustrate the degree to which Breedlove and his fellow campaigners feared that Congress might reduce
the number of US troops in Europe.
Karber confirmed the authenticity of the leaked email correspondence. Regarding the questions
about the accuracy of his reports, he told SPIEGEL that, "like any information derived from direct
observation at the front during the 'fog of war,' it is partial, time sensitive, and perceived through
a personal perspective." Looking back with the advantage of hindsight and a more comprehensive perspective,
"I believe that I was right more than wrong," Karber writes, "but certainly not perfect." He adds
that, "in 170 days at the front, I never once met a German military or official directly observing
the conflict."
Great Interest in Berlin
Breedlove's leaked email correspondences were read in Berlin with great interest. A year ago,
word of the NATO commander's "dangerous propaganda" was circulating around Merkel's Chancellery.
In light of the new information, officials felt vindicated in their assessment. Germany's Federal
Foreign Office has expressed similar sentiment, saying that fortunately "influential voices had continuously
advocated against the delivery of 'lethal weapons.'"
Karber says he finds it "obscene that the most effective sanction of this war is not the economic
limits placed on Russia, but the virtual complete embargo of all lethal aid to the victim. I find
this to be the height of sophistry -- if a woman is being attacked by a group of hooligans and yells
out to the crowd or passersby, 'Give me a can of mace,' is it better to not supply it because the
attackers could have a knife and passively watch her get raped?"
General Breedlove's departure from his NATO post in May has done little to placate anyone in the
German government. After all, the man Breedlove regarded as an obstacle, President Obama, is nearing
the end of his second term. His possible successor, the Democrat Hillary Clinton, is considered a
hardliner vis-a-vis Russia.
What's more: Nuland, a diplomat who shares many of the same views as Breedlove, could move into
an even more important role after the November election -- she's considered a potential candidate
for secretary of state.
bubasan 07/28/2016
Upon reading this article, I am reminded of Dwight D Eisenhowers Farewell speech to the American
Public on January 17, 1961. So long as we continue the PC mentality of NOT Teaching History, as
it really was, we are going to repeat past mistake's. The now famous and appropriate quote
from President Eisenhower:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
Inglenda2 07/28/2016
The idea of NATO as a defence organisation, following the 2nd World War was quite rational.
The history of this organisation however, has shown, how a well meant intention can be misused
to force through policies, which have nothing to do with the original purpose. Currently it would
appear to have no other role, than to provide high ranking army officers with well paid employment,
which can only be justified by way of international conflicts. In the absence of conflict, NATO
would have no other cause for existence.
PeterCT 07/28/2016
Why is Breedlove so fat? He is setting a bad example to his troops. Show all comments
turnipseed 07/29/2016
The Cold War continues, only the enemy is not the Soviet Union but Russia. Ever since the
war against Napoleon Russia has emerged as a threat to certain European interests, at first liberal
and nationalist interests. After the Bolshevik Revolution the enemy was still Russia, now revitalized
with extreme Bolshevik ideology. Hitler used this effectively to target liberals, leftists and
especially Jews.
After the fall of Communism nothing has really changed. The West is still urged to resist
the Russian threat, a threat invented by Polish, Baltic, and Ukrainian nationalists and perhaps
Fascists. Donald Trump alone seems impervious to this propaganda. Let's at least give him credit
in this case, if not in many others. NATO has become a permanent anti-Russian phony alliance,
financed by America.
90-grad 07/31/2016
Quite detailed article. Not being published in the german website. How to describe these people,
basically just trying to ignite bigger conflicts, or even war. Hardliner, hawks, to me not strong
enough. These are criminals of war, and they should be named accordingly. These are exactly the
kind of persons, who helped Bush to invade Irak, basing on false informations to the public. And
their peace endangering activities help politicians like H.Clinton to keep the peoble in fear,
solely to their own benefit. Disgusting!
huguenot1566 07/31/2016
Extremely disturbing
I don't even know here to begin. Breedlove, Karber, Clark all Americans, seemingly on their
own without Obama's permission, trying to exaggerate or fabricate evidence in order to start a
war with Russia and the danger to the world is profoundly terrifying (Iraq 2003). The US Embassy
in Ukraine saying they were in the dark and therefore relying on information from a college professor,
Karber, who still thinks we're in the Cold War along with Clark who was retired & meddling in
an unofficial capacity as far as the story implies tells me they should be brought up on charges.
And Breedlove is supposed to follow orders not make up his own policy & then try & manufacture
evidence supporting that policy to start war. If the US Embassy in Ukraine says they were in the
dark then clearly they were fishing for info to proactively involve themselves in another nation
& region's personal business. Congress & the U.S. military should investigate as these actions
violate the U.S. Constitution. Thankfully, Germany and NATO is able to say no. It tells Americans
that something isn't right on their end of this.
verbatim128 07/31/2016
Look who was crying wolf!
These people are hell-bent to bring the world to the brink of war, with lies and excuses about
fear of Russian attacks. So Poland was willing to step into the conflict with Ukraine and deliver
lethal armament? All the while afraid of Russia invading it? We, public opinion and most Western
peace-loving folk, are played like a fiddle to step into the fray to "protect" and further some
age-old ethnic and nationalistic rivalries. Time to put an end to this.
gerhard38 08/01/2016
Fucking war monger
Philip Breedlove is a war monger and should be fired from his position. The efforts of the
group around him seeking to secure weapons for the Ukraine to intensify the conflict must have
happened with Breedlove's knowledge and support. If not, then he is not capable to meet the demands
of his job and should be dismissed for incompetence. Either way, this guy is unacceptable.
aegiov 08/01/2016
Ms. Nuland is the same us official recorded by Russian intelligence trying to manipulate events
in Ukraine before the overthrow of the president and all the tragic events that followed. That
she is still working for US state dept. is puzzling to say the least. good reporting. thank you.
titus_norberto 08/02/2016
The Front Is Now Everywhere, indeed...
Quote: 'The Front Is Now Everywhere', yes indeed, we can go back to the Wilson administration,
he invented the League of Nations and his nation did not even joined.
There is a folly in American presidents, they believe they can solve worlds problems, especially
in the Middle East, with two invariable results:
1- utter failure plus CHAOS; and
2- utter disregard for DOMESTIC GOVERNANCE.
Now, the fact that the front is NOW 2016 everywhere is the result of failure one. Donald Trump
is the result of failure two. There is another aspect to consider, what is General Breedlove doing
? Very simple, he is attempting to INVENT a NEW ROLE for NATO, as it is well known in the domain
of sociology: any organization strives for survival, especially when it becomes OBSOLETE.
vsepr1975 08/03/2016
nato
Breedhate?
w.schuler 08/09/2016
Fat Bredlove is a war monger
This is true and it was obvious from the very beginning. But SPON was always parotting him.
And SPON member Benjamin Bidder and many other SPON guys were foaming at the mouth with war rhetoric
all the time in 2014-15. Shame on those fools. Finally, with this contribution you are approaching
your real job. And this is to distribute information instead of propaganda.
"... the U.S. system never has been democratic. It is a show–a very expensive one–that the capitalist class puts on every two years in order to control the citizenry and to provide a justification for U.S. imperialism. ..."
"... Now, the capitalist class that controls Rome is no longer national, but transnational, being based on the transnational corporations and financial institutions and enjoying the full support of the transnational capitalist media. ..."
"... new poles: Globaliists vs. Antiglobalists. ..."
"... Donald Trump is an antiglobalist. That's the reason he deserves the full support of all those who oppose the transnational capitalist class and its institutions, including the EU, NATO, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank and the OECD, to name just a few. ..."
"... However, the election should not be about appearances but about policies. Obama sounded intelligent, but his policies all come out of the globalist think tanks, the CIA (his mum's former employer) and the neocon asylum in Washington. So chose: someone who sounds like a television personality with great positions, or… well we all know what Clinton stands for. ..."
"... submissives to the atomisation of all systems that might afford self-sufficiency to societies, that makes everybody absolutely dependent on and therefore subservient to international finance and it's program of enslavement. ..."
"... Sanders was clearly the sheep-dog, and I won't be surprised if an e-mail showing that reality appears. ..."
"... spitting in the face of the latest generation of suckers who thought that the elite plutocracy of the USA could be 'reformed' from within. ..."
"... sheepdog is accurate. I have been calling him a sheepdog since 2014 and predicting, correctly, that he would both lose the nomination and endorse Hillary. This was inevitable since he SAID he would endorse her from the start of his so-called campaign. ..."
"... If the majority of people in the USA are really thinking that voting for either Hillary or the Donald is worse than having unprotected sex with an HIV+ hooker, then the Independent would barely need any publicity. They'd just need to be on the ballot. ..."
"... Course, the Establishment might get cute and put a far-right nutcase up as 'another Independent' so as they would have someone who'd do as they were told no matter what. ..."
"... The Boy Wonder's credentials as a card-carrying New World Order shill haven't really been in question since January this year – when he penned this fact-free Russophobic screed: ..."
"... Owen Jones has lost all credibility with his quest for publicity at any price. He'd sell his granny for whatever he could get if it served his interests. He's a hypocrite and a propagandist opportunist. He doesn't give a fig about the Syrians, the Palestinians, the Yemeni or anyone else but himself. At best he is a worthless egocentric loser who wants to be heard, whatever drivel he is spouting and is a traitor to the socialist/centrist movement, his only loyalty is to himself. Nothing he writes or says can be taken seriously anymore. ..."
So, even though Clinton also isn't progressive, or honest, or sane, and even though she has no
interest in helping the disadvantaged or rebuilding social infrastructure, and even though she
conducted state business on a private email server so no one would be able to tell what nefarious
and illegal, and potentially insanely dangerous things she was doing, and even though she
presided over the Honduras debacle, and even though she authorised and gloated over the illegal
murder of a foreign head of state, and even though she has threatened to "obliterate" Iran and
take the confrontations with Russia and China to new heights that really might result in WW3, we
absolutely have to get behind her because – hello – she isn't Trump. And anyhow if we
get her to be POTUS and make sure there are lots of lovely Democrats in Congress, maybe we can
ask them to please do some of the socialist things Bernie talked about. They will probably say
yes, of course And anyhow, Owen's not sure if he mentioned this but Hillary isn't Trump…
Yes, this is what passes for political analysis when the neolibs are slipping you wads of cash
to endorse the unendorsable, the discredited and the morally broken.
The likes of Jones are paid to surrender their dignity and ethics and pretend this macabre farce
is something called "democracy", and to sell the decaying relics offered up for candidacy as if
they were real choices. That doesn't mean we have to pretend to believe them. If I were a US
citizen I'd take the only truly free choice left and decline to play this game of fake reality
any longer. And if we all did that, the game would be over, wouldn't it.
anonymous, July 27, 2016
I am a 57-year-old U.S. citizen. To disabuse those Europeans who both live in smaller
countries and have the blessing of a parliamentary system, the U.S. system never has been
democratic. It is a show–a very expensive one–that the capitalist class puts on every two
years in order to control the citizenry and to provide a justification for U.S. imperialism.
The citizens are convinced that they don't have to do a thing in order to make the "democracy"
work, and that if they don't like the results that either they are to blame or it is useless
to oppose the system. And outside of Rome, people are told that the Roman way is best because
it is legitimized by the vote of the citizens.
Now, the capitalist class that controls Rome is no longer national, but transnational,
being based on the transnational corporations and financial institutions and enjoying the full
support of the transnational capitalist media. And as the rise of the Alt-Right shows,
the old communist vs. far-right poles have become obsolete with the utter defeat and
assimilation of the Marxist left, and have been replaced with new poles: Globaliists vs.
Antiglobalists.
Donald Trump is an antiglobalist. That's the reason he deserves the full support of all
those who oppose the transnational capitalist class and its institutions, including the EU,
NATO, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank and the OECD, to name just a few. There are not a
few "progressives" and "leftists" who refuse to support Trump because he doesn't sound
intelligent.
However, the election should not be about appearances but about policies. Obama sounded
intelligent, but his policies all come out of the globalist think tanks, the CIA (his mum's
former employer) and the neocon asylum in Washington. So chose: someone who sounds like a
television personality with great positions, or… well we all know what Clinton stands for.
dahoit, August 7, 2016
I agree totally, Trump is the answer for American recovery.
But the zionists want no part of America First and Israel on its own.
And that is why the MSM and web sites everywhere are in full throat propaganda mode for the
Hell Bitch.
I have never seen anything like this before, and the American people can see the fix is in,
but over our dead bodies, if necessary. I'm pissed to shite at this massive mis and
disinformation bliztkrieg.
It will backfire, just like all their attempts to marginalize him during the primaries.
physicsandmathsrevision, July 26, 2016
He's happy to support Clinton's murderous Jewish racist agenda. All perceived threats to
Israel must be destroyed. Iraq, Libya, Syria and (next up) Iran.
This is where leftist centrists think is a good place to stand in this terrifying age during
which we must endure the brain-dead analysis of commentators who, in truth, are most easily
understood as simple submissives to the establishment will … a will that everyone is afraid to
recognise as being dominated by Jewish money and its globalist anti-commutarian agenda….submissives
to the atomisation of all systems that might afford self-sufficiency to societies, that makes
everybody absolutely dependent on and therefore subservient to international finance and it's
program of enslavement. Are 'gays' a new officer class in this operation?
OffG Editor, July 26, 2016
The phrase "a Jewish racists agenda" should qualify for some award for unintended and
self-defeating irony.
If you can tell me how it clarifies, exlains or expands your point then I'll recognise you
have a valid reason for adding it that isn't racist or intentionally self-sabotaging.
proximity1, July 27, 2016
IF YOU can tell me how the remark is not arguably quite true based on a fair and honest
review of facts, then I'll recognise your valid objection to it.
But, as it seems to me, the simple fact that Clinton's policies aren't solely confined* to the
outrages which the writer describes as a "murderous Jewish racist agenda," does not make that
observation any the less true- does it!?
What, other than that, are you objecting to?
Richard Le Sarcophage, July 28, 2016
Sanders was clearly the sheep-dog, and I won't be surprised if an e-mail showing that
reality appears. He is, in fact, with his total and immediate roll-over, even as the
corruption of the process was categorically exposed by the e-mails, making no pretense
otherwise, spitting in the face of the latest generation of suckers who thought that the
elite plutocracy of the USA could be 'reformed' from within. He was the geriatric Obama,
dispensing more Hopium for the dopes. And when Clinton feigns adoption of Sanders policy, like
not signing the TPP, she is LYING.
Diana, July 28, 2016
Sanders' own campaign called him the "youth whisperer", but sheepdog is accurate. I
have been calling him a sheepdog since 2014 and predicting, correctly, that he would both lose
the nomination and endorse Hillary. This was inevitable since he SAID he would endorse her
from the start of his so-called campaign. Perhaps he did so hoping that the DNC would
play fair, but that goes to show you he's no socialist. A real socialist would have been able
to size up the opposition, not made any gentleman's agreements with them and waged a real
campaign.
rtj1211, July 26, 2016
So far as I'm aware, there must be a mechanism for an Independent to put their name on the
ballot.
If the majority of people in the USA are really thinking that voting for either Hillary or
the Donald is worse than having unprotected sex with an HIV+ hooker, then the Independent
would barely need any publicity. They'd just need to be on the ballot.
Course, the Establishment might get cute and put a far-right nutcase up as 'another
Independent' so as they would have someone who'd do as they were told no matter what.
But until the US public say 'da nada! Pasta! Finito! To hell with the Democrats and the GOP!',
you'll still get the choice of 'let's invade Iran' or 'let's nuke Russia'. You'll get the
choice of giving Israel a blowjob or agreeing to be tied up and have kinky sex with Israel.
You'll get the choice of bailing out Wall Street or bailing out Wall Street AND cutting social
security for the poorest Americans. You'll get the choice of running the USA for the bankers
or running the USA for the bankers and a few multinational corporations.
Oh, they'll have to fight for it, just as Martin Luther King et al had to fight for civil
rights. They may have the odd candidate shot by the CIA, the oil men or the weapons men.
Because that's how US politics works.
But if they don't want a Republican or a Republican-lite, they need to select an independent
and vote for them.
The rest of us? We have to use whatever influence we have to try and limit what they try to do
overseas…….because we are affected by what America does overseas…….
reinertorheit, July 26, 2016
Holy Schmoley, Batman!
The Boy Wonder's credentials as a card-carrying New World Order shill haven't really been
in question since January this year – when he penned this fact-free Russophobic screed:
Perhaps the most laughable thing in it is that he claims to be speaking for "the British Left"
mohandeer, July 26, 2016
Owen Jones has lost all credibility with his quest for publicity at any price. He'd
sell his granny for whatever he could get if it served his interests. He's a hypocrite and a
propagandist opportunist. He doesn't give a fig about the Syrians, the Palestinians, the
Yemeni or anyone else but himself. At best he is a worthless egocentric loser who wants to be
heard, whatever drivel he is spouting and is a traitor to the socialist/centrist movement, his
only loyalty is to himself. Nothing he writes or says can be taken seriously anymore.
Hillary is a warmonger and is very dangerous in any high position in government (look how much damage
she managed to do while being the Secretary of State), to say nothing about being POTUS. Among other
things Hillary and just too old and too sick to be a President.
Notable quotes:
"... A vote for Stein is a vote against empire. It's a vote against the neocons and their plans to bring the entire world under our rule. ..."
"... Look who Hillary picked as her VP! Look who she hired in her campaign. She doesn't give a damn. Instead of demanding the progressive vote to avoid disaster, have her change course and deserve that vote. People have had enough already. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders sold out. Time to forget him and forget his advice, as the worst vote would be a vote for a neocon and the wars she would bring us. ..."
"... I mean if this was a contest between Hitler and Stalin there would still be people asking others to vote for Stalin so that Hitler wasn't elected and arguing that voting for another candidate is wasting your vote. If you want to vote tactically, vote tactically, and if you want to vote for what you believe, vote for what you believe, but understand what you are saying and don't act as if there was any kind of moral obligation to vote for Clinton, because there isn't. ..."
"... Independent studies and reports have proven that the primaries were rigged beyond any doubt. ..."
"... Hillary's biggest supporters spend most of their time on Wall St, in oil companies, or in corrupt foreign governments. ..."
"... There simply isn't any logic to this OMG Trump will be the worst thing ever. So one must then assume that the argument is created and perpetuated simply to manipulate and mislead. ..."
"... Trump, a detestable person, would get very little of his extreme views passed. Clinton, a detestable person, would get very much of her extreme views passed. ..."
"... Because Clinton is to the right of Obama (accurate provided you aren't a rabid partisan) she is far more likely to get every awful military action she wants. Since she's apparently the "pragmatic" one, how quickly do any of these policy proposals get watered down or gutted entirely in the name of compromise and political realities and "politics being the art of the possible"? ..."
"... True. It ends here. A vote for Hillary is a vote that supports and condones the corruption of the DNC and Clinton 's campaign. Clearly, they had handicapped Sanders from the start. Starting with an 'insurmountable 400+ superdelegates before Bernie entered the race which the MSM, who, in collusion with the DNC, pushed as "an impossible lead to overcome" skewed the primaries results in favor of Clinton. ..."
"... I won't vote for someone who has to nuance her answers when it comes to the way in which she's conducted herself during her tenure at the Department of State. This from a former Clinton supporter in 2008. ..."
"... Glad to know that they would rather have a Trump presidency instead of banding together with the Dems. ..."
"... Please see what you will be doing if Trump becomes president. He doesn't stand for ANYTHING that Bernie stands for. ..."
"... Not this election. Certainly not the next election. Or the one after that. At least Hilly is Dem. Best laugh of the day. ..."
"But I am concerned that the DNC elected Hillary in the first place. Because they [Trump and Clinton]
are either tied or she's even losing in some polls. Whereas Bernie consistently beat Trump by double
digits [in hypothetical match-up polls]. We could win the House and the Senate back with those kind
of numbers."
... ... ...
"I've read hundreds of the DNC leaked emails. I feel that our votes were stolen. I don't think
she won the primary fair and square. And if she had to cheat to do it, maybe she shouldn't become
the first woman president."
"I think by me voting for the third-party candidate, along with millions of other Bernie supporters,
it will maybe show that the third party is possible in the future." JCDavis Tom J. Davis
What has Jill Stein ever done that qualifies her to lead a large nation with international
obligations and not just those to it's own citizens?
A vote for Stein is a vote against empire. It's a vote against the neocons and their plans
to bring the entire world under our rule.
pdehaan -> Tom J. Davis
It's quite something for democrats to demand the progressive votes for Hillary and trying to
induce a guilt trip in order to avoid Trump from being elected.
Why don't you demand Hillary Clinton to earn that vote?? For example, by having her guarantee
in no uncertain means that she'll oppose TPP and associated trade deals in any form or fashion
(instead of in it's current form)? Why don't you demand Hillary Clinton to be less hawkish and
dangerous wrt foreign policy instead? Why don't you demand her to work towards a $15 minimum wage,
income equality and social protection instead? It's very easy to demand one's vote just because
the other side is even worse. This issue comes up every election and it's just maintaining the
status quo.
Look who Hillary picked as her VP! Look who she hired in her campaign. She doesn't give
a damn. Instead of demanding the progressive vote to avoid disaster, have her change course and
deserve that vote. People have had enough already.
JCDavis -> palindrom
Bernie Sanders sold out. Time to forget him and forget his advice, as the worst vote would
be a vote for a neocon and the wars she would bring us.
JCDavis -> davshev
Think of it this way--Trump may be a clown, but Hillary is a warmonger who will bring us war
with Russia. and a war with Russia will be a disaster for everyone. So if your vote for Stein
gives us Trump, that is not as bad as it could be.
cynictomato
Oh Please! If you want to vote for Clinton just vote for her but let the rest do whatever they
want. The idea that if you vote for another candidate besides the two main ones you are wasting
your vote is what has turned the USA in a two party democracy and is detrimental for the citizens
because the main parties only have to worry about presenting a better option than their rival,
not about presenting a good candidate.
I mean if this was a contest between Hitler and Stalin there would still be people asking
others to vote for Stalin so that Hitler wasn't elected and arguing that voting for another candidate
is wasting your vote. If you want to vote tactically, vote tactically, and if you want to vote
for what you believe, vote for what you believe, but understand what you are saying and don't
act as if there was any kind of moral obligation to vote for Clinton, because there isn't.
The idea that the Democratic National Committee, and the Clinton campaign, "rigged" the Democratic
primary is fairly widespread
It's not an IDEA it's a FACT.
Independent studies and reports have proven that the primaries were rigged beyond any doubt.
(Guardian please study these reports and write an in depth article on the rigged primaries)
On foreign policy, Clinton is certainly not "the much lesser threat to their ideology". She
has made it clear that aggressive stance on Syria/Ukraine will be taken, increasing the odds of
an uncontained global conflict.
NoOneYouKnowNow -> kevdflb
Hillary's biggest supporters spend most of their time on Wall St, in oil companies, or
in corrupt foreign governments.
mrmetrowest -> Iskierka
Are Nader voters more responsible for Bush than the hundreds of thousands of Democrats that
voted for him? Are they more responsible than the millions who stayed home? The 'Nader cost Gore
the election' canard is one of the least logical pieces of conventional wisdom ever.
Mrs Clinton is on record as supporting a no-fly zone in Syria - an act that will further embroil
us in the Middle East and might get us into a blow-up with Russia. If this happens, are Clinton
supporters willing to be responsible for her actions?
Vote Green, if that's what your conscience says. The anti-Trump voters' moral position is less
pure than they think; in four years they'll be voting against someone else. This goes on forever.
mrmetrowest -> Rolf Erikson
In 1964, voters were presented with a choice between LBJ and Goldwater. Goldwater was considered
to hold extreme political views which caused many to vote for LBJ, who won a landslide victory.
LBJ did great things domestically, however he massively escalated the war in Vietnam, leading
to the deaths on tens of thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese. To what extent are
those who voted for LBJ responsible for those deaths? Likewise, if Mrs Clinton gets us into a
war in Syria, or Iran, will you accept responsibility for helping put her in office?
Cue the trolls insisting that you must, must vote for their preferred candidate. If people vote
Green, that is their democratic choice and right. It is also because the Democratic Party saw fit
to foist a terrible candidate on the people.
Bernie has #DemExit and is returning to his roots as an Independent and said he will run in
2018 for the Senate as an Independent! Follow Bernie's lead and exit the corrupt, neoLiberal Democratic
Party! Do you want 4 more War Years? Peace NOW or nothing later!
Vote for peace and prosperity - Dr Jill Stein and the Green Economy!
Sawant is a complete pile-driver of a debater, a devastatingly accurate verbal machine gun,
and she utterly crushed...but, to me, Traister still won. The 'vote your heart' constituency diagnose
the situation near perfectly, and push for political action that isn't beholden to election cycles
but they then just fall short; they then turn on a dime and act like the electoral system isn't
broken, like a General Election is an 'end game' and is meaningful. Whereas L.E.V. adherents don't
close their eyes to what's on offer and it's they, not 'vote your heart' people, who see a General
Election for what it is: a broken democracy offering a "choice" between two types of terrible
but one type of terrible is always going to be less terrible. Underneath Traister's tiresome,
wilfully blind, if well written, Hillary hagiographies, I think that she knows this too.
Of course, the Hillary supporters and media cheerleaders will spin around from beseeching for
a vote against Miller/Barron/Drumpf/von Clownstick to then, if Hillary gets a solid victory, claiming
a great win, after all -"look at the votes *for* Hillary Clinton!" - when she would only win because
of votes *against* the short-fingered hysteric. They'll steal votes cast against Drumpf and disingenuously
claim them as votes *for* Hillary. So what? 'Cynical, dishonest narcissists in cynical, dishonest
narcissism' shock! "Let the baby have its bottle", as they say, and let them stew in their own
juice after progressives perhaps bolt to the formation of a new party or a re-structured Green
party after election day.
Think outside of election cycles and it's precisely *because* one should do so, and treat General
Elections as unimportant towards the big scheme of things, that one should vote for better of
two historically disliked candidates because other days will offer less sickening choices and
huge swathes of the country will gain/be better off even if you don't. It would ironically be
Clintonian to punish Clinton and the DNC for not having a sufficiently collectivist outlook by
personally selling out others and allowing the short-fingered vulgarian to snake oil his tiny-handed
way in. Women seeking to retain the right to choose
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/07/mike-pence-says-roe-v-wade-will-be-overturned.html Mexican
people, Muslim people, immigrants in general will be just some of those who'll be in your spiritual
debt if you're a swing state voter who'll bite the bullet. You don't have to support someone in
order to give them your vote.
The idea that the Democratic National Committee, and the Clinton campaign, "rigged" the
Democratic primary is fairly widespread among Sanders supporters
This is something that really annoys me. You're implying that this is not an undeniable fact clearly
backed by written evidence fact by calling it an ''idea''.
The thing about Hilary is that she is not by any stretch of imagination a good candidate. She
is deeply unpopular because of who she is as a politician. You cannot expect people to ignore
this. When the DNC willingly and knowingly rigged the election in favour of a bad candidate it
was done based on the partly flawed calculation that the fear of any Republican winning over a
Democrat would suffice to back their candidate no matter what.
And I say partly true, because a lot of the people who would vote for Democrats anyways will
do so even if they backed Bernie.
However Bernie (and to a far smaller extent Trump) energised and brought in people who might
not normally vote at all because they're fed up with the establishment. Once they found their
voice in Bernie and got fired up, they will vote but on for the thing they despise the most (aka
the establishment like Clinton). Nor should they. It was up to the Democratic Party to recognise
the candidate that would have taken advantage of this and they willingly failed in doing so. Even
when picking a VP for Clinton they failed to make even the smallest gesture to these people. So,
no there is no reason good enough for them to switch and vote for someone they despise and know
for sure represents the things they hate.
Now there is also the irony that they're attacking Trump for his fear mongering, while they
themselves are also creating fear mongering amongst voters about what a monster Trump would be.
It's all about fear even when they pretend it's not and that is sickening.
There simply isn't any logic to this OMG Trump will be the worst thing ever. So one must then
assume that the argument is created and perpetuated simply to manipulate and mislead.
Trump, a detestable person, would get very little of his extreme views passed. Clinton,
a detestable person, would get very much of her extreme views passed.
Because Clinton is to the right of Obama (accurate provided you aren't a rabid partisan)
she is far more likely to get every awful military action she wants. Since she's apparently the
"pragmatic" one, how quickly do any of these policy proposals get watered down or gutted entirely
in the name of compromise and political realities and "politics being the art of the possible"?
And of course, the useless, vapid, Democrat partisans will, for the most part, say nothing.
See: 8-years of Obama as Bush 2.0.
Get your facts straight. Those have been labeled FALSE!
However the corruption and neoLiberal war supporter that is hung on Clinton has been proven
by her actions with "regime change" in Libya and coup support in Honduras. And then there is the
corruption of weapons for charitable contributions for the Clinton Foundation!
Do we want peace and prosperity that only ill Stein can bring with her Green Economy or do
we want 4 more years of war and job loss? Simple choice.
Obama was very different to bush on almost every issue, the differences might not be massive but
they have a real impact on people. For example on climate change obama successfully pushed for
polices that will help reduce emissions while bush did literally nothing. It will be the same
for clinton.
You are correct that Obama was different from Bush, you're just wrong about the direction.
Drones/Illegal Wars: Expanded
Wall St/Corporate Corruption: Went unpunished & expanded
Domestic Spying: Expanded
Constitutional Violations: Expanded
War or Whistleblowers: Created
He has done nothing but act like climate change is important. He has not done anything meaningful
except offer more hopeful rhetoric, the only thing the Democratic candidates seem to be good at
lately.
You're being ridiculous. If Trump wins, the republicans win the Senate and the House and he will
sign dozens of Republican bills that will set the progressive movement back a decade or more.
He will also nominate a right wing judge to replace Scalia Anna the SCOTUS will be in conservative
hands for another generation.
If you don't see that, you have a severe case of denial.
You are aware that you can vote for candidates for other positions that are not in the same as
the party as the president you vote for, yes? You can not vote Clinton but still vote Team D everywhere
else.
As an institution, SCOTUS has held back progress almost as often as it has helped it. So no,
i'm not one of those easily swayed by the terrible "but think of the appointments!" argument.
Perhaps it becoming even clearer that it is an anti-democratic institution is the best way to
achieve real justice.
The old worse of two evils logic that guarantees an eternity of bad candidates.
Cliff Olney
True. It ends here. A vote for Hillary is a vote that supports and condones the corruption
of the DNC and Clinton 's campaign. Clearly, they had handicapped Sanders from the start. Starting
with an 'insurmountable 400+ superdelegates before Bernie entered the race which the MSM, who,
in collusion with the DNC, pushed as "an impossible lead to overcome" skewed the primaries results
in favor of Clinton.
What a hollow victory it must be for Hillary, but then, one must have a conscience to feel
such things, and as we can see from her support for the coup in Honduras, she lacks this empathy.
"Give them a good attorney before we deport the children back to Honduras", resonates with those
of us that have a conscience.
Not going to happen.
Sanders was honest. So is Stein. I won't vote for someone who has to nuance her answers
when it comes to the way in which she's conducted herself during her tenure at the Department
of State. This from a former Clinton supporter in 2008.
Clinton or Trump? The duopoly's choice for president is a dry heave.
BradStorch -> Mardak
How will you push Clinton to the left? What leverage will you have after you gave her a pass
on Iraq, Libya, Wall Street etc.? If she runs against Ted Cruz in 2020 you'll vote for her whether
or not she started any wars or did anything from Bernie's platform, right?
brooks303
Glad to know that they would rather have a Trump presidency instead of banding together with
the Dems. I understand the need for a three, or even four party system. We should work toward
that at the ballot box.
But not with this election. Please see what you will be doing if Trump
becomes president. He doesn't stand for ANYTHING that Bernie stands for. At least Hillary is a
Democrat.
Indie60 -> brooks303
Not this election. Certainly not the next election. Or the one after that. At least Hilly
is Dem. Best laugh of the day.
christinaak -> brooks303
We would have to amend the Constitution to have an effective multiparty system, because of
the current requirement of 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency. Under the current system
it would be all but impossible for one candidate to obtain 270 electoral votes in a truly competitive
multiparty system. If one candidate does not obtain the required number then the House of Representatives
gets
"... Politically, the Reagan/Thatcher period broke the socially-democratic post-WWII consensus in favour of economic neo-liberalism, which became the new consensus... and once the Cold War was over, there was no real 'peace dividend' and the agreements for global free-trade/globalisation were struck. ..."
"... We weren't robbed. We gave our country away. Republics that operate in a Democratic manner cannot be left to themselves any more than one should leave a three-year-old child alone...but we did. ..."
"... Is the middle class disappearing? Since the middle class is the majority, one has to ask why. Why is the majority population of the United States slipping into "Lower Class" status? Simple: the Majority allowed it to happen by not saying "No!" often enough. ..."
"... Our government here in the United States is a wonder, a thing of genius passed down from the Founders (most of whom would be on "Do not Fly" lists today). ..."
"... Politics: policies are never discussed in detail in ANY election. The WHAT, HOW, WHERE, WHEN, WHY and COST is never provided in detail by the politicians. Every thing in the politicians mind is open ended, and may or may not be adopted, considered, or maybe a totally different thing than what they were elected for. ..."
"... WWII's impact on media tended to paper over many of the differences and tensions that have been present in American life. Aside from the period during WWII and in the few decades after, vitriol has been the norm in U.S. media going back to the 1790s. The idea of a media culture that was objective and bipartisan is a newer idea. ..."
"... Noam Chomsky talked about this in "The Corporation." Our division and increased level of emotional isolation is a direct result of marketing attacks on the human psyche designed to get us to buy more products and services. ..."
"... While some may fantasize about a society run by women, what we know from experience is that women in power act and speak just like men, that is, they also act solely in their own parochial personal political interest and say whatever is necessary to win their next election. ..."
"... Civility and all the claims about it are largely the reason the abominable Reagan era free market economics have shattered the U.S. Economy. ..."
"... Much the better to forget civility in the face of bankster monsters who have worked to destroy the English speaking world and everyone else in it. Civilty is just plain crap in the face of the policies of neoliberalism. ..."
I suspect we're seeing the consequences of two events... one political, the other financial (heavily
determined by the political, which happened first).
Politically, the Reagan/Thatcher period broke the socially-democratic post-WWII consensus
in favour of economic neo-liberalism, which became the new consensus... and once the Cold War
was over, there was no real 'peace dividend' and the agreements for global free-trade/globalisation
were struck.
That lead to the banking crisis/collapse in 2008, and to the 'solution' whereby most governments
imposed 'austerity' and debt on ordinary people to keep most of the bankers 'functional' and 'solvent'
...and not only were the bankers not adequately regulated to curtail their activities, but they
carried on paying themselves mega-currency bonuses for using taxpayer guarantees to rescue their
dysfunctional businesses.
As the UK-EU Referendum result has proved, populist politicians spouting bullsh*t can succeed
in this environment; especially when 'decent politicians' abdicate their responsibilities.
Here in the U.S. we're learning that we've created a monster by essentially doing nothing. While
the Police turned themselves into "Occupying Forces" who "Enforced the laws on a resistant populace"
and created a poisonous "Us vs. Them" situation...we were watching game shows. As the Elites in
the government crafted laws to protect themselves from the civil laws that govern the rest of
us, we were obsessing over soap operas. As fellow citizens were targeted on account of race, nationality,
or language, we were busy with planning our vacations and where to spend them.
We weren't robbed. We gave our country away. Republics that operate in a Democratic manner
cannot be left to themselves any more than one should leave a three-year-old child alone...but
we did.
Now, the would-be powerful use Hate and Race and Nationality as a means of dividing us and
turning us against ourselves. This is done for the same reason the magician's "assistant" doesn't
wear enough clothing to flag down a passing car - the magician wants us to be distracted while
he sets up for the next trick.
It's easy to get the public to turn away from the basic rights that our nation was founded upon;
just frighten them and then promise that by simply surrendering those rights they will be made
"safe" from possible harms. Never mind that Ben Franklin said, "Those who would surrender their
basic liberties for the illusion of safety deserve neither." Schools don't teach that anymore.
They teach conformity to authority, any authority. Schools teach obedience, not critical thought;
and they punish those who question things very severely.
Is the middle class disappearing? Since the middle class is the majority, one has to ask
why. Why is the majority population of the United States slipping into "Lower Class" status? Simple:
the Majority allowed it to happen by not saying "No!" often enough. We chose to lose because
we didn't do what was necessary to win. The United States of Laziness, long may it watch the idiot
box and not do anything to change what's happening to it.
Our government here in the United States is a wonder, a thing of genius passed down from
the Founders (most of whom would be on "Do not Fly" lists today). Under our system we are
treated to the fairest form of government that has ever been devised: We get the Government and
the Society under that government... that we DESERVE. We don't get what we want, we get what we
deserve. Let the apologists claim that the country is "Changing". Let them say, "We're growing
into something new!" We aren't. We're simply living down to the historical model of failed societies.
Politics: policies are never discussed in detail in ANY election. The WHAT, HOW, WHERE, WHEN,
WHY and COST is never provided in detail by the politicians. Every thing in the politicians mind
is open ended, and may or may not be adopted, considered, or maybe a totally different thing than
what they were elected for.
That is the disaster that what current politicians totally fail. That needs to change. Will
such, I doubt it.
The current so called political platforms or manifestos, are basically useless and used only
for propaganda.
Many excellent points. I think the divisions are easier to exploit in part because the society
has become so greatly divided based of income inequality. People have completely different frames
of reference in terms of their experience, and anxieties, and so it becomes easier to dismiss
the concerns of others out-of-hand as illegitimate. You can also overlay racism as part of the
equation, which has always been present with varying degrees of intensity in the U.S.
WWII's impact on media tended to paper over many of the differences and tensions that have
been present in American life. Aside from the period during WWII and in the few decades after,
vitriol has been the norm in U.S. media going back to the 1790s. The idea of a media culture that
was objective and bipartisan is a newer idea.
It was codified by things like the Fairness Doctrine as well, which tended to moderate, and
censor, public discussion through broadcast media. When the Fairness Doctrine fell apart you had
people like Limbaugh go national with a highly partisan infotainment model.
The media became more fragmented as well. Broadcast media also used to be seen as a public
service. But in the 1970s the major networks started to understand that it could also be a profit
center -- and you had another shift in values, where the public function took a back-seat to profit
maximization. The market also has become more cut-throat as the media environment has become more
fragmented.
Noam Chomsky talked about this in "The Corporation." Our division and increased level of emotional
isolation is a direct result of marketing attacks on the human psyche designed to get us to buy
more products and services. I'm not sure how much of it is Machiavellian and how much is
just pure greed reaping it's inevitable harvest.
Vitriolic and polemical speech has been a ubiquitous ritual since the earliest democracies. When
candidates wish to distinguish themselves or appeal to various segments of the electorate, there
is nothing like a lot of demagoguery and fear mongering to bring attention to a candidate and
his issues. In the end, self-interest motivates voters, and fear is the biggest self-interest
of all.
Using the specter of the opposition to scare small children and those who think like them is
a time honored tradition and well alive today. Further, as groups begin to prosper and start being
assimilated into the broader society, the individual self-interests diverge and it becomes harder
to hold them together as a cohesive group whose votes can be counted on. It then becomes all the
more necessary to drive hysteria and to rely on fear and the hyped common threat to maintain solidarity.
While some may fantasize about a society run by women, what we know from experience is
that women in power act and speak just like men, that is, they also act solely in their own parochial
personal political interest and say whatever is necessary to win their next election.
Civility and all the claims about it are largely the reason the abominable Reagan era free
market economics have shattered the U.S. Economy. The phony claim that civility is politically
useful belies that all manner of suffering like homelessness is not now or ever heard by the deliberately
unhearing administrators of this economy. All civility got anyone is a thin veneer repectabilty
covering up a society in which the rich have robbed the rest of us.
Much the better to forget
civility in the face of bankster monsters who have worked to destroy the English speaking world
and everyone else in it. Civilty is just plain crap in the face of the policies of neoliberalism.
"... It's entertaining to watch the MSM take a non-story and turn it into a Clinton ad. There are likely hundreds of retired admirals and generals in America. By the law of averages about 50% of those will be democratic voters and hence will support Clinton. It is probable that an equal number of retired generals and admirals will support Trump. ..."
"... The world needed the Soviets to raise the hammer and sickle over the Reichstag and the world will need Russia's help to defeat ISIS. ..."
"... She is a neocon, and has been supported by the neocons all along. She also 'seized' Republican neoliberal economic policy, like her husband did, and supports 'free trade' and will pass the TPP coming up and all of Wall st and most corporate America is 'with her'. She gets more money than all the Reps combined from Wall st and most corporate special interests. And now that it's Trump, and not a 'moderate' corporate Republican like Bush, Kasich or Rubio, or Walker, they are all with her. ..."
"... So the Democrats under Hillary have officially become 'moderate' Wall st. neocon Kasich, Bush, Rubio Republicans on the really big things, issues like Wall st., trade, war and foreign policy and big money and corruption in politics, issues that determine everything else. ..."
"... So who needs Republicans? And the 'Democratic' voters just go along and cheer for it, so all that opposition to Bush and all the wars and 'regime change', the money in politics, the Wall st crash and criminal activity, etc that was all just for show, they didn't really care, they just wanted their 'team' in power, and the first woman on their team. Just like Republicans. ..."
"... National Security" also means full specturm bullying and ass-kicking and nation-destroying around the world in order to seize resources (including any gold bullion lying around) and "privatize" national economies. ..."
"... "The people of the Middle East, Haiti, Honduras, and many other countries know better, having been on the other side of Clinton's "experience." ..."
"... "In reality, as Secretary of State and U.S. Senator, Clinton served as a cutthroat operator for U.S. imperialist interests, becoming a favorite among military contractors, energy companies, war hawks and even neoconservative strategists from the Bush administration." https://www.liberationnews.org/clinton-imperialist-not-feminist/ ..."
"... Whilst they were previously the devil, generals and spooks are now beloved public figures for the democratic establishment. ..."
"... Reminds me of Huey Long. Summed it up perfectly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLyfrb15v-Q ..."
"... Nope, not jail, but they would not be allowed to work for the government again, could not get a security clearance again, and yet Hillary is now running to be the boss of all government. ..."
"... If a lower level state dept. employee like an attaché or ambassador did all that HIllary did - from private server and private email for work, sending classified info (whether at the time or later, and she did both) and using her mail and server in 'hackable' open hostile foreign place like China, which is what she did - so if they did not even half of that, a smidgen, they could not work in government again, and they would get probation at least, like a Petraeus. ..."
"... And other 'small fish' who unintentionally did not even half of what she did, or Petraeus, they got probation and even went to jail a little bit I think, but definitely probation, and lost their security clearance. But Hillary gets to be president. ..."
"... Agreed. When you see the National Security establishment swinging into her camp, which already contains the banking-financial establishment, the defence and weapons-manufacturing establishment.... How many more clues to people need? ..."
"... This is not a laughing matter, please watch the CNN interview with Professor Stephen Cohen. The MSM is not reporting the war that is brewing with Russia! The size of Trumps' hands are more newsworthy..... ..."
"... The national security candidate is always a vote for war. ..."
"... "Ukraine - once part of the Soviet Union - has become a CIA theme park. Having orchestrated a coup in Kiev, Washington effectively controls a regime that is next door and hostile to Russia: a regime rotten with Nazis, literally. Prominent parliamentary figures in Ukraine are the political descendants of the notorious OUN and UPA fascists. They openly praise Hitler and call for the persecution and expulsion of the Russian speaking minority." A World War Has Begun: Break the Silence by John Pilger ..."
"... An article about Clinton being the 'national security' president that doesn't mention one thing about her national security positions. Well done! ..."
"... Well she does keep some things secure =) ..."
"... The level of media control is halfway to war level. Let's say it's at a pre-war level. There is a tiny and diminishing space for views contrary to the interests of banks and weapons manufacturers (who were key causes of WW1 and WW2 - Edwin Black, Antony Sutton). How else to account for the uniformity, the single message, repeated endlessly like a drum beat for weaponising, militarising, intervening, surrounding and encamping? ..."
"... Get money out of politics too. corporations are not people, money is not speech, it's gotten to the point where if you are not a high earner , your positions have little effect on policy, and has practically zero effect when it opposes big money. ..."
"... The media has a large part in this , the coverage of presidential candidates was vastly unequal, it has become solely motivated by profit, of course constantly covering Trump's every blunders and rants, egging him on and treating the election like a reality tv show is going to affect the outcome. I don't even know where to begin with FOX News, they've been encouraging and spreading this kind of ideology for decades now. ..."
"... There is no moral compass in most of establishment politicians that are puppets for multinational corporations, Wall Street, etc. There is no turn off switch in their DNA. Enough is never enough. They would have 300 million Americans forced into poverty if it gave them more money. The only way is to vote them out of Washinton. ..."
"... When Clinton wins, just change the name of the country to USSA: United Security States of America. I guess a lot of people will like that anyway. ..."
"... Unfortunately America is already the most state controlled nation on earth - and the Constitution is used to cover-up the prisonhouse of free thinking. Poverty is used to make the population obedient. ..."
"... Wrong on Iraq, calamity on Libya, part of the problem in Syria, and saved from her self on Ukraine. Way too close, with dubious connections to the pernicious Gulf States. ..."
"... Trump is terrifying because he is impulsive, ill-informed & a rampant ego. And the savior is one who is calm, calculating, well briefed, but has a history of misjudgements & disasters that makes you wish, in the words of the war criminal Kissinger on Iran-Iraq war: 'A pity they both can't lose' ..."
"... This election is like choosing death by fire or death by drowning for most Americans. ..."
"... Clinton continues to espouse the horribly failed philosophy of American intervention, which is, in fact, a philosophy of perpetual war. The American people must reject the political/media orthodoxy that has resulted in decades of deception and manipulation. Read "Ross Rambles: Don't sit this one out." ..."
"... Pretty much the same thing happened during the primary. There were a bunch of high ranking military and intelligence officials who said they preferred Hillary to Bernie as well. The problem with that is that many of us consider that an indictment. These are the people who invaded two countries and bombed five more to fight terrorism, and fifteen years later terrorism is worse than it ever was. These days we long for the simpler times of Al Qaida and Hezbollah and Hamas. Forgive me thinking these people should keep their electoral advice to themselves. They've conclusively proven that they've got no f*cking clue what they're doing in the middle east. ..."
"... Warmongers always want more war. That is a given. Warmongers only care about war, not about the American people or their safety. That seems right. So if the warmongers don't want Trump, it can't be because he is going to make to much war for them. There can never be enough ware for the warmongers. They must dislike Trump for another reason. Maybe they can't control him. That is why they don't want him. ..."
"... Conversely, the warmongers want Hillary. Based on the above reasoning. Hillary is no threat to the warmongers. A vote for Hillary is a vote for war. ..."
"... As a side note, it's pretty telling how much media attention Khizir Khan has received since the convention compared to the families involved in the Benghazi attack. I'm no fan of Trump, but this election has laid bare the degree to which the media establishment is willing to shield Clinton from the same kind of standards and criticism that are laid against a more explicitly transgressive candidate like Trump. There is clearly an establishment bias. ..."
"... What's more, even as Morell touts his three decades of non-partisan service to his country and his (heretofore private) bi-partisan voting record, he fails to disclose that he left the CIA in 2013 to join Beacon Global Strategies, a consulting firm founded by longtime Clinton aide and ally Philippe Reines. ..."
"... Yup, the military/Washington/Wall Street revolving door. And these establishment clowns wonder why much of the electorate is pissed off. ..."
"... Military supports war hawk. Shocking. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?_r=0 ..."
"... Clinton supported the policy objectives of the military high command right down the line, even when those policies turned out in hindsight to have been terrible mistakes. Why wouldn't they support her? Obama, who did not turn out to be the shining light on foreign policy that some of us had hoped he would be, at least had the backbone to stand up to the generals and say "No!" occasionally ..."
"... Say NO to the military-industrial complex. Say NO to Trump AND Clinton. !!! JILL STEIN 2016 !!! ..."
"... She's a trustworthy servant of the Establishment, the criminal and the profligate MIC. No wonder they love her. ..."
"... I'm really not interested in an article about endorsements from military commanders that are so far up the ladder, they're basically politicians. Where's the article about the opinions from the Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces, or Air Force pilots that are the ones doing dangerous missions in Syria and Libya? Do they really want to give their lives for a piece of desert? My guess is no. ..."
"... So national security officials, including the former CIA director, have endorsed the former Secretary of State with whom they collaborated since at least 2008 in overthrowing Ghaddafi, supporting opposition fundamentislists in Syria, attacking wistleblowers, etc. HUGE surprise there, the establishment supports itself! Shocking. ..."
"... So basically what is happening is the Democrats are going all in on neo liberal foreign policy? They do realize how illegal, immoral, costly, and most importantly...impossible it is right? We've tried it for almost 6 decades now. ..."
"... Is this really something the Democrat's should be proud of? Who really runs the country, obviously the Pentagon, CIA and DoD. More wars abroad equal less prosperity at home. ..."
"... American Exceptionalism. Does global domination count as being exceptional or does feeding the hungry in your neighborhood count, because we can't afford both. ..."
"... True enough. Your point is well taken. We do need to get over ourselves as a global dominating power with our double standards. I do believe that shift is inevitable. No matter who is elected president, the illusion of global dominance is not sustainable. ..."
"... You'd think that with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, an army with outposts across the globe, a public relations office that can swat away a few accusations of torture by prosecuting a few enlisted soldiers, an ability to control (or kill) journalists who don't fully conform to the narrative, an industry funded by hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars per year, a political institution that claims the right to arbitrarily arrest and detain -- or summarily execute -- anyone any time anywhere on the face of the earth ... ..."
"... the country needs a complete change in direction.. Trump is that change.. The Clinton's I suspect are the establishment and it appears that they are only in it for the money.. Vote Trump Make America Great Again for ALL.. not just the Clinton elites ..."
"... Neoconservative Republican hawks are flocking to Hillary, knowing she will keep the expanding, never-ending wars expanding and never-ending, yet the Democratic loyalists are possessed of such cognitive dissonance that they still think she's a stalwart liberal who'll implement sane policies. ..."
"... And largely responsible for what Obama has called the biggest mistake of his presidency - removing Ghadaffi from power in Libya. Any other fabulous accomplishments during her tenure? Syria? Honduras? ..."
"... Since the MSM isn't doing journalism anymore. http://www.dailywire.com/news/7960/wikileaks-hacked-emails-include-hillary-arming-james-barrett ..."
"... It seems that the country is going to end up with the liar dynasty continuing. Why can we not have honest, decent candidates? A real debate needs to start as to how it can be that the only people who end up as candidates are so unutterably awful. ..."
"... Scary Hillary has the endorsement of the cia. Both teamed together brought us Libya, Syria, Honderas. I can only think more illegal wars and mass refugee crisis to come if she is president when we need to focus on our economy. ..."
"... Destroying Libya, Syria and Ukraine were definitely not in our security interests, unless you mean a few oligarchs' financial security interests that is.. ..."
"... Considering the Maidan protests started in November 2013, about a year after Hillary stopped being secretary of state, I don't think it's reasonable to blame her for the Ukraine situation. ..."
"... Well, thanks in a great part to Hillary, US national and global security has been worsened with decisions made on Libya, Syria, supporting Saudi Arabia and Egypt with weapons/training and $. ..."
It's entertaining to watch the MSM take a non-story and turn it into a Clinton ad. There
are likely hundreds of retired admirals and generals in America. By the law of averages about
50% of those will be democratic voters and hence will support Clinton. It is probable that an
equal number of retired generals and admirals will support Trump.
Russia will be a superpower again. They're the only ones who stand up to US imperialism...Obama,
Clinton or Trump...it doesn't matter for Putin. He's more intelligent than the latter two and
Obama probably secretly knows this. While other nations are "too afraid to speak their minds"
the Russians won't back down. The world needed the Soviets to raise the hammer and sickle
over the Reichstag and the world will need Russia's help to defeat ISIS.
Well yeah, we knew that all along. She is a neocon, and has been supported by the neocons
all along. She also 'seized' Republican neoliberal economic policy, like her husband did, and
supports 'free trade' and will pass the TPP coming up and all of Wall st and most corporate America
is 'with her'. She gets more money than all the Reps combined from Wall st and most corporate
special interests. And now that it's Trump, and not a 'moderate' corporate Republican like Bush,
Kasich or Rubio, or Walker, they are all with her.
So the Democrats under Hillary have officially become 'moderate' Wall st. neocon Kasich,
Bush, Rubio Republicans on the really big things, issues like Wall st., trade, war and foreign
policy and big money and corruption in politics, issues that determine everything else.
So who needs Republicans? And the 'Democratic' voters just go along and cheer for it, so
all that opposition to Bush and all the wars and 'regime change', the money in politics, the Wall
st crash and criminal activity, etc that was all just for show, they didn't really care, they
just wanted their 'team' in power, and the first woman on their team. Just like Republicans.
"National Security" means an ongoing national security state and attendant abrogations of constitutional
rights, including due process prior to being deep sixed or supermaxed.
"National Security" also means full specturm bullying and ass-kicking and nation-destroying
around the world in order to seize resources (including any gold bullion lying around) and "privatize"
national economies.
I am so overjoyed the democrats are owning (up) to their guilt in the matter.
"The Clinton campaign always points to her years of "foreign policy experience" as proof of her
presidential qualifications. But what was that "experience" really? Was she a progressive defender
of democracy who sometimes had to make "hard choices," as she claims?
"The people of the Middle East, Haiti, Honduras, and many other countries know better,
having been on the other side of Clinton's "experience."
"In reality, as Secretary of State and U.S. Senator, Clinton served as a cutthroat operator
for U.S. imperialist interests, becoming a favorite among military contractors, energy companies,
war hawks and even neoconservative strategists from the Bush administration."
https://www.liberationnews.org/clinton-imperialist-not-feminist/
Whilst they were previously the devil, generals and spooks are now beloved public figures
for the democratic establishment. It really is just tribalism, with barely a difference between
the GOP (sans Trump) and the democrats.
It's the same interests. They could call it the Santa Claus Party. Wouldn't make a jot of difference.
Couldn't slide a sheet of paper between the two 'parties'. But then along came Trump, unexpectedly,
bombastically and grabbed the popular vote. Talk about a fly in the ointment.
1) Shawn Lucas, Sanders supporter who served papers to DNC on the Fraud Case (DOD August
2, 2016)
2) Victor Thorn, Clinton author (and Holocaust denier, probably the least credible on this
list) shot himself in an apparent suicide. Conspiracy theorists at Mystery Writers of America
said some guys will do anything to sell books. (DOD August, 2016)
3) Seth Conrad Rich, Democratic staffer, aged 27, apparently on his way to speak to the
FBI about a case possibly involving the Clintons. The D.C. murder was not a robbery. (DOD July
8, 2016)
4) John Ashe, UN official who allegedly crushed his own throat while lifting weights, because
he watched too many James Bond films and wanted to try the move where the bad guy tries to…oh,
never mind. "He was scheduled to testify against the Clintons and the Democrat Party." (DOD
June 22, 2016)
5) Mike Flynn, the Big Government Editor for Breitbart News. Mike Flynn's final article
was published the day he died, "Clinton Cash: Bill, Hillary Created Their Own Chinese Foundation
in 2014." (DOD June 23, 2016)
"if anyone [in uniform] did with Clinton's emails what she did that they'd wind up in jail."
Not surprising that this grossly inaccurate comment comes from the GOP.
No, Kory, they would not end up in jail. Let's look at what actually happens with the miliary:
General David Petraeus was actively sharing information he knew was classified with an
individual with whom he was having a personal relationship. No jail.
Major Jason Brezler was forced out of the Marines for using his private email account to
send a warning to fellow Marines about an Afghan Police Chief Sarwar Jan's alleged links to
the Taliban. No jail.
Nope, not jail, but they would not be allowed to work for the government again, could not
get a security clearance again, and yet Hillary is now running to be the boss of all government.
If a lower level state dept. employee like an attaché or ambassador did all that HIllary
did - from private server and private email for work, sending classified info (whether at the
time or later, and she did both) and using her mail and server in 'hackable' open hostile foreign
place like China, which is what she did - so if they did not even half of that, a smidgen, they
could not work in government again, and they would get probation at least, like a Petraeus.
And other 'small fish' who unintentionally did not even half of what she did, or Petraeus,
they got probation and even went to jail a little bit I think, but definitely probation, and lost
their security clearance. But Hillary gets to be president.
Agreed. When you see the National Security establishment swinging into her camp, which already
contains the banking-financial establishment, the defence and weapons-manufacturing establishment....
How many more clues to people need?
She could be running for the Santa Claus party - it doesn't matter. The interests that she
represents would be the same.
This is not a laughing matter, please watch the CNN interview with Professor Stephen Cohen.
The MSM is not reporting the war that is brewing with Russia! The size of Trumps' hands are more
newsworthy.....
"The Obama administration has built more nuclear weapons, more nuclear warheads, more nuclear
delivery systems, more nuclear factories. Nuclear warhead spending alone rose higher under Obama
than under any American president. The cost over thirty years is more than $1 trillion.
"A mini nuclear bomb is planned. It is known as the B61 Model 12. There has never been anything
like it. General James Cartwright, a former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said,
"Going smaller [makes using this nuclear] weapon more thinkable."
"In the last 18 months, the greatest build-up of military forces since World War Two - led
by the United States - is taking place along Russia's western frontier. Not since Hitler invaded
the Soviet Union have foreign troops presented such a demonstrable threat to Russia.
"Ukraine - once part of the Soviet Union - has become a CIA theme park. Having orchestrated
a coup in Kiev, Washington effectively controls a regime that is next door and hostile to Russia:
a regime rotten with Nazis, literally. Prominent parliamentary figures in Ukraine are the political
descendants of the notorious OUN and UPA fascists. They openly praise Hitler and call for the
persecution and expulsion of the Russian speaking minority."
A World War Has Begun: Break the Silence by John Pilger
The level of media control is halfway to war level. Let's say it's at a pre-war level. There
is a tiny and diminishing space for views contrary to the interests of banks and weapons manufacturers
(who were key causes of WW1 and WW2 - Edwin Black, Antony Sutton). How else to account for the
uniformity, the single message, repeated endlessly like a drum beat for weaponising, militarising,
intervening, surrounding and encamping?
Surely this election has to be a wake up call for American democracy. You can only write off so
many likely Trump voters as stupid racists, there simply aren't enough for that. some are just
desperate. It's become so corrupt that people are willing to vote for anything that might change
it. Perhaps it's time to look at reforming the whole process in a way that allows other parties
a better chance so people don't have to vote for something rather than voting against the other
guy or out of fear.
Get money out of politics too. corporations are not people, money is not speech, it's gotten
to the point where if
you are not a high earner , your positions have little effect on policy, and has practically
zero effect when it opposes big money.
The media has a
large part in this , the coverage of presidential candidates was vastly unequal, it has become
solely motivated by profit, of course constantly covering Trump's every blunders and rants, egging
him on and treating the election like a reality tv show is going to affect the outcome. I don't
even know where to begin with FOX News, they've been encouraging and spreading this kind of ideology
for decades now.
The Republican party needs a major overhaul, it's become a corporate special interest group/
religious extremist/wing of the NRA. It hasn't been all that different to Trump in a long time,
he just doesn't bother to dress it up in any way and blurts it all out. Instead of pandering to
the far right, gerrymandering and steamrolling with corporate money and then going on to be obstructionist,
science denying fools, why not go back to being a traditional, moderate conservative party? Would
it really be that much of a vote loser? With any luck the democratic party should be moving to
the left now anyway, now is the time to climb back up the cliff.
Lots of things are to be blamed for potentially inflicting Trump on the U.S and the world and
they should be held to account. But they won't, nobody will learn a thing from any of this.
There is no moral compass in most of establishment politicians that are puppets for multinational
corporations, Wall Street, etc. There is no turn off switch in their DNA. Enough is never enough.
They would have 300 million Americans forced into poverty if it gave them more money. The only
way is to vote them out of Washinton.
During a 33-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, I served presidents of both parties
- three Republicans and three Democrats. I was at President George W. Bush's side when we were
attacked on Sept. 11; as deputy director of the agency, I was with President Obama when we killed
Osama bin Laden in 2011.
I am neither a registered Democrat nor a registered Republican. In my 40 years of voting, I
have pulled the lever for candidates of both parties. As a government official, I have always
been silent about my preference for president.
No longer. On Nov. 8, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. Between now and then, I will do everything
I can to ensure that she is elected as our 45th president.
Two strongly held beliefs have brought me to this decision. First, Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified
to be commander in chief. I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president -
keeping our nation safe. Second, Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may
well pose a threat to our national security.
Unfortunately America is already the most state controlled nation on earth - and the Constitution
is used to cover-up the prisonhouse of free thinking. Poverty is used to make the population obedient.
The US presidential election is turning in to an even more depressing version of Sophie's Choice.
On the one side we have a buffoon of a character that is so absurd & erratic it is hard to believe
he has come this far. On the other, a candidate who is lauded as experienced largely on account
of mere longevity.
Wrong on Iraq, calamity on Libya, part of the problem in Syria, and saved from her self
on Ukraine. Way too close, with dubious connections to the pernicious Gulf States.
Trump is terrifying because he is impulsive, ill-informed & a rampant ego. And the savior
is one who is calm, calculating, well briefed, but has a history of misjudgements & disasters
that makes you wish, in the words of the war criminal Kissinger on Iran-Iraq war: 'A pity they
both can't lose'
Clinton continues to espouse the horribly failed philosophy of American intervention, which
is, in fact, a philosophy of perpetual war. The American people must reject the political/media
orthodoxy that has resulted in decades of deception and manipulation. Read "Ross Rambles: Don't
sit this one out."
The American military complex is involved in virtually everything around the globe, from condoms
to literacy, cultural studies to constitutional law - they are involved in everything.
Pretty much the same thing happened during the primary. There were a bunch of high ranking
military and intelligence officials who said they preferred Hillary to Bernie as well. The problem
with that is that many of us consider that an indictment. These are the people who invaded two
countries and bombed five more to fight terrorism, and fifteen years later terrorism is worse
than it ever was. These days we long for the simpler times of Al Qaida and Hezbollah and Hamas.
Forgive me thinking these people should keep their electoral advice to themselves. They've conclusively
proven that they've got no f*cking clue what they're doing in the middle east.
Warmongers always want more war. That is a given. Warmongers only care about war, not about
the American people or their safety. That seems right. So if the warmongers don't want Trump,
it can't be because he is going to make to much war for them. There can never be enough ware for
the warmongers. They must dislike Trump for another reason. Maybe they can't control him. That
is why they don't want him.
Conversely, the warmongers want Hillary. Based on the above reasoning. Hillary is no threat
to the warmongers. A vote for Hillary is a vote for war.
As a side note, it's pretty telling how much media attention Khizir Khan has received since
the convention compared to the families involved in the Benghazi attack. I'm no fan of Trump,
but this election has laid bare the degree to which the media establishment is willing to shield
Clinton from the same kind of standards and criticism that are laid against a more explicitly
transgressive candidate like Trump. There is clearly an establishment bias.
What's more, even as Morell touts his three decades of non-partisan service to his country
and his (heretofore private) bi-partisan voting record, he fails to disclose that he left the
CIA in 2013 to join Beacon Global Strategies, a consulting firm founded by longtime Clinton
aide and ally Philippe Reines.
well, that's it...the NSA will just email in the election returns...
For their girl. Funny, she no longer angry about their "fooling" her on WMD, eh? (she never
was, she knew it was all about regime change...open season again come January...)
Hacking voting machines is like bumping the candy machine for free Doritos, everyone knows
that.
I was listening to Science Friday on NPR with two experts today, and they explained that there
already exists a good system that leaves a paper ballot... but you still have to have cause, and
$$$, to check them.
The only secure system gives each voter a "receipt" listing 1) the ballot # used & 2) the selection
made for each choice on the ballot. Then the actual count must be published, put up in print out
on the polling place wall, so any voter can match what the list shows as choices for given ballot
# and your receipt...
if they don't match...vote fraud, by whoever controlled the machine.
(and an aside, since there would be an error rate, the differentials on each choice section
could be compared against the "white noise" of system error, a neat check on reliability.)
With Clinton's promise to follow Obama's policies, and the announcement that they wish to increase
the number of Syrian refuges by 500%, combined with the Libya fiasco, and her position on the
Gulf and Iraq wars.. I t just seems like she cant make up her mind, fight them or make friends..
you cant have a president in two minds like this..
Clinton supported the policy objectives of the military high command right down the line,
even when those policies turned out in hindsight to have been terrible mistakes. Why wouldn't
they support her? Obama, who did not turn out to be the shining light on foreign policy that some
of us had hoped he would be, at least had the backbone to stand up to the generals and say "No!"
occasionally. Clinton never faced that choice, because she never disagreed with them. I'd
certainly rather have Clinton making military decisions than Trump, but it's one of the least
reassuring aspects of having her as the next president.
Brent Scowcroft, who served as National Security Adviser to Presidents George H. W. Bush and
Gerald Ford, and who worked in the White House of Presidents Richard Nixon and George W. Bush,
said Clinton "brings truly unique experience and perspective to the White House."
"She brings deep expertise in international affairs and a sophisticated understanding of the
world, which I believe are essential for the commander-in-chief," Scowcroft said.
"I believe Hillary Clinton has the wisdom and experience to lead our country at this critical
time," Scowcroft said.
I applaud you for looking beyond the expected party options. Usually i would do the same. but
this year, this time, Trump cannot win. And while it makes me heart and brain hurt, i urge everyone
to vote for Hillary.
"Spits on floor".
PS. if i thought Jill Stein had a chance to win i'd vote. Trust me. But this is america and
closing ones eyes to the reality that the two party systems OWNS the media, the churches, the
veteran network, the unions and every other group that mobilizes to vote is naive.
I'm really not interested in an article about endorsements from military commanders that are
so far up the ladder, they're basically politicians. Where's the article about the opinions from
the Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces, or Air Force pilots that are the ones doing dangerous missions
in Syria and Libya? Do they really want to give their lives for a piece of desert? My guess is
no.
Either way, Both Ivanka and Chelsea are eligible to enlist in the military if Trump or Clinton
want to show how much they "understand" their constituents. But they'll both stay at their six
figure jobs anyway....
So national security officials, including the former CIA director, have endorsed the former
Secretary of State with whom they collaborated since at least 2008 in overthrowing Ghaddafi, supporting
opposition fundamentislists in Syria, attacking wistleblowers, etc. HUGE surprise there, the establishment
supports itself! Shocking. The machine vs. the idiot, what a great choice we have...
Yay! Victory for the neocon establishment around Hillary Clinton! Yay! Wars! Yay! This is good
for humanity (excluding brown people, who will be droned frequently).
So basically what is happening is the Democrats are going all in on neo liberal foreign policy?
They do realize how illegal, immoral, costly, and most importantly...impossible it is right? We've
tried it for almost 6 decades now. It has never worked and won't work because it contradicts
human behavior. Maybe we can try promoting democracy and self determination for half a century
and see if that works better. Certainly can't work worse.
Is this really something the Democrat's should be proud of? Who really runs the country, obviously
the Pentagon, CIA and DoD. More wars abroad equal less prosperity at home.
American Exceptionalism. Does global domination count as being exceptional or does feeding
the hungry in your neighborhood count, because we can't afford both.
True enough. Your point is well taken. We do need to get over ourselves as a global dominating
power with our double standards. I do believe that shift is inevitable. No matter who is elected
president, the illusion of global dominance is not sustainable.
You'd think that with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, an army with outposts across the
globe, a public relations office that can swat away a few accusations of torture by prosecuting
a few enlisted soldiers, an ability to control (or kill)
journalists who don't fully conform to the narrative, an industry funded by hundreds of billions
of taxpayers dollars per year, a political institution that claims the right to arbitrarily arrest
and detain -- or summarily execute -- anyone any time anywhere on the face of the earth ...
... whew ...
anyway, you'd think this organization wouldn't need MORE security.
... more defense.
... more political support.
... more money,
... more weapons
... et cetera.
You'd think that but you'd be wrong. Sure, there's a huge black hole at the center of the galaxy
that swallows all matter approaching it. Here on earth, we have a similar all-consuming black
hole. We call it "the Pentagon."
the country needs a complete change in direction.. Trump is that change.. The Clinton's I
suspect are the establishment and it appears that they are only in it for the money.. Vote Trump
Make America Great Again for ALL.. not just the Clinton elites
Neoconservative Republican hawks are flocking to Hillary, knowing she will keep the expanding,
never-ending wars expanding and never-ending, yet the Democratic loyalists are possessed of such
cognitive dissonance that they still think she's a stalwart liberal who'll implement sane policies.
And largely responsible for what Obama has called the biggest mistake of his presidency -
removing Ghadaffi from power in Libya. Any other fabulous accomplishments during her tenure? Syria?
Honduras?
This is a slow-motion disaster for the US. What a choice: lunatic Trump or pathological liar Clinton.
It seems that the country is going to end up with the liar dynasty continuing. Why can
we not have honest, decent candidates? A real debate needs to start as to how it can be that the
only people who end up as candidates are so unutterably awful.
Scary Hillary has the endorsement of the cia. Both teamed together brought us Libya, Syria,
Honderas. I can only think more illegal wars and mass refugee crisis to come if she is president
when we need to focus on our economy.
Destroying Libya, Syria and Ukraine were definitely not in our security interests, unless
you mean a few oligarchs' financial security interests that is..
Considering the Maidan protests started in November 2013, about a year after Hillary stopped
being secretary of state, I don't think it's reasonable to blame her for the Ukraine situation.
Well, thanks in a great part to Hillary, US national and global security has been worsened
with decisions made on Libya, Syria, supporting Saudi Arabia and Egypt with weapons/training and
$.
Hillary didn't even learn the lessons of Iraq war! She made huge blunder in Libya and now ISIS
took control, hence threat to US and global national security.
"... The policy differences between Bernie and Hillary are a chasm from military interventions for regime change, to break up the banks that created the worst recession in the US, to the support of the TPP by HRC, until she thought of political expediency. ..."
"... The Democratic Party is already in disarray and their operatives are carefully shielding this fact with the help of the media that is supportive of HRC. This article will provide what all insiders of the Democratic Party are discussing. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-debbie-wasserman-schultz-226352 ..."
"... The record of the last 8 years is of a president with an almost divine oratory eloquence, but whose words of "Hope, change and the Dreams of My Father" clearly were nothing more than a "sales job" on small donors who were duped in to believing the promised land was on the way. ..."
"... He had 2 years with a complete majority in both houses of congress, but chose to dither rather than promote much needed progressive legislation, for all Americans, but especially those folks in white Appalachia and black urban areas who most needed "Hope". ..."
"... He staffed his cabinet with the very same people who had staffed the banks who gleefully robbed Americans of their pace to live. Bernie, Geitner and others running the Treasury is about as from "Change You Can Believe In" as Chicago is from Mars. ..."
"... His legacy is exclusively "Obamacare", legislation which forces folks to buy from a monopoly of private insurance companies, whose coffers have soared since the regime was implemented. ..."
"... Nice man I do believe, but a shill of the first order and a master stroke by the establishment in producing the right actor at a time when ordinary people seemed ready to storm the castle. ..."
"... Don't get duped by Hillary because she's a female candidate like the black folks did in 2008. ..."
"... Unlike you, there is no "Glass Ceiling" for people like Hillary and Obama. It is as tall and limitless as the elites promise them in return for their obedience and servitude. ..."
"... Sen. Elizabeth Warren in her book "A Fighting Chance" gives one example of Hillary Clinton's lack of any principles. HRC promised Mrs. Warren that she will oppose the Bankruptcy Bill that was lobbied by Big Banks and, as previously existed gave a chance to those who were financially strapped from starting all over. Most who filed for bankruptcy earlier was driven to do so because of medical bills. However, when the Bill came to the vote Hillary Clinton voted with the banks. That's Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... How can you vote for someone who basically destroyed the African American male population w/ the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994? An apology for millions of lives ruined after cheering on her husbands murder of Ricky Ray Rector. ..."
"... "pockets of resistance" ... keep dreaming (and lying) in the hope that your fiction will come true ... the resistance to a HRC presidency (even amongst Democratic convention delegates) is substantial, vibrant and growing ... soon you will see that your misrepresentations are of no effect ..."
"... my guess is that on election day 30-35% of Bernie voters and supporters are either voting for a third party or . . .voting for Trump. ..."
"... The last time something like this happened was 1968. Hundreds of thousands of anti-war young people refused to vote for Hubert Humphrey and that was more or less the margin of his defeat. ..."
"... Don't be naive. The first thing Clinton will do upon entering office is install a shredder next to her personal email server so she can shred the DNC platform away from prying eyes. She has never had any use for progressives and now holds a personal animus toward them for marring her coronation. ..."
We've been played folks - again. We fought for our candidate and lost - we can accept that. What
is hard to swallow is the utter corruption in the DNC and the US election process. We are no longer
the greatest democracy in the world - we're not even a democracy.
We need a third party as an alternative to the corporate controlled parties. This election provides
voters with the best opportunity.
If HRC wins in November it will be the end of the movement that Sanders started, and if the
Democrats lose, it will not only be the end Democratic Party controlled by the corporatists, it
will also be the end of the Republican Party as we know it. We know who will be in charge. Therefore,
defeating the Democratic Party will certainly provide the optimum openings for the Sanders movement,
with or without him, to become stronger, and most probably without him.
Bernie Sanders will live to regret his endorsement of HRC because he caved in to the Democratic
Party establishment that wanted a coronation of Hillary Clinton and not an election. Make no mistake
that the DNC not only undermined Sen. Sanders's democratic campaign, it undermined the the very
democratic process.
The policy differences between Bernie and Hillary are a chasm from military interventions
for regime change, to break up the banks that created the worst recession in the US, to the support
of the TPP by HRC, until she thought of political expediency.
The Democratic Party is already in disarray and their operatives are carefully shielding
this fact with the help of the media that is supportive of HRC. This article will provide what
all insiders of the Democratic Party are discussing.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-debbie-wasserman-schultz-226352
I say this as someone who is married to an African American woman and mean no disrespect to those
who differ.
I was in Grant Park in Chicago the night Obama got elected in 2008. The atmosphere was electric
with expectation and as we waded through the crowds, I watched in delight as black folks young,
old and for the most parts of the city rejoiced and exalted in the historic breaking of the color
line by the first African American president. "Not healthy to expect one man to achieve all things
in just 4 or 8 years...cut him a little slack" I dead panned, at which point I was roundly put
down as being "Canadian, and just not getting it".
Well I did "get it" and take no pleasure in having proved my in laws wrong.
The record of the last 8 years is of a president with an almost divine oratory eloquence,
but whose words of "Hope, change and the Dreams of My Father" clearly were nothing more than a
"sales job" on small donors who were duped in to believing the promised land was on the way.
He had 2 years with a complete majority in both houses of congress, but chose to dither
rather than promote much needed progressive legislation, for all Americans, but especially those
folks in white Appalachia and black urban areas who most needed "Hope".
He staffed his cabinet with the very same people who had staffed the banks who gleefully
robbed Americans of their pace to live. Bernie, Geitner and others running the Treasury is about
as from "Change You Can Believe In" as Chicago is from Mars.
His legacy is exclusively "Obamacare", legislation which forces folks to buy from a monopoly
of private insurance companies, whose coffers have soared since the regime was implemented.
Nice man I do believe, but a shill of the first order and a master stroke by the establishment
in producing the right actor at a time when ordinary people seemed ready to storm the castle.
So what's the point of this tabling post? Simply this:
There is no more "Left & Right" in western politics. The equation is much simpler. It's You
And your neighbours' interests vs. those of the establishment.
It would have done a lot more for the interests of urban to have gotten a non-black president
in 2008 who actively championed policies and laws to help all poor Americans.
Point is, it doesn't matter a fig if the candidate is he's owned by corrupt interests that
are
And it will matter even less for women, when the candidate is female but has an agenda which
is as far from feminist as New York is from Mercury. Unnecessary wars, a refusal to back a $15
minimum wage and a demonstrated wilful intent to impose the TPP on American workers, and an acceptance
of spousal a issue as a norm make Hillary a bizarre choice for anyone who holds women in high
esteem.
If people tell you the only other choice is Trump, don't believe them and you can't bring yourself
to vote for him then don't . A real feminist is running as candidate for the Greens and even the
Libertarians appear to ha e a more women friendly candidate. What's more, Elizabeth Warren has
a great shot at it in 2020, and she would make an exemplary first female president.
Don't get duped by Hillary because she's a female candidate like the black folks did in 2008.
Unlike you, there is no "Glass Ceiling" for people like Hillary and Obama. It is as tall and
limitless as the elites promise them in return for their obedience and servitude.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren in her book "A Fighting Chance" gives one example of Hillary Clinton's lack
of any principles. HRC promised Mrs. Warren that she will oppose the Bankruptcy Bill that was
lobbied by Big Banks and, as previously existed gave a chance to those who were financially strapped
from starting all over. Most who filed for bankruptcy earlier was driven to do so because of medical
bills. However, when the Bill came to the vote Hillary Clinton voted with the banks. That's Hillary
Clinton.
the African Americans who support her nomination have made a grave mistake letting her be the
nominee. How can you vote for someone who basically destroyed the African American male population
w/ the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994? An apology for millions of lives
ruined after cheering on her husbands murder of Ricky Ray Rector. It makes no sense. We would
be better off voting for Trump. At least we know the racist acts will be to our face as opposed
to in our backs.
"pockets of resistance" ... keep dreaming (and lying) in the hope that your fiction will come
true ... the resistance to a HRC presidency (even amongst Democratic convention delegates) is
substantial, vibrant and growing ... soon you will see that your misrepresentations are of no
effect
Anti-Hillary sentiments may be waning across the country, but it depends how you look at it. I'm
a Bernie voter who won't vote for Hillary. Most of the people I know are capitulating to her candidacy
but not all by a long shot. And then there are the white union voters in the Midwest, who voted
for Bernie. Many are going to vote for Trump. Like with Brexit in the UK, I'm not sure the polling
is sophisticated enough to pick up the unusual nature of anti-Hillary Democratic vote, but my
guess is that on election day 30-35% of Bernie voters and supporters are either voting for a third
party or . . .voting for Trump.
The last time something like this happened was 1968. Hundreds of thousands of anti-war young
people refused to vote for Hubert Humphrey and that was more or less the margin of his defeat.
What another terrible article!! The disunity is not quiet, you're just not willing to tell the
story, instead you post another biased condescending article.
46% of the people who voted in the primaries voted for Bernie many more would if they hadn't been
purged or otherwise had their desire to vote for him sabotaged. That is a lot of people to alienate
for someone who wants to be elected. But the establishment has clearly demonstrated their tin
ear by electing the most establishment team ever in a year when the establishment is held in contempt
by most voters.
For the hypocrite politicians we are IDIOTS! They ignore us, they do not listen or support us.
They think that with empty , fake promises they will convince us to vote them, as we did ALWAYS!
NOW WE SAY NOOOO! We will not vote Clinton, we are not sheep, we will punish them to learn to
listen and respect us.
For many left wing liberals changing our U.S. corrupted political system is a must goal, even
if fascist Trump does it. We know that Clinton wants to maintain it. At this point the far right
conservatives & the far left liberals want to change it democratically by the vote. If it can't
be done democratically the hatred for the system will eventually explode into sheer violence (we
are a violent culture). Trump & Sanders both saw the urgent need for change. Sanders back down
from creating a third party was a huge delay for having a greater democracy. Fascist Trump wants
to change it democratically (making it probable that the RP may split into two parties.). Sander's
great fear of a Trump presidency blinded him from seeing the potential of "after Trump" increasing
the democracy of our nation. (Students take this to the classroom)
Don't be naive. The first thing Clinton will do upon entering office is install a shredder
next to her personal email server so she can shred the DNC platform away from prying eyes. She
has never had any use for progressives and now holds a personal animus toward them for marring
her coronation.
We all knew how serious the DNC was when Kaine was announced - the guy is pro TPP. Hillary doesn't
give a honk about the liberal side of the DP. She would run for either party if it got her in
power to perpetuate her pay-for-play business.
I recognize voting for Jill Stein might hand the presidency to Trump, but people would realize
that you can't let the Clintons run the DNC like happened this time. I hate Trump, but I can't
vote for Hillary.
"... Clinton and the Democrats have far more to worry about from Wikileaks than they do disaffected Sanders supporters. ..."
"... The game is rigged and the house always win. You should know that by now. ..."
"... the neoconservatives do not support or trust Trump or anyone who makes nice with Putin. Hillary is a dependable hawk. Victoria Nuland worked in her State Dept. The empire will continue with Hillary in the White House. ..."
"... The other reason she is vulnerable to Trump is because she is almost as loathed as he is but unlike Trump she doesn't generate the adulation to counter it. ..."
"... I think the election could be compared to the EU referendum because just like the EU it's very hard to feel much enthusiasm for Clinton, wheras just like the Brexit campaign, Trump generates strong support with a bunch of easy answers and cheap soundbites ..."
"... Even Bill Clinton chose someone other than Hillary ... shouldn't we? ..."
"... If Trump is elected. who knows what will happen, but we know what will happen if the Clintons are elected. I will vote for Trump and watch the events and hope that the DNC fragments and then watch as a revolution and a rebuilding of our political system begins. I do not anymore wars. With the Clintons, there will be a continuation and new wars, perhaps a conflict with Russia and mankind will vanish. ..."
"... Obama didn't equal huge positive change, so why do we think Trump can create huge negative change ??? ..."
"... There won't be a video, Goldman Sachs own her. And with either Clinton or Trump, we will still be living under the dictate of Wall Street. ..."
"... Once again this election is proof positive that you BUY elections. The masters of the DNC ordained that Clinton represent them and they were so insulated in their rich little world that they failed to recognize that she is unelectable; the republican turnout will be higher than it has ever been in history, so polarizing is she. People like me, poor people who crave change, will NOT vote for banks so, by default, Trump wins. ..."
If Bernie won the nomination, and Clinton gave him 'belated and tepid support', he would still
win the election by a large margin. Which is testament to Clinton's ineptitude as a politician
I had hoped Obama would deliver genuine economic change – but that didn't happen. Before
becoming a journalist, I even moved to Pennsylvania for a couple of months to volunteer for
Barack Obama's campaign. I was enamored by his intelligence and the beautiful ways he wrote
and spoke about race. But I was also thrilled (naively) that Obama seemed to get his money
from small donors, and that he might break Wall Street's stranglehold on the Democrats.
The game is rigged and the house always win. You should know that by now.
George won the vote in Florida because Cubans in Dade and Broward counties voted for him 4-1 over
Gore. Why do you think she went to Miami last week and her V.P. is fluent in Spanish?
Latinos and women will vote in the tens of millions for Hillary. Plus, the neoconservatives
do not support or trust Trump or anyone who makes nice with Putin. Hillary is a dependable hawk.
Victoria Nuland worked in her State Dept. The empire will continue with Hillary in the White House.
Sanders would never have lost to Trump.
Hillary is incredibly vulnerable to Trump.
The Media and the DNC's obsession with making sure that Hillary won may go down as one of the
greatest mistakes in American history.
Obviously she can win. But Sanders looks infinitely more capable of beating Trump in the states
where it's going to be dog fight. Whereas Hillary represents everything Trump has specialised
in opposing with such great success.
Sanders would have brushed Trump off like a fly and peeled off large parts of his blue collar
support. And Rep leaders would blush and giggle when discussing his integrity and honesty. But
instead we get Hillary and her baggage train. Lousy.
Whereas Hillary represents everything Trump has specialised in opposing with such great
success.
Very good point.
The other reason she is vulnerable to Trump is because she is almost as loathed as he is
but unlike Trump she doesn't generate the adulation to counter it.
I think the election could be compared to the EU referendum because just like the EU it's
very hard to feel much enthusiasm for Clinton, wheras just like the Brexit campaign, Trump generates
strong support with a bunch of easy answers and cheap soundbites.
If the Democrats are to bring about a different outcome they need to recognise just how bad
their candidate is and really concentrate on running an anti-Trump campaign. As I see it it's
the only they can win.
If Trump is elected. who knows what will happen, but we know what will happen if the Clintons
are elected. I will vote for Trump and watch the events and hope that the DNC fragments and then
watch as a revolution and a rebuilding of our political system begins. I do not anymore wars.
With the Clintons, there will be a continuation and new wars, perhaps a conflict with Russia and
mankind will vanish.
Poor whites in the U.S. are not voting for the "Left" because they have been dismissed, if not
vilified, by the cosmopolitan luvvies of the Democratic Party who are in thrall to every trendy
identity politics of the moment.
The elections are the X-Factor theatre for us lot every 4/5 years.
The shadow government (Wall Street/global corporations/war machine) always remains the same
throughout the decades, regardless of the rolling red/blue figurehead.
You can't get anywhere near the top job without being in the pocket of the kingmakers.
If only you could take the money out of politics. Maybe in a parallel universe we'll have grown
up sufficiently to understand that it's absolutely this that kills any hope of democracy.
Would a Trump presidency be a disaster? Yes. Would it cause all manner of economic, legal,
political and moral crises? Definitely. Yup. Would a good chunk of Trump voters – even angry
white Trump voters – grow to regret their votes? No doubt.
Would poor people and people of color – especially immigrants, those assumed to be immigrants
and Muslims – pay the highest price?
Why would it be a disaster ?
Would it cause all manner of economic, legal, political and moral crises?
Would poor people and people of color – especially immigrants, those assumed to be immigrants
and Muslims – pay the highest price?
I don't think you can categorically say it would be a disaster, any policy would still need
to be voted through, and congress isn't suddenly going to change based on the President.
You thought Obama was going to change everything for the better, but he couldn't due to the
restrictions of power on a president, so why do people think Trump is suddenly going to have unlimited
power.
Obama didn't equal huge positive change, so why do we think Trump can create huge negative
change ???
Bernie actually brought in the young crowd who frankly sees Clinton as an establishment dragging
the sack candidate and would have never voted for her. Ron Paul did the same for Republicans.
He did actually start a conversation about what it means to be a socialist and have all the
great ideas and no way to pay for them, except raise taxes.
Neither Bernie or Hillary have a response to get people employed. Their answer is to send people
to school till they actually want to drop out of the perpetual education carousel and try and
get a job.
I wouldn't consider the same old steal (tax) the working stiffs money from them under a different
acronym (slush fund) a viable plan.
At last some rational commentary coming from the Guardian. The democratic party nominated Hillary
Clinton last night and elected Donald Trump.. Blame Clinton, Wasserman and the rest of the crooked
DNC cabal for what may well be the disintegration for the Democratic Party...
If Hillary Clinton hadn't been married to Bill Clinton she would have come nowhere, she wouldn't
have been a senator, the same principal as the Bush legacy, where would GWBush have got in the
selection process if his father hadn't have been pulling strings. The US needs a president on
merit, not who they are related to or married to. It is like a monarchy, just what the American
revolution was carried out to escape from.
There really is only one party at the Federal level and that is the $ party. The rest is just
a carnival con game with the banners and shouting. The truth is that all of us but the very rich,
have been abandoned by what is supposed to be representative govt. Sanders supporters have learned
a hard lesson, that you can't reform this level of corruption from inside the system.
Another interesting aspect will be the Wall Street speeches that no one has mentioned for a while.
Clinton still refuses to disclose anything about those but now, she's up against the very people
to whom those speeches were delivered. They not only have transcripts, they doubtless have VIDEO and that video will probably surface at the least-convenient time for Clinton.
> the Democrats seem bent on putting up people and policies that
> will redistribute money to Wall Street and ignore the 99% when their
> base been screaming at them to stop this.
> Americans might not regret casting a vote for Trump until it's too late.
>
One of the policies that Trump advocates is less of a seeming oneness with Wall Street. If Obama
couldn't divorce himself of that sort of thing, why do you think that Hillary Big Banks Pay Me
Big Bucks For Speeches Clinton would?
Once again this election is proof positive that you BUY elections. The masters of the DNC
ordained that Clinton represent them and they were so insulated in their rich little world that
they failed to recognize that she is unelectable; the republican turnout will be higher than it
has ever been in history, so polarizing is she. People like me, poor people who crave change,
will NOT vote for banks so, by default, Trump wins.
"... A vote for Mrs Clinton will mean a repeat of what we've experienced during these past twenty-four years, and that is not acceptable. ..."
"... Bern lost the nomination last October when he declined to make Hillary's emails, wall street capitulations and warmongering an issue and DID NOT FIGHT TO WIN! ..."
"... yes, I will vote Trump to keep the Clintons from a 3rd and 4th term. ..."
"... The mass media is just as responsible as the DNC for tilting the scale toward Clinton. Did you you hear the fawning by the CNN presenters? Remember how they dissed O'Malley and Lincoln Chaffee. Bernie was intended to be like the "other team" and Clinton the Harlem Globe Trotters, only Bernie kept untying her shoes and shooting baskets. ..."
"... Only a very few Bernie supporters I know, and I know and have informally polled HUNDREDS, is going to vote for Hillary, especially after these latest revelations (which only scratch the surface), and the DNC's "apology", which apologized for language, but not for proven bias and rigging. ..."
"... Hillary is a lying, corrupt neocon. ..."
"... The dem party in America is now fully in the hands of the globalists. At least the repubs had the integrity to not cheat THEIR insurgent candidate. ..."
"... If not for an independent socialist by the name of Bernie Sanders who's upstart campaign is subject to derision and sabotage at a mainstream media and the DNC itself, there would be not a primary, but a coronation (which is in effect what we've been given). ..."
"... Please friends, join me in NOT supporting this sham of an election process and the anointment of Queen Hillary. The stakes for our democracy are just too high to let them get away with it - much worse than 4 years of just about anyone ..."
"... I agree with Trump on few things but he was right when he said the election was rigged. ..."
"... The news blogs have Hillary supporters trashing Bernie and referring to him as undemocratic and just a carpet bagger. During the primaries Hillary stumpers were offering misinformation or false information on Bernie and continue to trash him now. The assumption that Bernie supporters are FOR SALE or Hillary's by a nod from Sanders is not a given. ..."
"... The fact that Hillary's base is still bashing Bernie hardliners is a sign of how little respect they have for his huge voting block. Independents were nervous before the infighting. ..."
"... Trump is a one-term feather-brain and will end up, if president, as somebody's tool. And who or what would use that tool? Fossil fuel companies and other corporations. The same as Hillary, whose foundation receives donations from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Chevron, and many more oil producing corps and States. The difference is between the devil we know and the devil we don't. Hillary- the devil we know ..."
"... She loves wars: ask people in Libya, Iraq and other oil States. She loves Saudi money. Of course she'll go for the TPP no matter what she says. ..."
"... Trump's going to win. Clinton's staggeringly self-destructive combination of corruption and stupidity guarantees it; by making Debbie Wassermann Schultz her campaign manager, Hillary's saying "Fuck you" to millions of people whose votes she desperately needs, not to mention telling everyone "Yes, it's true. My loyalty to Debbie, whose dishonesty and corruption has just become a matter of public record, shows exactly why people don't like me and don't trust me." There's only one way the Democrats can win: drop Hillary for vote-rigging, and put up a /bernie_sanders.Warren ticket. It's the only thing between us and Trumpocalypse. ..."
"... Trade deals were supposed to improve and lift wages and job conditions. As it turns out the only trading being done is lowering wages and and less decent jobs. Government buy-up and controlling interest in some major companies is needed to bring the system back to public influence. ..."
A vote for Mrs Clinton will mean a repeat of what we've experienced during these past
twenty-four years, and that is not acceptable. A Senator Sander's vote would be the
opposite, but the Democratic Party doesn't want that, even though a majority of
Democrats does. I won't stand for that, and will vote Green Party with Dr. Stein.
Bern lost the nomination last October when he declined to make Hillary's emails, wall street capitulations
and warmongering an issue and DID NOT FIGHT TO WIN!
I remember being so frustrated during the debates, knowing that he could have torn her a new
one.... LIKE TRUMP WILL when he debuts her.
I just came out of the closet.
My first was Bernie, my second and third choice won't even be allowed on the debate stage, but
I have an open mind if the polls indicate a chance slightly better than a snowballs. . . Sans
that, yes, I will vote Trump to keep the Clintons from a 3rd and 4th term.
Great debate on why to/not vote for Hillary but Jill Stein. After watching that, if I had my ballot,
I'd would have mailed it in for Jill Stein. Another debate on the site with Chris Hedges and Robert
Reich.
The mass media is just as responsible as the DNC for tilting the scale toward Clinton. Did
you you hear the fawning by the CNN presenters? Remember how they dissed O'Malley and Lincoln
Chaffee. Bernie was intended to be like the "other team" and Clinton the Harlem Globe Trotters,
only Bernie kept untying her shoes and shooting baskets.
More promises and bargains at least. And i think that it should be published and re-iterated
that the media declared Hillary the winner, before voting had even happened, California exit polls
and research by Stanford students - say that Bernie won California.
Myself and a friend separately
experienced questionable stuff at the voting booth polls, etc. and Democratic big-wig, now fallen;
Wassermann cannot be ignored.
I understood that Bernie was going to raise the California debacle
at this Convention [ perhaps he had ]. There is a way he could not say that Hillary would be "
an outstanding President" and just say vote for her to defeat Trump and be honest about our situation.
Up until know he has been consistently brave, clear, etc. And the Green Party alternative stuff
is good and Bernie could say " i would join the Greens but i am too worried about Trump".
As an example of brave, please goggle Ted Cruz,in which he also demonstrated courage for his convictions
in his NON-endorsement of Trump, unlike Bernie, who accepted corruption as part of the democratic
ticket, very sad.
Don't get me wrong, I do not agree with Cruz on anything at all, but I do recognize courage
when I see it. Apparently, that attribute is absent among democrats.
Only a very few Bernie supporters I know, and I know and have informally polled HUNDREDS, is going
to vote for Hillary, especially after these latest revelations (which only scratch the surface),
and the DNC's "apology", which apologized for language, but not for proven bias and rigging.
We're
all either voting for Stein or, holding our noses, Trump. It's time to crash this plane with no
survivors.
Hillary is a lying, corrupt neocon. Politics as usual are over, and it's amazing to
me that the crazy cat-lady boomer dems will fall in line for smugly authoritarian DNC corruption
that makes Trump look like an amateur (and he is, compared to sHillary), whereas, if the obvious
lies of the Hillary camp were coming from repubs, the banshee howls would be heard from Marin
County to Martha's Vineyard. DEMS- YA DUN GOOFED. You'll never get us back. You can't spit in
our faces, call us crazy for accusing you of what it has now been proven you did, and then spit
in our faces again with your bogus apology.
The dem party in America is now fully in the hands
of the globalists. At least the repubs had the integrity to not cheat THEIR insurgent candidate.
I never thought I'd live to see this travesty. (BTW, I was born in 66 and a lifelong Dem). NEVER
AGAIN.
Just imagine if those "super-delegates" weren't decided until the convention where this election
would be now. Thanks Debbie Bark Bark Wassermen-Shultz not only do we have a manipulated nominee
but one which may loose.
Let me see if I understand this: The democratic party in the year 2016 puts forward a SINGLE candidate
for it's primary. Out of a population of 330 million, this party could come up with only a SINGLE
candidate, ignoring entirely that we live in a Democracy, and giving the voter but a single choice
in the election, effectively shutting out any other option or any hope of a substantive dialogue
on the issues. If not for an independent socialist by the name of Bernie Sanders who's upstart
campaign is subject to derision and sabotage at a mainstream media and the DNC itself, there
would be not a primary, but a coronation (which is in effect what we've been given).
Now, I'm told, ignoring the fact that this candidate, an individual with dubious ethics and
questionable competence that I MUST vote for this person, and that if I decide that I won't be
play along in the most undemocratic primary possibly in the history of the United States, and
I decide to vote my conscience either by voting a 3rd party or abstaining, that it will be MY
FAULT when things go badly, as I'm promised they will if they other guy wins. I am in effect being
told by the establishment that I'm beholden to their single-choice candidate, a person who in
my view stinks to high heavens of corruption and incompetence, or else.
IS THAT what I'm being told ? Because that sounds like the kind of sham elections they have
in the 3rd world and far, far beneath the standard of electoral decision making we should have
in this country. Now, I think that's what I'm hearing, and I'm telling you that I don't play that
sh*t. I'm not selling my conscience to play along with this sham - especially not to elect this
LOUSY candidate. And, frankly, it's a disgrace that anyone would imply that I should - worse even
- that people are so complicit in the utter destruction of their own political system and don't
see how utterly foul the stink of corruption is.
Please friends, join me in NOT supporting this sham of an election process and the anointment
of Queen Hillary. The stakes for our democracy are just too high to let them get away with it
- much worse than 4 years of just about anyone
The news blogs have Hillary supporters trashing Bernie and referring to him as undemocratic and
just a carpet bagger. During the primaries Hillary stumpers were offering misinformation or false
information on Bernie and continue to trash him now. The assumption that Bernie supporters are
FOR SALE or Hillary's by a nod from Sanders is not a given.
Supporting Bernie, then voting the
party ticket because Bernie has caved in to a rigged system, won't guarantee his base. The
fact that Hillary's base is still bashing Bernie hardliners is a sign of how little respect they
have for his huge voting block. Independents were nervous before the infighting.
Trump is a one-term feather-brain and will end up, if president, as somebody's tool. And who or
what would use that tool? Fossil fuel companies and other corporations. The same as Hillary, whose
foundation receives donations from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Chevron, and many more oil producing
corps and States. The difference is between the devil we know and the devil we don't. Hillary-
the devil we know because we can read her record and see what she's done, loves fracking in the
US and has exported it to the rest of the world. She loves wars: ask people in Libya, Iraq and
other oil States. She loves Saudi money. Of course she'll go for the TPP no matter what she says.
Donald is the devil we don't know, his one virtue is that he'll probably one-term unless he becomes
a very effective corporate tool indeed. Then he'll be just another fossil fuel puppet like Clinton.
There is really only one over-riding issue: and that is climate change. If we can't manage to
survive as a species then all other problems are moot. Scientists are in despair because political
wrangling and greed are dooming all life on earth to extinction- and it's happening very quickly.
So- what that means is that we have two candidates and neither will do squat to keep fossil fuels
in the ground. Hillary will probably pretend to do something about it which will of course fall
pathetically short of what we'll need to have any chance of survival. And, of course, she'll have
two terms- she knows the ropes and will pay off her corporate donors well.
So which one of these two candidates, both of whom will doom my children and grandchildren to
death, and yours too, should I vote for?
Trump's going to win. Clinton's staggeringly self-destructive combination of corruption and stupidity
guarantees it; by making Debbie Wassermann Schultz her campaign manager, Hillary's saying "Fuck
you" to millions of people whose votes she desperately needs, not to mention telling everyone
"Yes, it's true. My loyalty to Debbie, whose dishonesty and corruption has just become a matter
of public record, shows exactly why people don't like me and don't trust me." There's only one
way the Democrats can win: drop Hillary for vote-rigging, and put up a /bernie_sanders.Warren ticket.
It's the only thing between us and Trumpocalypse.
Trade deals were supposed to improve and lift wages and job conditions. As it turns out the only
trading being done is lowering wages and and less decent jobs.
Government buy-up and controlling interest in some major companies is needed to bring the system
back to public influence.
"... Sorry, we're not just another Stockholm Syndrome-suffering constituency for the DNC to ignore or abuse, and still be supportive of our captors out of an artificial fear of something claimed to be worse. Neither the DP nor the GOP represents us, and there's no rational reason for us to vote for either, especially when we have an alternative (the GP). ..."
"... All of this "unpleasantness" could have been avoided had the DNC honored its charter mandate to be an impartial and neutral actor in the primary process instead of openly colluding with the Clinton campaign to stack the deck and grease the skids (and launder the money) for Clinton. The M$M could have honored its Fourth Estate responsibility to be the public's watch-dog, instead of the Clinton's lap dog. ..."
"... When total spending (exclusive of the M$M's 'free advertising', of which Clinton got 2-3 times more of than Sanders) is included, it's far more likely that Clinton outspent Sanders by a four-to-one margin. And still nearly lost. ..."
"... Once again, it's not about Sanders. It's not about the man. It's a movement about creating a viable future for Americans and all the world that is not ravaged by corporate dominance and exploitation. ..."
"... Once again, the record is clear: Hillary is antithetical to the principles I have just mentioned. Her support for the TPP, interventionist wars, domestic surveillance, her collusion with the corrupt DNC to make sure those superdelegates who did not endorse her early would not be funded, and her constant fearmongering (against Trump, now against the Russians) have made it impossible for me to vote for her. ..."
"... No, but you can walk away and vote for a different candidate, one who didn't directly screw you. ..."
If the Sanders people want to show their collective anger, then don't vote in November. Don't
support the political machine that screwed him over. Send a message that you are free thinking
individuals who don't want to just follow the crowd because you are told it's the right thing.
At the moment, in state-by-state polls, Johnson is getting 5-13% of the vote (and, statistically
speaking, none of it from Sanders' supporters), and Trump is still pulling away from Clinton.
Not even Sanders can save Clinton from her own tone-deaf/brain-dead campaign, because the core
problem is the candidate herself.
Sorry, we're not just another Stockholm Syndrome-suffering constituency for the DNC to ignore
or abuse, and still be supportive of our captors out of an artificial fear of something claimed
to be worse. Neither the DP nor the GOP represents us, and there's no rational reason for us to
vote for either, especially when we have an alternative (the GP).
All of this "unpleasantness" could have been avoided had the DNC honored its charter mandate
to be an impartial and neutral actor in the primary process instead of openly colluding with the
Clinton campaign to stack the deck and grease the skids (and launder the money) for Clinton. The
M$M could have honored its Fourth Estate responsibility to be the public's watch-dog, instead
of the Clinton's lap dog. And Clinton could have run an issue-oriented campaign, instead
of hiding behind carefully stage photo-ops and giving David Brock (her long-time character assassin-for-hire)
tens of millions to practice the politics of personal destruction against Sanders, his Bro's and
his Ho's.
Had the establishment parties to the DP nominating process behaved ethically and responsibly,
there would no Bernie or Bust, no Demexit, no #Neverhillary , and peace and harmony would
have prevailed. Of course, had that happened, Sanders would be putting the finishing touches on
his acceptance speech instead of Clinton--and that's why, in a nutshell, none of the playing-by-the-rules
(on the part of the DNC, M$M and Clinton campaign) ever occurred.
And underlying the schism is a point neither the M$M, the DNC nor the Clinton campaign has
yet to acknowledge: for us, this election isn't about personalities, identity politics or tribalized
partisanship. It 's about policies--a democratic-socialist alternative to the DP-GOP bipartisan
consensus on neo-liberal (economic) and neo-con (foreign) policies, that is equitable, environmentally
responsible and humane. We're not getting any of that from Clinton or Trump, and neither are they
getting our votes.
Uh, the horse bolted that barn over a year ago. Clinton--through her David Brock-run "Concocting
the Record" Super PAC--has been waging an eight-figure, scorched earth campaign against Sanders
even before he announced his candidacy. And between the infamous #milliondollartrolls on-line,
and the treatment of Sanders delegates and staff on the Convention floor, the war against the
progressive left will be waged even more fiercely than the one against Trump, right to election
day on Nov. 8th, and then (win or lose) beyond.
If nothing else, the DP primary process revealed just how much the DNC has become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Clinton family, that can't even maintain the pretense of neutrality or impartiality--as
the DNC's charter requires. And it's also exposed just how much the Fourth Estate has abandoned
even the pretense of being the public's watch-dogs for the role of being the Clinton's lap-dogs,
and the encyclopedic definition of the "courtier press".
Link, please? Obviously you're just counting Campaign account spending; but Clinton raised and
spent hundreds of millions through Super PAC's, like the $150M+ funneled through David Brock's
"Concocting the Record" PAC alone, and even more in dark-money PACs that don't have to report
contributors or amounts; and the (probably illegal) massive money-laundering between scores of
PACs, most of which ended up in the DNC and spent directly on Clinton's campaign.
Sanders never had any Super PACs, or even held a single, formal fund-raising event, but relied
on millions of small-sum donors (with virtually no overhead); unlike Clinton and her high-end,
big-check ($350K and up) fund-raisers that disappeared into her mega-laundromat money-washing
operation.
When total spending (exclusive of the M$M's 'free advertising', of which Clinton got 2-3
times more of than Sanders) is included, it's far more likely that Clinton outspent Sanders by
a four-to-one margin. And still nearly lost.
Once again, it's not about Sanders. It's not about the man. It's a movement about creating
a viable future for Americans and all the world that is not ravaged by corporate dominance and
exploitation. The election has never been about him; it's been about working toward mitigating
Global Climate Destabilization; it's been about bringing responsive democracy back to federal
government in the US; it's been about ratcheting down the violence which comes from the failure
of the Social Contract.
Once again, the record is clear: Hillary is antithetical to the principles I have just
mentioned. Her support for the TPP, interventionist wars, domestic surveillance, her collusion
with the corrupt DNC to make sure those superdelegates who did not endorse her early would not
be funded, and her constant fearmongering (against Trump, now against the Russians) have made
it impossible for me to vote for her.
I do not live in a swing state, and it is genuinely beyond me why any Progressive who lives
in a solidly Red or Blue state would possibly vote for her, given her proven record. Yes, the
is the most experienced at voting for wars, bombing civilians, supporting dictators, bailing outbanks,
spreading neo-liberalism, promoting fossil fuels and fracking the heck out of the planet. Sure
if you fear Trump AND live in a swing state, or if you are actually a Conservative Democrat AND
live in a swing state, fine - give in to your fear or conservatism. But if you are not in a swing
state and you are not driven by fear or a conservative, why on earth you would vote for her now
or in November?
Perhaps this is a call for you to question your own values, or the labels you use to describe
yourself if you consider yourself a "Progressive" - or this is a call for you to educate yourself
on her past record. Her actual record. Not the Benghazi charade Faux News promotes, but her active
intervention in bombing Libya to hell (for access for oil corporations). Look at her deceitful
hiding behind the "faulty information" argument she uses to defend her vote for Iraq (she did
not call for the UN Weapons Inspectors to see what better information there was). Look at how
she, as Secretary of State promoted the blight of fracking world wide (despite plenty of scientists
calls for better capping and methane leak prevention and the diminution or cessation of groundwater
contamination). There are plenty of people who see benefits in having her elected which helps
their own privilege, but they support her at the peril and loss of the global community as well
as the degradation of many Americans.
Now, more than Ever,
Hillary Never!
1iJack -> TheMonitor
When you lose you don't get to dictate terms of surrender.
No, but you can walk away and vote for a different candidate, one who didn't directly screw
you.
Clinton mafia and corrupt MSM like Guardian cannot deny the reality of what they wrote, so
they focus on how the information came out. "But voters don't care where the info came from. What voters
care about (for a change) is what the democrats actually wrote to each other, thinking their words were
"safe" (i.e., their hubris and arrogance is coming back to bite them in the ass). And the DNC are completely
guilty, based on their own words." "So, the media is lockstep quiet about their outting as
utterly disingenuous manipulators and distorters of the political process. And they are crying
foul at full volume at the Russians for allegedly daring to affect the political process by introducing
the truth of the situation. Apparently, some folk never learn, can never be taught a lesson.
So what's the solution?"
Notable quotes:
"... The first report by the Guardian's own correspondent, Alan Yuhas, and the one in today's newspaper, includes responses both from the Clinton team and from Sanders. But the Clinton response does not just get a mention, it dictates the entire theme of the Guardian story: that the leaks themselves are of little consequence. The real story, apparently, is an unproven and deflectionary claim by the Clinton camp that Russia is behind the leak. The headline says it all: "Hillary Clinton campaign blames leaked DNC emails about Sanders on Russia". ..."
"... The story itself does not tell us anything about the leaks until the sixth ..."
The pattern is unmistakable in both the UK and US – and I apologise for sounding like a stuck record.
Liberal mainstream media prove over and over again their aversion to telling us the news straight.
They conspire – I can think of no fairer word – with the political elites in Washington and London
to spin and subvert stories damaging to their mutual interests, even when the facts are driving real
events in an entirely different direction.
A perfect illustration is the story of the Democratic
party's leaked emails, which reveal that the national leadership was actively seeking to swing the
primaries battle in Hillary Clinton's favour by harming Bernie Sanders. One leaked email (there are
more to come, apparently) shows officials trying to highlight Sanders' "faith" – it is unclear whether
the goal was to play up his Jewishness or his supposed atheism, or both.
As Sanders says, this is "outrageous" activity by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), even
if it is hardly surprising. He, and we, knew it was happening during the primaries, even if it wasn't
being reported, just as we know the British parliamentary Labour party has been trying to undermine
its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, since he was elected last summer, even if everyone denies it. The difference
with the Democratic party scandal is we now have the proof.
It is worth examining the Guardian's coverage of this affair. It's like a masterclass in
Pravda-style journalism – and entirely illustrative of how the Guardian is not reporting news
but framing debates to protect its political interests: they have been rock solid behind the status-quo
candidacy of Clinton rather than Sanders ("let's focus on the fact she's woman rather than that she's
the spokeswoman for the military-industrial complex"), just as they seem ready to back anyone for
British PM as long as it's not Jeremy Corbyn, including Theresa May.
The DNC email leak story broke badly for the Guardian, with the first reports arriving
Sunday UK time, when the paper does not publish. A bland Associated Press
report appears to be the first time the story runs on its website, too early for responses from
the main actors.
The
first report by the Guardian's own correspondent, Alan Yuhas, and the one in today's newspaper,
includes responses both from the Clinton team and from Sanders. But the Clinton response does not
just get a mention, it dictates the entire theme of the Guardian story: that the leaks themselves
are of little consequence. The real story, apparently, is an unproven and deflectionary claim by
the Clinton camp that Russia is behind the leak. The headline says it all: "Hillary Clinton campaign
blames leaked DNC emails about Sanders on Russia".
This is exactly what the Clinton team wanted: for the media to focus on her phony outrage
rather than our justified outrage that the party system is rigged to make sure ordinary voters
cast their ballots the way the Democrat leadership want them cast.
The story itself does not tell us anything about the leaks until the sixth paragraph.
Before that we have lots of Clinton camp indignation about Russia interfering in US domestic politics
– as though this story is primarily yet another chance to knock Vladimir Putin and his supposed best
pal, Donald Trump, Clinton's chief rival for the presidency. Even when we finally reach mention of
the leaks, they are glossed over, with it unclear what the substance of these emails was and why
they are significant.
This is stenographic journalism that has become entirely the norm in the Guardian (if you
don't believe me, just scroll back through my blog posts to see more examples).
The real angle – the one that should have the been the focus of the story, at least based on news
value – is buried near its end: Sanders' demand that DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, should
resign. That angle as the lead would have highlighted its true news interest: evidence of corrupt
practices at the DNC. It would have allowed the Guardian to focus on the nature of the leaked
emails rather get sidetracked into Clinton's anti-Russia spiel.
Proof that this was the real news story is confirmed by the fact that, soon after the Guardian
published its report, Wasserman Schultz did, in fact, resign. The real scandal, rather than the Washington
spin, finally cornered the Guardian very belatedly to
run the story online in a more realistic fashion.
The fact that it took more than 24 hours and three attempts before the story was reported in a
way any first-year journalism student would understand it had to be covered is not to the Guardian's
credit. It is to its shame. This was a desperate damage limitation operation by the Clinton camp
that was (yet again) actively supported and assisted by the Guardian.
Social media is changing many things. But one of the clearest examples is in the way it is bypassing
mainstream media gatekeepers like the Guardian and allowing the facts to speak for themselves.
How can anyone continue to run for office when your record is such, that
even your own party is chanting "lock her up, lock her up". I think the
Democrats are making a big mistake as she is clearly very devisive and as
such appears to be Trump's only chance of winning.
Folks the media will not inform you but there are 4 candidates running for
president. Jill Stein on the Green Party ticket and Gary Johnson ( former
governor of New Mexico) on the Libertarian ticket. Check them out. Both
are very capable people. I plan to vote for one of them. If we all do one
of them will win. The media are in bed with the military-industrial complex.
So continuing wars with both Clinton and Trump!
True! However, Hillary is in bed with the Neocons who started the whole
charade about Iraq. Check out the great journalist, Robert Parry (broke
the Iran-Contra story), on her ties to the Kagans, etc. Also her recent
speach at AIPAC. Clinton will get us into a nuclear confrontation with Russia.
Trump is no better. Please reconsider.
So the email leaks prove the DNC was working against Sanders all along and
trying to get Hillary in there. So basically, the democratic candidate race
wasn't fair. Why should voters support a party that doesn't take their votes
seriously?
If we keep letting them get away with this shit because "the other guy
might get in!", they'll just keep doing it and keep pushing the envelope
to erode democracy.
People seem to hilariously think Trump can unilaterally make good on
all his ridiculous promises. Sorry guys, that's not how the presidency works.
His ideas will be shot down at the other levels of government pretty fast.
As far as starting wars goes, Hillary is just as hawkish and actually has
a far worse history of voting for wars.
What a state of affairs -- Bernie Sanders supporting a presidential candidate
who charged $10,000 per minute for a chat with the oligarchs who had bought
her and got her surrogates to undermine the democratic process.
Hillary did not win the primaries, it was offered to her as an entitlement.
An average worker would have been arrested for what Clinton did. I am not
saying that is right, but it is clear that punishment is different for people
based on their economic and political influence. And that is not right.
What you said is true. The CNN newscasters commented that the Attorney General
and the FBI Director knew that their jobs are in danger ...if they tried
to prosecute
a powerful person such as Clinton.
So we can put the following as official:
The punishment of a crime is inversely proportional to the economic and
political influence of of the criminal.
I think jenniferintls comment is based on the factual evidence that the
Clintons are greedy corrupt immoral people. Nothing to do with a legal education
The Clintons, as "public servants," have amassed $200 million in wealth
and yet nobody can point to anything either one of them solved or accomplished.
The Clintons are masters at using politics to create wealth. But, their
party is over. America won't elect Hillary, she's a weasel.
"Matt Schmidheiser, an 18-year-old student from Cherry Hill, New Jersey,
was similarly emphatic.
'I think she does need to be locked up her along with the DNC chairwoman
who just stepped down. Because they both just horribly mislead the American
public and they spit lie after lie and nobody seems to care.'
Schmidheiser was carrying a homemade poster that catalogued Clinton's
alleged misdeeds. He had been a little late arriving at city hall and missed
the chant.
'I wasn't there for it but I would love to have been a part of it and
I would love to start another,' he said.
'I think it's accurate and I think she needs to be in prison for the
rest of her life.' "
Oh really, so here's someone who wants to imprison someone for lying.
Authoritarians come in all stripes. And he couldn't be bothered to get his
sorry butt to the demonstration so he could chant "get a rope" errrrr "lock
her up".
Don't be condescending. Hillary Clinton represents everything Bernie is
against. She is only slightly less toxic than Trump. On top of that the
entire primary season was rigged against Sanders. The apex of that was having
the major networks "call" the entire nomination the night before California
(and 4 other states) got to vote. I can't imagine how that happened (nor
why). The two-party system is dead. They are both wholly owned by corporate
and military industrial complex interests. Millions of Americans have had
enough and no Hillary cheerleaders are going to change that...
What did you expect? The DNC, a supposedly neutral party in the nomination
race, blatantly sided with one candidate to help them win against the other,
in a close race, and were kind enough to document all the evidence in long
email chains. In the year 2016, a time when everyone should know that no
one has any privacy anymore. Not you, not me, not even them. They should
of realised the emails would eventually be leaked. Now their actions are
known to all, and half of the democrat base feel utterly betrayed.
It's a good day to be Trump. He must be thanking his lucky stars.
"... See, I believe progressive people are sick of collecting the little scraps they're thrown after the real corporate agenda has been set in stone. If there was ever a time to not go along with this, stand firm and say ''No more'', this is it. ..."
"... This movement is bigger than Bernie Sanders. If Hillary loses to Trump, it won't be the fault of Sanders supporters, but the slimy lies and corruption of her and the DNC. It has been said that the Democratic party is the place where social movements die. Good to know that "Berners" still want to fight for the greater good, something establishment politics doesn't provide. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton = Jeb! + Gun Control ..."
"... Sanders supporters will get more for their vote with Trump than with Hillary. ..."
"... If Bernie truly believes that Hillary would "make an outstanding president" why did he stand against her in the first place? ..."
"... Hillary is an imperialist. If there's actually a "lesser evil" out of these two, I don't see it. ..."
"... A vote for Clinton is condemning Middle Eastern people to their deaths with the obvious invasions that she'll likely cook up. ..."
"... Trump wants to make jobs, better the education system and raise salaries. Voting for Trump will bring Sanders supporters more of what they want and less is they vote for Clinton. ..."
"... I cancelled my visit to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia when I realised it was going to be Hilary Clinton. She is a female version of Tony Blair, even, more dishonest and unscrupulous. Had the blacks and latinos voted for Sanders in numbers, this result could have been avoided. But we have to live with it. The hope is that Bernie has started a movement that will survive and perhaps one day we will have a social democratic president in the USA. ..."
"... Make Sanders VP and then Assange plus the FBI will take care of the details. Simple. ..."
"... I may have voted Hillary, but then "DWS". Tomorrow I become a independent. F@ck the DNC 30 years a Dem now a disappointed. ..."
"... It's Billary who intends to pursue a more 'muscular' foreign policy http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-middle-east_us_56f06ab2e4b09bf44a9e3177 ..."
"... Crooked Clinton and her crooked backers are laughing their asses off at Bernie. The old fool is being used. ..."
"... She's dishonest, She has no clear principles, and She has a long history of questionable judgement/ethics. The first two issues are ones of degree: just about all of us are guilty of the occasional fib, and people often alter their views to what is fashionable. Politicians tend to be especially bad in both regards. But even by the low standards of politicians, Clinton stands out. Clinton's "flexible reality" is really something to behold. ..."
"... Or take the Trans Pacific Partnership, which Clinton stewarded during her tenure as Secretary of State. Caught in a close fight with far-left candidate Bernie Sanders, Clinton was quick to jettison the TPP and distance herself from it, even though her husband and she have decades of unequivocal support for free trade. The list could go on and on. There are plenty of politicians who equivocate on important issues, and whose views "evolve" to magically fit what voters want. But Clinton is special in her ability to (a) voice strong views on various issues and then (b) act as though those who remember her prior views are crazy. The problem that most people have with Clinton is that if free trade returned to being en vogue in 2018, or there was a successful movement to amend the Constitution to prohibit gay marriage, there's a pretty good chance that Clinton would be at the forefront, claiming that those were "always" her views, and that prior statements to the contrary were taken out of context/the work of the "vast, right-wing conspiracy." ..."
"... Oh, and another thing, which I'll never get tired of repeating: if the past few years proved anything, is that a President can only do so much against a hostile House. ..."
"... While it's obvious why the Clinton camp would want to convince people a Trump presidency would bring forth the Armageddon, the true battle is not for the president: it's for the two houses. It will be the two houses that determine who the next SCOTUS is, it will be the two houses that pass legislation, it will be the two houses that approve or reject the next President's war plans. A red house will make a Clinton presidency irrelevant, and a blue house will make a Trump presidency harmless. ..."
"... Clinton on the other hand, is a chicken hawk psychopath establishment lackey who believes the rule of Law simply doesn't apply to her and also has a husband who deregulated all the financial sector, removed welfare, deregulated healthcare to the benefit of big business, has links to Iran Contra, is sexually dysfunctional and if you believe multiple credible authors (including Christopher Hitchens) is probably a rapist. She too would be a terrible President. ..."
"... I can't believe you're seriously suggesting that voting for a member of the Clinton Crime family is so much better and the only option but then again, you believe in the 2 party system and talk about Democrats and Republicans in a ridiculously tribal and childish way. It's time for you to wake up and smell the coffee. Trump is almost certainly a narcissistic, uneducated, racist, self-obsessed sociopath whose sole obsession in life is the acquisition of material wealth. He would undoubtedly be a terrible President. Clinton on the other hand, is a chicken hawk psychopath establishment lackey who believes the rule of Law simply doesn't apply to her and also has a husband who deregulated all the financial sector with disastrous results, removed welfare, deregulated healthcare to the benefit of big business, has links to Iran Contra, is sexually dysfunctional and if you believe multiple credible authors (including Christopher Hitchens) is probably a rapist. Clinton too would be a terrible President. ..."
"... The Clinton team have been busy insulting progressives for the past year and they did not give us much in the massaged platform. The choice of VP was another slap in the face along with Debbie's new job. ..."
"... The Clintonites are nothing but bullies, gutless wonders willing to grovel before power. In supporting her they betray every good thing this nation ever stood for. They are willing to accept corruption, lies, and incompetence for reasons I don't comprehend, ignoring clear lawbreaking in order to install their false idol. ..."
"... Leave it and join the Greens, join the Libertarians, join anything but the party of the corrupt, the party of betrayal, the party of the oligarchs. ..."
"... The Guardian comment on the leaked emails: 'this seems to mark a new development in the constant struggle of propaganda and disinformation' ... could easily be said about its own approach. Oh the irony. ..."
"... If you haven't seen this amazing rant by a Bernie delegate, your life is missing something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydIbIgg7djI ..."
"... This was never about Sanders. The Clinton folks spent so much time portraying us as blind followers that they started to believe their own hype. It was always about progressive policies and values and if Sanders endorses a candidate who doesn't share those valued, a candidate who will take to us war it's time to say: thanks you Sanders for all you've done but I can't join you on the path you are walking on now. ..."
"... Clinton and cronies will say or do anything to bring over the Bernie fans. When she no longer needs them she will throw them away along with their ideas. The important decisions were made long before anyone showed up in Phila. The fact DWS was given a job on HC's staff after getting fired says it all. Now Bernie sells out. Don't you feel just a little used? ..."
"... With the exception of one super delegate, the majority of the DNC super delegates had already endorsed Hilary before the first primary, and none changed his/her vote when Bernie got traction. Even his closest ally, in ideology, Liz Warren, did not endorse Bernie. That is how corrupt & controlling the DNC leadership has become: in this election they clearly are the king makers, while the GOP produced 18 well-known candidates that tore each other to pieces. That tells you how planned this whole thing was with the Democrats. Both parties are corrupt; but while the GOP suffers from internal Chaos & cannibalism, the DNC acted with a script that fits more the way Russians have been picking their presidents. ..."
"... Well, perhaps a Trump victory can finally help DNC internalize the message of America's Progressives. So, I have a better analogy for not voting & possibly seeing Trump win; sometimes you lose an arm in order to save the body. ..."
"... Chicken hawk psychopath with innumerable foreign policy disasters on her watch including Libya; ..."
"... Bought and paid for by the usual suspects - Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan etc; ..."
"... A security risk to the US i.e. used an unencrypted private server which was contrary to the rules, was routinely hacked by foreign powers, contained information about covert US black sites and was also obviously designed to hide Clinton Foundation business dealings/shenanigans. This had nothing to do with convenience; - Subverted the democratic process with regards to her nomination. ..."
"... Do I really need to go on? ..."
"... Reagan started deregulation, but Billy Boy and Robert Rubin continued with devastating abandon. Just one piece of legislation: Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - largely the cause of the 2007/2008 subprime derivatives crisis. ..."
Sanders is being just being a political realist. He knows that Hillary is a lying sociopath, but
she will still be easier to deal with than Trump who is also stupid and erratic.
The best way to push Hillary to the left is to vote for her and then keep up the pressure through
every political means available. Contribute to truly progressive organizations (not the DNC),
volunteer, demonstrate, etc.
I think the problem here is that while it is only rational for Americans to vote Hillary to big
up the anti-Trump vote and stop him getting in, there is a double bind in the sense that if Hillary
takes power with her traditional Democrat big business/small time social reform politics, then
it may make people complacent. I think this what the Bernie radical edge is concerned about; the
last few decades have shown that people are really, really easy to pacify if they are able to
just cruise on the mediocrity of self-interested neoliberal governments that throw a few crumbs
from the table.
I don't necessarily think the argument is a good enough excuse if it means handing Trump the
presidency. After all, he might not be able to do everything he says going to do with congress
in the way, but he could still do an awful lot of damage whereever he can get support,
and it's irresponsible to let him get away with it when you could have helped try to stop him.
The most important thing is that people do not forget that their job is to go above and beyond
the supporting of any particular leader, and maintain pressure on whoever is in power to turn
things around dramatically and irreversibly.
Sanders's supporters are correct not to trust Hillary. Throughout their careers in politics, both
Clintons have repeatedly demonstrated that when they are caught up in personal scandals they react
by making enormous concessions to conservatives, completely undermining the liberals who elected
them.
This might not be a problem if the Clintons' scandals were rare, but Bill is a serial abuser
of lower-status women and Hillary will do anything for money. They just can't control themselves.
They are always involved in unsavory activities which is why they are so paranoid and secretive.
You would think that liberals would have realized that these two can't be trusted but many
liberals are hopelessly naïve and they focus on rhetoric and not past behavior when choosing a
candidate.
Here are the 6 steps I recommend US progressives take in the coming months to get the best outcome
from the November elections and beyond:
1) Support progressive Democratic candidates wherever they are running.
2) In the presidential race: in states that are solidly Democratic or Republican, vote for Jill
Stein
3) In swing states, vote for Hillary Clinton to ensure Trump is defeated
4) Keep the pressure on Clinton to ensure she abides by the policy commitments she made to Bernie
Sanders
5) Raise awareness among progressives, moderates and all minority groups about the need to change
the voting system to proportional representation, and lobby Democratic politicians to support
this change also
6) Keep building the political movement that Bernie has inspired, and be willing to transform
ideals into action by becoming involved in politics and effective activism in a long-term way.
The DNC is a corrupt organisation. There is no doubt.
So is the Republican party.
The choice people are faced with is unpalatable to say the least. It's one of the starkest
examples of a lesser of two evils decision as I've ever seen.
Clinton is a right leaning democrat, heavily enmeshed in the Washington machine. She's 100%
a part of the establishment. She's a hawk.
She's everything wrong with the political system in the US.
You would only vote for her if you were faced with something worse...
The elephant in the room in the whole Hillary vs Bernie vs Trump debate is the US voting system.
The current US electoral system is a variation of 'first past the post', which is the worst type
of voting system it is possible to have in a democracy. Not only does it promote the dominance
of one or two massive corporatised parties, but it punishes those who vote for smaller parties
and independents by effectively denying their vote any value in determining the candidate who
will be elected. The preferential system (used in Australia) is better, but still tends to result
in a 2 party state.
If progressive activists want to create a more conducive environment for electing progressive
leaders in the future, they need to start campaigning for a move to proportional representation,
as favoured by the vast majority of democracies, including virtually all European states, New
Zealand, Israel, South Africa and most developing nations. This system allows for greater representation
for all voices in the political process, and does not disenfranchise those who vote for smaller
parties.
This change is unlikely to happen in a hurry, but it does need to happen at some stage, unless
progressives want to continually be forced into choosing between voting for an undesirable centre-right
candidate such as Clinton, or voting for a stronger candidate, such as Bernie Sanders or Jill
Stein, and potentially losing the value of their vote.
This does all beg the question as to why the Democrats couldn't find a better 'mainstream' candidate
than Clinton if she's that unpopular. The answer I suspect is 'money'.
the Vermont senator was "bending reality in favour of what he feels is the most responsible
course".
See, I believe progressive people are sick of collecting the little scraps they're thrown
after the real corporate agenda has been set in stone. If there was ever a time to not go along
with this, stand firm and say ''No more'', this is it.
It's about punishing the corrupt system that always gets away with murder and making it pay
the price. Because the people WILL pay the price if either Trump or Hilary gets elected. And the
blame for this won't lie with those that don't vote for a corrupt politician like Hilary, the
blame will lie with those that rigged the system and those who did vote for her.
I am astonished that The Secretary of State would go on record and be filmed personally insulting
Putin, when this is such a sensitive time, or at ANY time.
Most of this sounds pretty reasonable to me- vote Clinton if a swing state, otherwise Stein; put
pressure on Clinton to deliver concrete policy proposals (eg on TPP); recognition that progressive
politics doesn't begin and end with Sanders (important because it means this isn't just populism
focused on a single leader).
But...does anyone ever raise the possibility of voting reform in the US? Because the way the
landscape is now cannot be comfortably accommodated by two parties. It should be no surprise that
many Sanders supporters can't abide Clinton, (nor that trad republicans despair at Trump). In
most Western democracies Clinton and Sanders would naturally belong in different parties.
Q: HRC meetings with Goldman and others?
I dunno. But I did public speaking. Its fun
Q: What do you think she is giving away in those meetings?
She doesn't want the people knowing about her relationships on Wall Street She wants to achieve
consistency and the best way to do that is to keep the people ignorant
The naivete of some people who still fall for the politics of "lesser evils" is staggering. There
is no good outcome of this election. On one hand you have a fascist with little clue of what he's
doing and has made a campaign of empty soundbites. The other is an imperialist war hawk for whom
bombing people in the Middle East is a hobby and said Iraq brought good business opportunities.
Fascism at home and imperialism abroad are two sides of the same coin and if you actually dispute
that, I feel sorry for you.
This movement is bigger than Bernie Sanders. If Hillary loses to Trump, it won't be the
fault of Sanders supporters, but the slimy lies and corruption of her and the DNC. It has been
said that the Democratic party is the place where social movements die. Good to know that "Berners"
still want to fight for the greater good, something establishment politics doesn't provide.
The Bush and Clinton crime families stand for the same thing.
They are the same thing.
Wish Jeb! had won the GOP nomination? Vote for Hillary, you'll get the same thing (except you'll
also lose the 2nd Amendment - that's the only difference).
Spoken like a true partisan hack.
Trump is a fascist, Hillary is an imperialist. If there's actually a "lesser evil" out of
these two, I don't see it.
A vote for Trump is throwing America into the deep end, emboldening of the far right and likely
to end in economic disaster. A vote for Clinton is condemning Middle Eastern people to their
deaths with the obvious invasions that she'll likely cook up.
Anyone who calls themselves socialist after Bernie's campaign should realise that socialism
is about resisting hatred at home and abroad
Trump wants to make jobs, better the education system and raise salaries. Voting for Trump
will bring Sanders supporters more of what they want and less is they vote for Clinton.
I cancelled my visit to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia when I realised it was going
to be Hilary Clinton. She is a female version of Tony Blair, even, more dishonest and unscrupulous.
Had the blacks and latinos voted for Sanders in numbers, this result could have been avoided.
But we have to live with it. The hope is that Bernie has started a movement that will survive
and perhaps one day we will have a social democratic president in the USA.
I may have voted Hillary, but then "DWS". Tomorrow I become a independent. F@ck the DNC 30
years a Dem now a disappointed.
OH no The orange man will destroy the world, who cares about Fracking, NATO, Monsanto, Health
care and Pharmaceuticals... Not HIllary and her bestie's Debbie Wassermann Schultz, Barbara Boxer,
Roberta Lange etc... Let it burn I seriously don't give a sh#t Whats the Donalds gonna do... Push
through religious agendas?
OH that already happened while Obama was POTUS. Export jobs? that happened with NAFTA ( Bill
Clinton ), close down woman's health clinics, take away women's rights to choose and right to
preferred birth control? that happened. Triple the cost of Health Insurance? Pharmaceuticals?
Back Monsanto? TPP? I guess either way we are just screwed... HILLARY+DONALD = Equally Toxic!
Piss on the Press... vote in a new congress, house, state and local.
This fascinates me. I draw very close similarities with J. Corbyn over here. In short, in the
Anglo-Saxon world the 'left' has split into a centre (your Clinton, T. Blair in the past) and
a 'purer' left. Now, for us (Latins for instance) away from strict binary systems, it makes more
sense if at least four parties were to represent most population's views: a 'harder' left, a centre-left-right,
and a 'harder' right. I am aware of the potential pitfalls, such as unstable governments etc.
but two parties cannot cover, or even attempt to cover, the political ideas spectrum of whole
nations. And it can causes odd outcomes, such as Trump (!?!) as a representative for a whole electorate
who doesn't want to vote Clinton. Could you have three-four candidates system?
Crooked Clinton and her crooked backers are laughing their asses off at Bernie. The old fool
is being used.
I have a problem with Clinton for three main reasons:
She's dishonest, She has no clear principles, and She has a long history of questionable
judgement/ethics.
The first two issues are ones of degree: just about all of us are guilty of the occasional fib,
and people often alter their views to what is fashionable. Politicians tend to be especially bad
in both regards. But even by the low standards of politicians, Clinton stands out. Clinton's "flexible
reality" is really something to behold.
Let's use a recent example of gay rights. Personally, I suspect that Hillary Clinton has always
been a proponent of gay rights, and doesn't have a homophobic bone in her body. But in 2004, when
gay marriage was a hot issue and many states were amending their constitutions to define marriage
as being between a man and a woman, Clinton gave a speech on the Senate floor in defence of traditional
marriage that could have been written by Jesse Helms. In other words, she didn't just bite her
tongue or give lukewarm support to one side or the other; she went "all in" in her opposition
to legalizing gay marriage, because that was a winning approach in 2004. Now that gay marriage
is legal in all 50 states and the LGBT community is an important Democrat voting bloc, Clinton
wants to pretend that she's always been at the vanguard on gay rights, as though her vocal opposition
to gay marriage just a decade earlier somehow never happened. Indeed, Clinton has thrown out trial
balloons suggesting that her opposition to gay marriage was somehow designed to defend gay rights
from even more extreme elements in Congress!
Or take the Trans Pacific Partnership, which Clinton stewarded during her tenure as Secretary
of State. Caught in a close fight with far-left candidate Bernie Sanders, Clinton was quick to
jettison the TPP and distance herself from it, even though her husband and she have decades of
unequivocal support for free trade. The list could go on and on. There are plenty of politicians
who equivocate on important issues, and whose views "evolve" to magically fit what voters want.
But Clinton is special in her ability to (a) voice strong views on various issues and then (b)
act as though those who remember her prior views are crazy. The problem that most people have
with Clinton is that if free trade returned to being en vogue in 2018, or there was a successful
movement to amend the Constitution to prohibit gay marriage, there's a pretty good chance that
Clinton would be at the forefront, claiming that those were "always" her views, and that prior
statements to the contrary were taken out of context/the work of the "vast, right-wing conspiracy."
And as for crossing the line, there are too many examples to mention. The Clintons are not
wrong to accuse Republicans of being out to get them, and too often, Republicans have played into
the Clintons' hands by attempting to make mountains out of molehills. But the Clintons perpetually
find themselves in hot water because they can't resist bending the rules and associating with
questionable people. Does anyone really believe that Hillary Clinton legitimately made a small
fortune trading cattle futures? Does anyone honestly believe that Clinton's use of a private email
server while Secretary of State was due to a lack of technological sophistication and not a desire
to subvert public record-keeping law? Does anyone accept that taking in millions of dollars in
speaking fees/charitable donations from questionable sources has no impact on her ability to govern
impartially? If you answered yes to any of those questions, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell
you. The fact that Clinton hasn't gone to prison doesn't mean that she's conducted herself in
a manner befitting the leader of the US.
Oh, and another thing, which I'll never get tired of repeating: if the past few years proved
anything, is that a President can only do so much against a hostile House.
While it's obvious why the Clinton camp would want to convince people a Trump presidency
would bring forth the Armageddon, the true battle is not for the president: it's for the two houses.
It will be the two houses that determine who the next SCOTUS is, it will be the two houses that
pass legislation, it will be the two houses that approve or reject the next President's war plans.
A red house will make a Clinton presidency irrelevant, and a blue house will make a Trump presidency
harmless.
To recap, vote blue for the Congress, vote blue for the Senate (that applies for Republicans
as well: if you're secretly scared of what Trump might do, keep him in check by electing a democrat
house), but vote for whomever you want (Clinton, Trump, Johnson, Stein, Sanders, Claire Underwood
or Tyrion Lannister. It really makes no difference) for President.
It's hard not to lose all respect for Americans when they suggest with a straight face that voting
for a member of the Clinton Crime family is so much better and the only option.
Trump is almost certainly a narcissistic, uneducated, racist, self-obsessed sociopath whose
sole obsession in life is the acquisition of material wealth. He would undoubtedly be a terrible
President.
Clinton on the other hand, is a chicken hawk psychopath establishment lackey who believes
the rule of Law simply doesn't apply to her and also has a husband who deregulated all the financial
sector, removed welfare, deregulated healthcare to the benefit of big business, has links to Iran
Contra, is sexually dysfunctional and if you believe multiple credible authors (including Christopher
Hitchens) is probably a rapist. She too would be a terrible President.
You Americans, have the political system you deserve by continuously voting for a rigged,
failed two party state that has been completely corrupted by Corporate lobbying. Someone once
said "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different
results." Yet, the US still do this every election cycle.
Anyone who continues to vote for the lesser evil is still voting evil so they're just as ridiculous
as those voting Trump.
Either way, the US are in for a bumpy ride in the next 4 years especially when there's another
financial crash - which is just around the corner.
I can't believe you're seriously suggesting that voting for a member of the Clinton Crime
family is so much better and the only option but then again, you believe in the 2 party system
and talk about Democrats and Republicans in a ridiculously tribal and childish way. It's time
for you to wake up and smell the coffee.
Trump is almost certainly a narcissistic, uneducated, racist, self-obsessed sociopath whose
sole obsession in life is the acquisition of material wealth. He would undoubtedly be a terrible
President.
Clinton on the other hand, is a chicken hawk psychopath establishment lackey who believes the
rule of Law simply doesn't apply to her and also has a husband who deregulated all the financial
sector with disastrous results, removed welfare, deregulated healthcare to the benefit of big
business, has links to Iran Contra, is sexually dysfunctional and if you believe multiple credible
authors (including Christopher Hitchens) is probably a rapist. Clinton too would be a terrible
President.
You Americans, have the political system you deserve by continuously voting for a rigged, failed
two party state that has been completely corrupted by Corporate lobbying. Someone once said "the
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."
Yet, you and many others in the US still do this every election cycle.
The Democrats and Republicans are 2 cheeks of the same arse both funded by and told what to
do by the financial sector, the military industrial complex, oil and big business. You'll eventually
realise this if you ever wake up.
Anyone who continues to vote for the lesser evil is still voting evil so they're just as ridiculous
as those voting Trump.
Either way, the US are in for a bumpy ride in the next 4 years especially when there's another
financial crash - which is just around the corner.
The Clinton team have been busy insulting progressives for the past year and they did not
give us much in the massaged platform. The choice of VP was another slap in the face along with
Debbie's new job. I am so glad the Sanders supporters are protesting the very questionable
elections. If the DNC Were behaving like rational adults, they would have given us more at the
platform and chosen a more Left VP and stopped the insults. We have not been treated with respect
that our election numbers merit.
Time for Clintonites to show some moral strength and some semblance of ethical behavior, and stop
supporting corruption, stop blaming those who DO have some sense of ethics and what's best for
this nation for voting their conscience.
The Clintonites are nothing but bullies, gutless wonders willing to grovel before power.
In supporting her they betray every good thing this nation ever stood for. They are willing to
accept corruption, lies, and incompetence for reasons I don't comprehend, ignoring clear lawbreaking
in order to install their false idol.
The contemptuousness with which they attack those who desire some modicum of honesty, empathy
, and ethical behavior in a candidate is utterly shameful.
They, like all bullies, seem to think that insults, threats, and contempt will force the results
they want.
Little do they realize that they are only making enemies of those who wanted to be friends,creating
an anger that won't fade for years.
Never vote for Democrats again, that party has entirely lost what little credibility it had
left.
Leave it and join the Greens, join the Libertarians, join anything but the party of the
corrupt, the party of betrayal, the party of the oligarchs.
They've had more than enough chances to prove their worth, and have failed miserably.
The Guardian comment on the leaked emails: 'this seems to mark a new development in the constant
struggle of propaganda and disinformation' ... could easily be said about its own approach. Oh
the irony.
This was never about Sanders. The Clinton folks spent so much time portraying us as blind
followers that they started to believe their own hype. It was always about progressive policies
and values and if Sanders endorses a candidate who doesn't share those valued, a candidate who
will take to us war it's time to say: thanks you Sanders for all you've done but I can't join
you on the path you are walking on now.
Clinton and cronies will say or do anything to bring over the Bernie fans. When she no longer
needs them she will throw them away along with their ideas. The important decisions were made
long before anyone showed up in Phila. The fact DWS was given a job on HC's staff after getting
fired says it all. Now Bernie sells out. Don't you feel just a little used?
The mistake of establishment - Thinking people will obey Bernie's orders, nope they will get convinced
only Hillary changes some policies. 15$ and free education was a good start and that showed good
poll results for her but after this Dncleak she needs to do more than this.
The mistakes of the establishment, in this case the DNC, were numerous. The DNC thought they knew
better than anyone else who should be the party's nominee. Form the time HRC lost to Obama, they
planned for Hilary to run essentially unchallenged by any other Democrat in 2016. Her campaign
manager was made the DNC chairwoman who as we now know did her best to diminish Bernie's chances;
Hilary was offered the position of SOS to boost her credentials. She knew she could quit being
SOS in 2012 to prepare to run in 2016; and she lied for the next three years about whether or
not she would run for President because she could, as a private citizen, continue to cash in on
her speeches to the business elite and set up a network of political and business elite who could
then support her.
I have no explanation why Kerry or Biden did not run for President except that they knew better
than to challenge what was already decided. The only person willing to go for it was the most
discounted Senate member, an Independent, who for two decades had made no attempt to build a support
system within the political establishment.
With the exception of one super delegate, the majority of the DNC super delegates had already
endorsed Hilary before the first primary, and none changed his/her vote when Bernie got traction.
Even his closest ally, in ideology, Liz Warren, did not endorse Bernie. That is how corrupt &
controlling the DNC leadership has become: in this election they clearly are the king makers,
while the GOP produced 18 well-known candidates that tore each other to pieces. That tells you
how planned this whole thing was with the Democrats. Both parties are corrupt; but while the GOP
suffers from internal Chaos & cannibalism, the DNC acted with a script that fits more the way
Russians have been picking their presidents.
Despite the huge surprise success of Bernie's campaign, the passion he aroused, the young he
managed to draw in, and the millions of $27 contributions he raised, the DNC continued to weigh
more on HRC's side and, as we now know, tried to work against him behind the scenes.
The DNC's biggest mistake, however, is that they are out of touch with the young Progressives
that are their future voters, despite the fact that they can see how a sense of betrayal and disappointment
has caused the virtual demise of the GOP political elite. HRC shares the arrogance of the DNC
in thinking she can collect millions of dollars from special interests in speaking fees and then
tell us she is for Bernie's reforms. She thinks she can regurgitate much of what Bernie says,
then choose the most centrist Democratic politician to be her running mate, and still count on
the majority of Bernie's supporters to vote for her because … well, Trump is a monster. She is
wrong; the DNC is also wrong; real progressive do not cast their vote because they are afraid
of Trump; they vote for what they believe in. Voting for HRC from fear of Trump is a vote for
status quo; it does not help me if I am against status quo. The DNC has no sense of what Bernie
Sanders evoked in the young Progressive because like their GOP counterparts they too are political
automatons out of touch with real humans.
I have been told that by not voting in November, I am cutting off my nose to spite my face,
because Trump may win. Well, perhaps a Trump victory can finally help DNC internalize the
message of America's Progressives. So, I have a better analogy for not voting & possibly seeing
Trump win; sometimes you lose an arm in order to save the body.
I don't judge Hillary just on the actions of her husband. There's plenty to get my teeth into:
- Chicken hawk psychopath with innumerable foreign policy disasters on her watch including
Libya;
- Bought and paid for by the usual suspects - Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan etc;
- A security risk to the US i.e. used an unencrypted private server which was contrary to
the rules, was routinely hacked by foreign powers, contained information about covert US black
sites and was also obviously designed to hide Clinton Foundation business dealings/shenanigans.
This had nothing to do with convenience;
- Subverted the democratic process with regards to her nomination.
Reagan started deregulation, but Billy Boy and Robert Rubin continued with devastating abandon.
Just one piece of legislation: Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - largely the cause
of the 2007/2008 subprime derivatives crisis.
"... Sanders was always just the shiny carrot used to attract the naive youth and rope them in to Clinton's campaign. It's all a charade as it's always been. ..."
"... Well Clinton is a neoliberal. They believe in destroying someone's whole life for making a mistake once. So perhaps she is getting a taste of her own medicine. ..."
"... bernie is a accomplice sell out….sanders sold out to the criminal psychopath clinton…what a disappointment he turned out to be... ..."
"... In different manner, Mr Trump has shaken the Republican Party to its foundations. He too has been subject to a devious counter-campaign. Thus, this is a unique moment for the USA: each of the two dominant political parties is reeling and given the right push shall either reform or fall. ..."
"... Victoria Nuland and Hunter Biden as instrumental supporters of a fascist coup in the Ukraine...fascist coup. Support for Nazis. "We came, we saw; he died", said Hilary Rodham Clinton following the bloody Benghazi incident. There you have two excellent examples of Fascism and Authoritarianism, M.C.. Words and acts. ..."
"... Sanders is trying to hold back the tide for change , and he will be found out. He is an utter hypocrite, who is reneging on everything that he said so recently. The Democrats are a party for the 1% ---whoever is the leader. A new, mass party of socialism is urgently needed. ..."
"... Trump is a Bully, Hillary is a War Criminal. If Bernie won't lead a REVOLT--then We, the People will. ..."
"... Loons. Hillary Clinton is just Dick Cheney without the long, ah, nose... ..."
"... Hillary is indisputably a Neoliberal and Necon (warmonger), she's a threat to humanity. ..."
"... Actually Hillary Clinton is perched quite a bit to the right of the Party. ..."
"... Let me correct the record: it is nuts to support a candidate that is trusted by only 28% of the population! Nate Silver came out with a new projection that shows Hillary will lose to Trump. In a poll with a three way race Hillary, Trump, and with Johnson opposing Trump, Hillary STILL loses to Trump even though Johnson got a nice little chunk of the right leaning voters... ..."
"... How is somebody not going to jail? And, why isn't there talk of holding a fair and Democratic primary? ..."
"... HRCand DWS brought it on themselves. I am a registered democrat. I wanted a relatively clean establishment democrat without looming scandals to run. That didn't happen because Hillary ran. ..."
"... She gives me the heebie jeebies. Julian Assange has apparently got something on her which will deliver the coup de grace. I am loving Wikileaks at the moment. ..."
"... I hope Clinton will become less and less popular in the run up to the election, what would be fantastic is if we see Bernie running as an independent, America needs to have real democracy for once. ..."
"... People say lock her up ..."
"... No, she's above the law. As ex-Guardian columnist states so eloquently, there are 2 sets of laws in America---1 for elites like the Clintons, and another for everybody else. ..."
Sanders was always just the shiny carrot used to attract the naive youth and rope them in to Clinton's
campaign. It's all a charade as it's always been.
Well Clinton is a neoliberal. They believe in destroying someone's whole life for making a
mistake once. So perhaps she is getting a taste of her own medicine.
Mr Sanders is wrong to continue support for Clinton.
Not only has Clinton admitted wilful breach of sensible electronic communication security arrangements
but also her associates, likely with her tacit blessing, have done all in their power to undermine
Mr Sanders. Allegations of vote rigging (e.g. excluding people entitled to vote, closing polling
stations in locations where support for Clinton is thin, and strong presumptive statistical evidence
that voting machines have been tampered with) give little credence to Clinton being fit for the
presidency.
Even Mr Trump has condemned this behaviour and I don't believe that wholly to be through political
opportunism.
There is an open offer for Mr Sanders to jump ship and front the Green Party. Else, he could
stand as an independent democrat. What Mr Sanders must not do is lie down and accept having been
shafted. He has pledged support to Clinton. He did this without full knowledge of the facts of
Clinton's duplicity. Thus he is no longer honour bound to stick to his word. Indeed, by accepting
the manipulated would-be status quo he becomes tainted by Clinton's malodorous persona.
Mr Sanders is of an age when it soon shall be increasingly difficult to meet the physical demands
of running for high office. This is his one and only chance for the presidency. Regardless of
whether he succeeds, his stab at the presidency will give heart to a huge number of disenchanted
US voters and bring about major changes to the Democratic Party establishment, to its electoral
procedures and to its longer term policy platform; an alternative being collapse of that party
and replacement by an entity better suited to the 21st century.
In different manner, Mr Trump has shaken the Republican Party to its foundations. He too has
been subject to a devious counter-campaign. Thus, this is a unique moment for the USA: each of
the two dominant political parties is reeling and given the right push shall either reform or
fall.
Victoria Nuland and Hunter Biden as instrumental supporters of a fascist coup in the Ukraine...fascist
coup. Support for Nazis. "We came, we saw; he died", said Hilary Rodham Clinton following the
bloody Benghazi incident. There you have two excellent examples of Fascism and Authoritarianism,
M.C.. Words and acts.
Remember how Team Clinton kept pushing the lie about Bernie supporters throwing chairs at the
Nevada convention? I think I saw that mentioned in articles here more than once as well.
Who needs to look at facts would be you and the other willfully blind Hillary supporters.
Notably, the FBI DID NOT investigate this law...why didn't the Hillary loyalist, Loretta Lynch,
include this one as part of their investigation? Hmmm. I wonder...
Hillary Clinton broke this law.
http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1663-protection-government-property-protection-public-records-and
Subsection (b) of 18 U.S.C. § 2071 contains a similar prohibition specifically directed at custodians
of public records. Any custodian of a public record who "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes,
mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys (any record) shall be fined not more than $2,000
or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified
from holding any office under the United States." While the range of acts proscribed by this subsection
is somewhat narrower than subsection (a), it does provide the additional penalty of forfeiture
of position with the United States.
Sanders is trying to hold back the tide for change , and he will be found out. He is an utter hypocrite,
who is reneging on everything that he said so recently. The Democrats are a party for the 1% ---whoever
is the leader. A new, mass party of socialism is urgently needed.
Let me correct the record: it is nuts to support a candidate that is trusted by only 28% of the
population! Nate Silver came out with a new projection that shows Hillary will lose to Trump.
In a poll with a three way race Hillary, Trump, and with Johnson opposing Trump, Hillary STILL
loses to Trump even though Johnson got a nice little chunk of the right leaning voters...
Who is nuts, now, dude?
HRCand DWS brought it on themselves. I am a registered democrat. I wanted a relatively clean establishment
democrat without looming scandals to run. That didn't happen because Hillary ran.
I wanted a clean looking election with few glaring conflicts of interests. That didn't happen
because DWS didn't step down and high level party members couldn't keep their mouths shut over
email.
Now, we're expected to smile, nod, look the other way, and vote for Hillary. I will do that
this time, but, if Hillary loses, I will never support her again.
She gives me the heebie jeebies. Julian Assange has apparently got something on her which will deliver the coup de grace. I am loving Wikileaks at the moment.
I hope Clinton will become less and less popular in the run up to the election, what would be
fantastic is if we see Bernie running as an independent, America needs to have real democracy
for once.
No, she's above the law. As ex-Guardian columnist states so eloquently, there are 2 sets of laws
in America---1 for elites like the Clintons, and another for everybody else.
"... What matters is what the emails said . They said, let's sink a decent candidate by telling the Stupid Classes that Bernie's an atheist Jew . ..."
"... So instead of addressing the urgent concerns of working Americans, let's manipulate Mr. and Mrs. Paycheck by playing to their antisemitism. ..."
"... We'll pretend working people matter, but we'll just be using them to make ourselves richer and more powerful! ..."
"... Let's not let HRC and the rest of the Democratic leadership change the subject to" the Russians did it". Let us, instead, stay focused on the content of those emails. That the DNC under Schultz did, in fact, rig the game. ..."
"... The rigging of the 2016 election has clarified to all of these people why they were weary about going to the polls...the system is rigged and they already knew it. Bernie Sanders got everyone unified and no other politician has that ability. It infuriates me to think that the Democratic party is angry at Bernie for revolutionizing a nation! ..."
"... I supported Bernie to the max even though I live on a smallish pension. I could never support HC. I sort of understand that Bernie had to endorse HC but I wish he would not be at all enthusiastic about it. She is still the candidate he criticized so strongly. The Clintons always make everyone who comes into contact with them look sleazy. They themselves are very clever at getting away with murder (figuratively speaking). ..."
"... Sort of like the Soviet Union - the Party is everything. The people unimportant. ..."
"... Russian involvement is a straw man. The importance is in the accuracy of the reports and so far there seems to have been no evidence produced to show that the emails were tampered with. If I had not already been dead set against supporting the corrupt and dishonest Hillary the Horrible this would certainly clinch the deal! Those being willing to swallow the "lesser of evils" deserve what they get. But then, despite the talk, is she really less evil? ..."
"... Other experts are now saying that the current Democratic Party is just as fascist as the Republicans and that we should vote our conscience. Vote Green. ..."
"... These #DNCleaks are another great example of the corruption and collusion in journalism. No ethics whatsoever. ..."
"... They also swindle the millions of Americans who donated $27 to Bernie's campaign on the basis that it was a fair contest... ..."
"... This convert may also have noticed the corruption at the DNC. The strange requests to create narratives to discredit Sanders ands then feed them to the media. This is how whistleblowers are made. ..."
"... We shouldn't get roped into discussing spurious allegations about who leaked the emails. That's what she wants the conversation to be about. The fact is these emails show the DNC fixed the nomination for Hillary. And Hillary has just appointed the chief culprit to chair her presidential campaign. Politics doesn't get much more dirty and shameless than that. ..."
"... DWS is just the tip of the iceberg. The entire DNC leadership needs to go, and to be replaced with people who will go back to Dean's 50 state strategy. But it is too late for this election. ..."
"... Jesus wept. How did we sleepwalk into this strange world where all the politicians are lying, thieving, murderous idiots? Before there were at least some of them who were impressive human beings able to inspire great progress, this bunch sounds like all of them were created by a wizard whose favourite material is a boy cow excrement. ..."
"... These people have no shame. Vote Trump! ..."
"... If you can't pull yourself to vote for Trump, please vote for Jill stein in protest, but Hilary can't win. ..."
"... This has been so downplayed by the mainstream media as it shows them in their true light. Compare this to the coverage Melania Trump's plagiarized speech got. ..."
"... Like clockwork, we have Clinton supporters, paid or otherwise, demonstrating in this comment board their utter contempt for logic, integrity, and any ideology other than team ..."
"... Billy Kristol - the neo-con skank and the likes already declared they will vote for the fellow warmonger. ..."
"... Hank Paulson - Ex Goldman chief and treasury secretary responsible for TARP under shrub junior also switching sides for the dems. ..."
"... Yep that's what our current foreign policy does, we topple governments. We need a common enemy to unite the EA and Nato, Russia makes a good scape goat! Who armed Osama Bin Laden against Russia in the 1980's? Then Arab Spring? Any country that practices Sharia Law can not allow Free Speech or democracy. Women will never be equal or have the vote in these countries we arm with weapons. Our arms dealers make money! We destabilize countries and keep the world in fear, united for causes we create. ..."
"... Clinton has dragged the party into the sewer with her. They should have told her to step down months ago. This is a shameful Dem convention ..."
"... "His son, Donald Trump Jr, appeared on CNN's State of the Union. "They should be ashamed of themselves," he said of the Clinton campaign. "If we did that … if my father did that, they'd have people calling for the electric chair." ..."
Oh, you mean our emails are not secure ?
Maybe the DNC honchos didn't see all those stories about Snowden, the NSA and ole 'Gentleman'
Jimmy Clapper. Maybe the Russians were involved. Maybe the NSA and all the other spook agencies are too honest
to tap the DNC's emails and use them for political advantage.
What matters is what the emails said .
They said, let's sink a decent candidate by telling the Stupid Classes that Bernie's an atheist
Jew .
So instead of addressing the urgent concerns of working Americans, let's manipulate
Mr. and Mrs. Paycheck by playing to their antisemitism.
We'll pretend working people matter, but we'll just be using them to make ourselves
richer and more powerful!
Let's not let HRC and the rest of the Democratic leadership change the subject to" the Russians
did it". Let us, instead, stay focused on the content of those emails. That the DNC under Schultz
did, in fact, rig the game. HRC needs to cut Schultz loose and repudiate this conduct if the party
is to have any hope of true unification. Let us hope that HRC appoints Sen. Warren as DNC chair.
She is a person with real integrity.
Rigged, rigged, rigged...took 'em 8 years to perfect it, but they (Dem. underground) sure got
it all nailed down didn't they? They put Sen. Sanders in a chokehold and he had to make a choice,
bless his heart. What will go down in history regarding the 2016 election, is what it did to ALL
the disenfranchised and young voters who were moved by Bernie Sanders and become lit up and excited
about politics.
The rigging of the 2016 election has clarified to all of these people why they
were weary about going to the polls...the system is rigged and they already knew it. Bernie Sanders
got everyone unified and no other politician has that ability. It infuriates me to think that
the Democratic party is angry at Bernie for revolutionizing a nation!
How right you are. This is the very reason that I can't get my 28 year old son to register to
vote. His constant mantra every time I try is that his vote doesn't matter because the game is
rigged. How terribly sad that he is proven right.
Ever decreasing circles..
Of the meaningless kind ..
Security?:)
Just trust the Democrats.
The bastions of oxymorons, eulogising hyperbolic denialistic gaga.
Who has contributed more to global security of the private kind..
Snowden or HRC ??
What not to do!
Really, she always Knew....
Is there anything the Russian government is not responsible for??
Yes, Democratic email systems of security, that are quite clearly insecure, untrustworthy, unreliable
& incompetent , just like their sponsors Goldman Sachs.. Surely the US people don't wish to bail
them out again to the tune of $814 Billion??
What a farcical circus, calling themselves politicians, oxymoronic.
How can Trump lose?
The system is bankrupt both morally & financially: Shrillary, our living proof! Gawd, just her
voice..
It is being found out that is the bad thing - according to HC.
I supported Bernie to the max even though I live on a smallish pension. I could never support
HC. I sort of understand that Bernie had to endorse HC but I wish he would not be at all enthusiastic
about it. She is still the candidate he criticized so strongly. The Clintons always make everyone
who comes into contact with them look sleazy. They themselves are very clever at getting away
with murder (figuratively speaking).
Not sure why the religion thing is singled out as most shocking by the press. Not that it was
acceptable, but how about calling MSNBC in the middle of a program and ordering them to stop a
coverage? How about all the other slimy tricks they pulled? And DWS was not just a bystander on
some of them . . . she initiated them. The arrogance of that machine in assuming that kind of
power is astonishing, but Sanders supporters have known about it for months.
Try running a race uphill with someone who's being carried like a queen?
Where was Yuhas 2 days ago on this scandal Oh that's right, he was flacking for the Clinton campaign
by focusing on the evil Putin. it was Putin's fault the DNC screwed its base over.
So Labour in the UK and the Democrats in the US both actively using all party mechanisms to fix
the decision of their own members about who leads them.
Have these people the slightest clue what democracy means? At least in Labour's case, the result
is still out.
I think the candidates' relative positions on enabling corporate rule may have been a bigger factor
in the DNC's antics than any principles about how long they'd been big D Democrats.
Russian involvement is a straw man. The importance is in the accuracy of the reports and so far
there seems to have been no evidence produced to show that the emails were tampered with. If I
had not already been dead set against supporting the corrupt and dishonest Hillary the Horrible
this would certainly clinch the deal! Those being willing to swallow the "lesser of evils" deserve
what they get. But then, despite the talk, is she really less evil?
Experts are telling us that the Democrats are only embarrassed they got caught rigging the primary
process before the convention. Other experts are now saying that the current Democratic Party
is just as fascist as the Republicans and that we should vote our conscience. Vote Green.
These #DNCleaks are another great example of the corruption and collusion in journalism. No ethics
whatsoever. They swindled Bernie Sanders of the chance to run for President. CNN comes out of
this looking pretty bad. And there is MORE to come. Panic stations for dodgy journalists, and
all those journalists who claim "impartiality", but are in collusion to push narratives. Just
as GamerGaters exposed.
have to disagree with Bernie, DWS didn't do the right thing - she just got caught, the right thing
would have been to put a stop to planted stories with no attribution and ensure a level playing
field. Anyone US side want to tell me if the thing about Bill Clinton meeting Epstein on numerous
occasions is actually true?
At some point they are going to have to provide some evidence, until then I reserve the right
to assume she's lying based on everything she has said over the last 30 years.
If not the Russians then Who? Maybe a DNC worker, who, over time got to respect Sanders, he
listened to a few speeches and thought "Hey, this guy gets it!". This happened to millions of
Americans over the last year so it's not too hard to believe that some DNC staffer, even if he
was originally vetted for 'being with her' he could change his mind once he saw the better option
that was available.
This convert may also have noticed the corruption at the DNC. The strange requests to create
narratives to discredit Sanders ands then feed them to the media. This is how whistleblowers are
made.
Gucifer 1 was Romanian and he hacked Clinton's private server and apparently gave it to the
Russians. Gucifer 2, is responsible for the DNC leak and we've no idea who they are. Could it
be another Putin supported hacker? Sure, but it's even more likely that it was a DNC staffer who
didn't like what he saw.
I say this because if Putin's task was to destroy Hillary he could have release the 30,000
emails (about yoga and wedding planning - lol). Everyone knows what these contain, the evidence
that the Clinton foundation was engaged in cash for favours schemes that were mainly used by human
rights abusing petro-monarchies.
We shouldn't get roped into discussing spurious allegations about who leaked the emails. That's
what she wants the conversation to be about. The fact is these emails show the DNC fixed the nomination
for Hillary. And Hillary has just appointed the chief culprit to chair her presidential campaign.
Politics doesn't get much more dirty and shameless than that.
....."I think I read he is an atheist," the DNC chief financial officer, Brad Marshall, wrote
in one email. "This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps
would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.".....
Sigh!.....Oh Alfred Dreyfus, Henri Bergson, Benjamin Disraeli and so on and so on....
(Do not tell the Southern Baptists and the fundamentalist nutters that TRUTH is another name
for GOD-want a reference? Here you go: El Emet - The God Of Truth: (Psalm 31:6)- they will not
know whether to s**t or wind their watch".
DWS is just the tip of the iceberg. The entire DNC leadership needs to go, and to be replaced
with people who will go back to Dean's 50 state strategy. But it is too late for this election.
If Trump wins, God help us all, but it won't be the fault of the Sanders supporters. HRC was
chosen by the DNC in advance of any of the primaries, with the expectation that any other contenders
would drop out early in the process. That did not happen, and that is why the DNC took increasingly
desperate measures to insure her victory.
What this election has proven is just how far the Democratic establishment will go to crush
any opposition within the party, and how unhappy the members of both parties are with the status
quo. They have no one to blame but themselves for ignoring the needs of the American people. After
this election, for the first time in over 100 years, I think that new political parties have a
chance to succeed.
So, instead of addressing this shocking corruption openly and honestly, DNC is blaming....Russia?
Jesus wept. How did we sleepwalk into this strange world where all the politicians are lying,
thieving, murderous idiots? Before there were at least some of them who were impressive human
beings able to inspire great progress, this bunch sounds like all of them were created by a wizard
whose favourite material is a boy cow excrement.
One resignation is not enough. The party is still corrupt, they still cheated Bernie and by proxy
his supporters yet they want our unity against Trump. Screw that. Its time to show the party that
they can not treat their constituents with a complete lack of respect. If you can't pull yourself
to vote for Trump, please vote for Jill stein in protest, but Hilary can't win.
This has been so downplayed by the mainstream media as it shows them in their true light.
Compare this to the coverage Melania Trump's plagiarized speech got.
There is no Debbie Wasserman. There has never been any Debbie Wasserman. The Party is unified.
The Party has always been unified. The Great Leader, Hillary...
Indeed. That woman behind the curtain, who's just been appointed chair of Hillary's campaign,
just coincidentally happens to have the same name as DWS, and look exactly like her. But do not
look at her. You will not remember having seen her.
Like clockwork, we have Clinton supporters, paid or otherwise, demonstrating in this comment board
their utter contempt for logic, integrity, and any ideology other than team.
I'm guessing a scan of their brain activity would show such kinship with Trump supporters that
it would shock them -- assuming fact had any sway, which, of course, it doesn't.
So they don't think anything is wrong with kneecapping a democratic candidate! They don't think
anything is wrong with subverting US politics. NO they are disgusted that someone revealed the
TRUTH!
WOW anyone who votes for the DNC OR GOP deserves everything that is coming! If ever there was
a time where a 3rd party candidate is needed this is it! Just look at the crap Clinton gives to
other countries not having free and fair elections! HOW DARE THE US LECTURE OTHER COUNTRIES!
Clinton supporters are a DISGRACE worse than Trump - at least trump fans don't PRETEND to be
something they aren't!
There is so much talk about the DNC e-mail about promoting Bernie as atheist so that they could
get church going low information people in the South to vote for Hillary. But, then they said
they didn't do anything about it. Wait a second in South Carolina, no one knew who Bernie Sanders
was, but apparently they all knew he was a "communist Jew". I personally heard this in South Carolina,
and it was a whisper campaign initiated by Hillary crowds. Now it is proven the whole DNC was
behind it.
I don't for a minute believe Debbie Wasserman-Schultz or Hillary Clinton are anti-Semites.
But these Clinton mafia goes to any length, employ any dirty trickery to win. The corrupt warmonger
Hillary should quit and take Debbie Wasserman-Schultz with her. I am sure Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
won't get through her primary, why? Because most of her constituents are just like Bernie, and
they won't appreciate what she has become.
"On Sunday, the Trump campaign rejected Mook's allegations, ... telling... they were "absurd"
and "pure obfuscation on the part of the Clinton campaign".
"What those emails show is that it was a clearly rigged system, and that Bernie Sanders
never had a chance..."
Even Trump campaign is more truthful about this. It is horrifying to think someone like Clinton
could become the president.
According to the NYT, Michael Bloomberg, who bypassed his own run for the presidency this election
cycle, will back Hillary Clinton in a speech at the Democratic convention. The news was unexpected
from Mr. Bloomberg, who has not been a member of the Democratic Party since 2000.
I wonder who else they are going to drag out to endorse their lying ways.
I wonder who else they are going to drag out to endorse their lying ways?
Billy Kristol - the neo-con skank and the likes already declared they will vote for the fellow
warmonger. Hank Paulson - Ex Goldman chief and treasury secretary responsible for TARP under shrub junior
also switching sides for the dems.
These two are the major red flag for any progressive voter.
1. Blame your own private server for leaks Hillary.
2. Blame Wasserman Schulz for rigging primaries
3. Blame yourself for not being trustworthy
4. Blame US foreign policy for making it a norm meddling in other countries elections.
Yep that's what our current foreign policy does, we topple governments. We need a common enemy
to unite the EA and Nato, Russia makes a good scape goat! Who armed Osama Bin Laden against Russia
in the 1980's? Then Arab Spring? Any country that practices Sharia Law can not allow Free Speech
or democracy. Women will never be equal or have the vote in these countries we arm with weapons.
Our arms dealers make money! We destabilize countries and keep the world in fear, united for causes
we create.
Russia like us has a migration issue of Muslims, 11.7% now. The USA backs Muslim regimes
and usually the more radical. Syria is in the middle of a civil war, Assad is Aliwee and they
are only 20%, they allow Christians and various Muslims faiths. If we arm the rebels, the educated
Aliwee closer to the coast will be exterminated in favor of the more extreme.
Assad is not a good
guy, but if Russia had armed the South in our civil war, how would we feel? In 2001 Bush Senior
headed up the Carlyle Group which sold weapons, 29 weapon companies, with investors like the Bin
Laden Construction Company is Saudi Arabia, Bin Ladens brother. Both sides have profited from
a destabilized middle east. They don't tell on each other, because both sides do it.
In the Soviet times, they used to blame all their short comings on US. Sounds like the Clinton
campaign has alot in common with Soviet Union. This is just an obfuscation. They aren't questioning
the validity of the e-mails but blaming their mafia control over DNC on Russia. If Russia or whoever
disclosed the e-mails, more power to them. The Clinton mafia in the Democratic party needs to
get purged. Hillary cheated to get nominated, she will hand the presidency to Drumpf. She is an
awful candidate besides being a corrupt war monger.
Clinton, who received 3.1m from Wall Street for speeches last year, and who was "extremely careless"
with national security and who clearly lied under oath to Congress had the entire system rigged
in her favour and millions of mostly younger people who supported Sanders have received a slap
in the face by a corrupt Dem Party.
Clinton has dragged the party into the sewer with her. They should have told her to step down
months ago. This is a shameful Dem convention
Typical tactic to divert attention away from the real issue which is the corruption exposed by
the Democratic party..There are rumours of another leak to come..hopefully the contents of Clintons
personal and the Clinton Foundation emails.. Sunlight is a wonderful disinfectant..
well this is what we've been talking about. Mainstream media, including the Guardian, the one
source of information I could trust , are also complicit in their unwavering support of the Hillary
machine and the stars quo for the 1%.
Just waiting for the promised emails from Hilary's server that wiki leaks has promised.
Citizens have the right to know.
saying its hackers stole Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails and released them to
foment disunity in the party and aid Donald Trump.
It's so pathetic, it's sad really. No introspection whatsoever. No, like a little snotty kid
that refuse to take any responsibility whatsoever for their own fuck-ups.
Come on, Hillary. You used dirty tactics to get rid of Sanders. I'm sure you've got more tricks
up your sleeve. We all know Bush Jr. wasn't suppose to be the President of the US. But he became
one anyway. That's how the Plutocrats play the game and you've been in the pipeline for a long
time now. Don't worry. We know where you've been.
The issue is not whether they were leaked by Russia, but that they were written and sent in the
first place. Clear collusion and vote-rigging between DNC and Clinton campaign to obstruct, disparage
and hinder Sanders.
This is how the Clinton machine works and why people don't like/trust her. 70% negative ratings
should tell the myopic DNC something. They are just as bent as she is.
You spin it right round, baby round round like a record, baby right round round round.
Unfortunately (for her), Americans have their bullshit metre *ON* let alone they don't believe
a word said any longer. Americans are eagerly waiting for the decision about the email server
thingy where lies and more lies were delivered.
You spin it right round, baby round round like a record, baby right round round round. :)
That's it from the Clinton cabal? "Look over there! It's the shiny Russian's fault!"
How about denouncing the HORRIBLE behavior of individuals and CLEAR bias by the DNC?...crickets....
The email the press is not mentioning shows the DNC had materials for HILLARY as the nominee
prepared before the primary was over! How is that just individuals showing their personal opinions
inappropriately? That was work that was PAID FOR, TIME that APPROVED and USED!
And the go-Hillary weenie Chuck Todd had a phone conversation with DWS about an entirely different
show...Mika on Morning Joe ticked her off and she wanted Chuck to handle it for her...
I am done with this party of corruption and Hillary cronies unless some pink slips start flying
and Bernie gets the Superdelegates.
He's the Cowardly Lion, sad to say. But what he tapped shall not be bought off. I say it again,
a mass walkout by the Sanders delegates would send a clear signal to Hillary, the DNC, and the
nation.
Guardian is still not getting the significance of this story. The DNC chair cannot preside over
the DNC convention. She can't even show her face. This is huge and it completely vindicates Bernies
mistrust of her. This isn't about the nationality of the hackers. It's about a crooked DNC rigging
the system.
Never mind the real issue is the content of the e-mails not who leaked them, but who are those
"experts" who tell us those were Russians? Are those the same "experts" who found weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq?
Ironic that Sanders would sit with Jake Tapper on the C orrupt C linton N
etwork for an interview...Tapper was named in the Wikileaks DNC emails as being in collusion with
the DNC for Hillary.
We know there were at least two leakers. The first, Guccifer, real name Marcel Lazăr Lehel,
is Romanian. He is now supposedly safely in federal prison incommunicado, so he won't be telling
anyone anything he knows any time soon, if he is even still alive that is.
There is circumstantial reason to believe that Guccifer II is Romanian or Moldovan also.
The Russians probably have all this and a lot more, but the chances of them leaking it are
essentially zero.
Clinton is desperate to lurk voters by anything, then let it be those Russians that hacked her
mail. A Russian proverb to the point - "A bad dancer always blames his balls that hamper him".
"His son, Donald Trump Jr, appeared on CNN's State of the Union. "They should be
ashamed of themselves," he said of the Clinton campaign. "If we did that … if my father did
that, they'd have people calling for the electric chair."
People across the world are turning amateur photos into elaborate works of art with a new
viral app that relies on AI technology to let users instantly transform mundane images into
Picasso paintings.
Prisma, an app that has attracted
1 million daily users as of Thursday, is reinventing the concept of filtering photos with
technology. While the concept of adding filters to photos has been around for years, the Prisma
iOS app is unique in the way that it relies on a "combination of neural networks and
artificial intelligence" to remake the image.
What that means is the Prisma tools aren't the kind of art filters that Instagram uses where
the filters overlay the original photo. Instead, Prisma goes through different
layers and
recreates the photo from scratch, according to the app makers, who are based in Moscow.
"We do the image fresh,"
Prisma
co-founder Alexey Moiseenkov said in an interview Thursday. "It's not similar to the Instagram
filter where you just layer over … We draw something like a real artist would."
Moiseenkov, 25, is part of a team of four founders who built the app. It was first released in
June, but has skyrocketed in popularity over the last week, with Prisma-altered photos spreading
on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
The app is easy to use and functions similarly to Instagram, the Facebook-owned photo-sharing
app that has more than
400 million users.
Users can take photos through the app or pick one from their camera roll. After cropping your
image, you then choose one of 33 filters, such as impression, mosaic and gothic, along with
filters modeled after specific iconic paintings, like the
Great Wave or
The Scream. Prisma will continue to add new filters in the coming weeks, Moiseenkov added.
An artistic
take on the
now famous photo of a demonstrator protesting the shooting death of Alton Sterling in Baton
Rouge. Photograph: Reuters
After the app adds the filter, you can adjust the intensity and then post to Instagram or
Facebook.
Since Prisma has spread, some have
complained that the app could devalue the work of real artists and
take away work from painters who make art by hand – not within seconds on a smartphone.
But for now, the app remains hugely popular, and Moiseenkov said he expects its user base to
continue its rapid growth.
Moiseenkov's background is computer science and he's not an artist himself. But he said he
grew up loving painting and that his favorite artist is Camille Pissarro, the Danish-French
impressionist.
"People want to create something, and we allow them to experiment," he said.
A still from
Kanye West and Kim Kardashian in West's music video for Famous. Photograph: Tidal
The developers are also working on expanding its filter technology to video, with an
innovation that hasn't been done before in any sophisticated manner.
Moiseenkov published a 360-degree
image on Facebook, which offers a glimpse of how Prisma video filters may work in the future.
While there have long been apps that allow users to add filters to footage, such as basic
color changes through
iMovie, the Prisma technology could dramatically expand this concept through videos that
create an entire world that appears intricately painted in every shot.
"Video is … an easier way to express yourself," Moiseenkov said. "It's dynamic. It's not just
a photo or static picture … It's really cool that you can create something in motion."
The co-founder said he wasn't ready yet to offer details on when the video feature would be
released or how exactly it would function, but he said he expects it to be very popular.
Moiseenkov said he also hoped to eventually expand the technology to virtual reality.
"... So Warren left the GOP because they were becoming too much for banking and wall street. And now she joins with Clinton who takes tens of millions a year from big banks and Wall Street. Go figure. ..."
"... The writer I think is trying to imply Clinton is not a neoliberal. This is dog whistle media politics of implying something else about Clinton who comprehensively not what this person is writing as if. So once she is elected courtesy I must say of Trump she will immediately act behind the scenes to effect neoliberal goals and policies. ..."
"... Warren the converted republican is just another neoliberal pretender to progressive stances. ..."
"... sHillary should fess up to her corruption and crimes, face criminal charges, and acknowledge that we need Bernie. The young people would happy indeed. ..."
"... This is a beautiful metaphor for after brexit: "This is really a battle between the pimps of Wall Street and the whores of Wall Street." Redistribution of wealth again to rich again. ..."
"... This is completely unfair..... Clinton listens to the young. The young bankers, the young hedge funders, the young trust funders, all are welcome as long as they pay. ..."
"... Lots of older people are specifically rejecting the dog-eat-dog globalization game, even as 30-something tech industrialists fight for ever fewer barriers to capital flight, cheaper immigrant workers and disruptive technologies. ..."
"... When nearly half of federal tax money is spent on death destruction and endless war and when the only thing our leaders can agree on is spending for more of the same all to the benefit of Central Banking and the MIC you think the young voting for Killary will put things right? Dream on, good luck and good night. Get off your ass. ..."
"... So, regardless of what the media call it, the question is how long the system will resist the torrent of protests of the people angered due to miserable socio-economic situation in which they find themselves without a big fault of their own. ..."
"... What is more interesting, Bernie Sanders who was unjustly called "a radical" is actually very careful in its demands, addressing at the same time dissatisfied people and the state establishment as well, and trying to find a point of an agreement between the first and the later. ..."
"... So, in my opinion, there are only two options here. The establishment can accept this alleviated form of socialism promoted by Bernie, or by Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, all together with the vocabulary of "socialist euphemisms" that they are using now. ..."
"... Hillary has no interest in "winning" Bernie supporters. She simply expects us to come to heel, and Donald Trump is the rolled-up newspaper we are threatened to be smacked with, unless we obey. ..."
"... Warren-Clinton would be a respectable ticket. Clinton-Warren is significantly less so, and both seem highly unlikely to me ..."
"... The problem Bernie supporters have with Hillary is more about policy than it is about genitalia. If you don't figure that out before November, you'll be quite surprised when a large number of reputedly misogynist "young Bernie men" end up voting for Jill Stein. ..."
"... Wrong answer. Hillary should pay no attention to the young. Hillary listens only to those who pay her, like Wall Street. Hillary pays the Clinton foundation money only to those guaranteed to vote in blocs, and she monitors them. Ethnic and single-issue groups can be counted on to vote as paid. ..."
"... It's her's, Obama's and the rest of the party leadership on both the left and the right that have created a vacuum on issues such as immigration. They refuse to acknowledge real problems associated with large scale and unrestricted immigration. ..."
"... Clinton's campaign/DNC supporters are already going showing their non-progressive stances, they have just voted down progressive amendments, including minimum wage, fracking and TPP. ..."
"... Lawless illegal immigration has nothing to do with diversity. It's basically preferred cheap labor over our own citizens. If only Hillary and the DNC fought that hard for the 46 million Americans living in poverty. They put their party's interests before our country. ..."
"... One more article that only if $hillary can triangulate, with some meaningless platitudes she will win over the Bernie Voters. I am a Boomer and I voted for Bernie in the Primary in my state and donated to his campaign. I still have the Bernie yard sign in my from yard and Bernie Bumper Sticker. I will not be triangulated by $hillary. If Bernie is not on the ballot for President I will vote for Jill Stein. ..."
"... I guess it is a case of $hillary's Oligarchs are better than the Koch Bros. ..."
"... You must be new to Mrs. Clinton. She listens to her handlers who work up carefully scripted and rehearsed sound bites that can trick people into believing that she is authentic and cares about the problems of the 99%. For everything else, the communication is transmit-only. Now curtsy, close your trap, and move along - she doesn't have time for your drivel! ..."
"... Clinton is all talk and Trump is all nonsense. As soon as she gets her tiara, she'll be right back to doing whatever she feels like doing. The two of them are off-the-charts narcissists who simply want power and the ability to use that power. Everything either of their supporters project onto them is just nonsensical wishful thinking. ..."
"... The basic problem is that New Democrats like Bill Clinton threw the traditional Democratic constituencies under the bus. I gather that something similar happened in the UK, and that New Labour under Tony Blair did likewise. ..."
Hillary is not a progressive she is a neoliberal. The business community has done what it does
to cut costs - globalization is not much more than a scheme to cut labor costs. It is the job
of our political leaders to see to it that our trade policies promote prosperity for all Americans.
It is impossible to expect politicians who depend on money from financial interests - including
Hillary - to fulfill that mandate to the American public.
The young should see Hillary for what she is, a corrupt part of the old guard of politicians
serving the business community and should vote for candidates who serve social justice. Which
of course why the young liberals supported Bernie Sanders.
So Warren left the GOP because they were becoming too much for banking and wall street. And
now she joins with Clinton who takes tens of millions a year from big banks and Wall Street. Go
figure.
The writer I think is trying to imply Clinton is not a neoliberal. This is dog whistle media
politics of implying something else about Clinton who comprehensively not what this person is
writing as if. So once she is elected courtesy I must say of Trump she will immediately act behind
the scenes to effect neoliberal goals and policies.
There is not the slightest chance that Clinton will do anything progressive. The current painting
of Elizabeth Warren as the great progressive banner holder is part of this nonsense. Warren
the converted republican is just another neoliberal pretender to progressive stances. Being
for bankruptcy is not a meaningful progressive position to take. Their pretense hides their deep
ties to Wall Street, and the election of Clinton and her promoting neoliberalism will be just
the sort of thing the young need to see that betrays their trust so that change can happen over
these "politically bankrupt" polls.
That's actually a great idea... sHillary should fess up to her corruption and crimes, face
criminal charges, and acknowledge that we need Bernie. The young people would happy indeed.
This is a beautiful metaphor for after brexit: "This is really a battle between the pimps
of Wall Street and the whores of Wall Street." Redistribution of wealth again to rich again.
This is completely unfair..... Clinton listens to the young. The young bankers, the young
hedge funders, the young trust funders, all are welcome as long as they pay.
This is really a battle between the pimps of Wall Street and the whores of Wall Street. No
one else really has any skin in the game.
"Young people are rejecting dog-eat-dog economics and welcoming diversity, while large chunks
of our older and supposedly wiser compatriots do the exact opposite. "
Is that what you think your older compatriots' think? How ageist.
Lots of older people are specifically rejecting the dog-eat-dog globalization game, even
as 30-something tech industrialists fight for ever fewer barriers to capital flight, cheaper immigrant
workers and disruptive technologies.
That Abbott Labs just forced their fired IT staff to train their H1-B visa replacements and
sign contracts to remain silent, doesn't mean they're against immigration or diversity. Just,
against insidious ways corporations seek to replace domestic workers with uncomplaining indentured
servants from India.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-abbott-layoffs-durbin-0302-biz-20160301-story.html
No age group is a monolith. How about older and younger people try to work together for a country
we'd all like to live in.
Spot on: "The great test of whether Clinton understands the generational opportunity will be her
selection of a running mate. If she plays it safe with a conservative white male in the hopes
of not offending furious older voters, she'll risk leaving young Americans disgusted by Trump
but uninspired by her. On the other hand, selecting a vice presidential nominee with a clear track
record of progressive policies, such as an Elizabeth Warren, would send a clear signal that Clinton
hears the voice of a generation demanding more from the future than a slightly kinder neoliberalism."
Actually, the same thing happened with Obama. He chose Biden (and Rahm Emanuel as his chief
of staff) making huge mistakes on both men. They helped kill real change.
Hillary Clinton needs to chose Warren or the Sanders backers will simply not support her. They
will either abstain from voting or vote for Jill Stein.
When nearly half of federal tax money is spent on death destruction and endless war and when
the only thing our leaders can agree on is spending for more of the same all to the benefit of
Central Banking and the MIC you think the young voting for Killary will put things right? Dream
on, good luck and good night. Get off your ass.
Hillary supporters do not frequent the internet and where they do not in places they are likely
to find valuable information. There is a search tool. you can research all of Hillary's history
and it is not pretty. Like this it is not some grand conspiracy. she really was at the gmo Association.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1AkrQaWwMc
At least as it was told to us, socialism as a state project has failed some 25 years ago. Then,
some eight years ago capitalism has also come to a major crisis, the biggest since the Great Depression
of the 30s. And this has led to a revival of socialist ideas exactly where it was least expected,
that is, in the capitalist West. From Greece, through Spain, Great Britain ... and all the way
to the United States, the people cheered again essentially socialist ideas, and the election campaigns
takes the form of popular movements, which are commonly called by the media as a "populism" .
So, regardless of what the media call it, the question is how long the system will resist
the torrent of protests of the people angered due to miserable socio-economic situation in which
they find themselves without a big fault of their own.
What is more interesting, Bernie Sanders who was unjustly called "a radical" is actually
very careful in its demands, addressing at the same time dissatisfied people and the state establishment
as well, and trying to find a point of an agreement between the first and the later.
To make sure that this is true, it is sufficient to note that Sanders' statements are
full of euphemisms. He is a "democratic socialist," and not just "socialist," and his "revolution"
is just a "political revolution". Then, Bernie talks about "rigged economy" that is rigged in
favor of the richest 1%, or even worse, one-tenth of one percent. But if you'd asked, "Since when
the economy is rigged this way?", every true socialists including Bernie would probably replied,"Ever
since the capitalism was created!" :-)))
So, in my opinion, there are only two options here. The establishment can accept this alleviated
form of socialism promoted by Bernie, or by Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, all together with the vocabulary
of "socialist euphemisms" that they are using now.
And the other option is that the establishment will soon be faced with another kind
of Socialists, who will openly propagate the pure socialism without any euphemisms or any excuses.
With this kind of guys it would be difficult to make any compromise, because they are fighting
because "they have nothing to lose". And if the establishment would say to them that their ideas
are disaster for the country, they would then reply: "So what? If we are already perishing, let
perish together!"
Hillary has no interest in "winning" Bernie supporters. She simply expects us to come to heel,
and Donald Trump is the rolled-up newspaper we are threatened to be smacked with, unless we obey.
I've voted blue-no-matter-who too many times in the 35 years since I first registered
Democratic. No more. Never Hillary, Never Trump -- Political Revolution NOW
Warren-Clinton would be a respectable ticket. Clinton-Warren is significantly less so, and
both seem highly unlikely to me. The first because Clinton doesn't seem the type that would
want to play second fiddle in a figurehead role, and the second because Warren as VP would be
a waste of her talents, and she's come as close as she can to refusing it outright without actually
ruling it out. No thinking person should want to waste Warren in the VP role.
The problem Bernie supporters have with Hillary is more about policy than it is about genitalia.
If you don't figure that out before November, you'll be quite surprised when a large number of
reputedly misogynist "young Bernie men" end up voting for Jill Stein.
Wrong answer. Hillary should pay no attention to the young. Hillary listens only to those
who pay her, like Wall Street. Hillary pays the Clinton foundation money only to those guaranteed
to vote in blocs, and she monitors them. Ethnic and single-issue groups can be counted on to vote
as paid.
Youth constitutes no bloc vote. They are all over the place and they are not herdable.
Also far too many youth are hampered by principles and ideals.
That's strange, I'd have suggested the very opposite to Clinton. It's her's, Obama's and the
rest of the party leadership on both the left and the right that have created a vacuum on issues
such as immigration. They refuse to acknowledge real problems associated with large scale and
unrestricted immigration.
Not only have they refused to acknowledge those problems, but they accuse anyone who's views
differ, of racism and bigotry. in doing so, they've allowed Trump to fill that populist void.
Clinton would be wise to not give a populist full control of such topics and moderate her stance.
Not doing so, as Britain has demonstrated, only further divides a citizenry.
Clinton's campaign/DNC supporters are already going showing their non-progressive stances,
they have just voted down progressive amendments, including minimum wage, fracking and TPP.
I'm a Boomer. And I fully support the political revolution led by Bernie Sanders. I will not vote
for Hillary Clinton for any reason. Big Media and the DNC colluded with Hillary from the very
start. If the DNC really cared for the working class, it would have promoted fairness. Look at
the actions; do they match the words? No.
The Chinese economy stopped being Communist long ago. You could make a case that it's fascist
since one definition of fascism is a free market economy in tight cahoots with an autocratic government.
But whatever you call it, Chinese Millenials have a more positive attitude toward their futures
than western ones do.
Lawless illegal immigration has nothing to do with diversity. It's basically preferred cheap
labor over our own citizens. If only Hillary and the DNC fought that hard for the 46 million Americans
living in poverty. They put their party's interests before our country.
One more article that only if $hillary can triangulate, with some meaningless platitudes she
will win over the Bernie Voters. I am a Boomer and I voted for Bernie in the Primary in my state
and donated to his campaign. I still have the Bernie yard sign in my from yard and Bernie Bumper
Sticker. I will not be triangulated by $hillary. If Bernie is not on the ballot for President
I will vote for Jill Stein.
When the party establishments only offer garbage, why does anyone bother to vote? The choices
all lead to no improvement at all, so I find it hard to blame anyone for not coming out. I vote
every time, but I am finding myself writing people in for positions as a protest because too many
candidates don't deserve the office they seek.
Oh Horseshit. Young people know next to Goddamn nothing. All of us older folks know that because
, believe it or not, we were once young people ourselves.
Free college tuition is a give away to the white middle class. College tuition would fall into
a reasonable range tomorrow if we reinstated a Federal student Loan Program with a max amount
allowed a year. Tuituion at public universities would be within a $1,000 bucks of that in short
order.
The current problem had its start when Bush Junior created a private banking program for student
loans. Kids starting borrowing massive amounts and schools started raising tuition like it was
going out of style. Tuition has more than doubled at penn State and Pitt in the last 10 years,
for no reason apparent to anybody.
Free college tuition is a give away to the white middle class.
If everyone is taxed to pay for tuition, how can it possibly be considered a "giveaway" specifically
to the middle class? Why is the middle class the only group that should pay for college (it's
nothing to the rich to afford and the poor get grants)?
You must be new to Mrs. Clinton. She listens to her handlers who work up carefully scripted
and rehearsed sound bites that can trick people into believing that she is authentic and cares
about the problems of the 99%. For everything else, the communication is transmit-only. Now curtsy,
close your trap, and move along - she doesn't have time for your drivel!
Saying Clinton is the better choice over Trump is like saying Mussolini is a better choice over
Stalin.
And just the same, want nothing to do with these scumbags.
Clinton is all talk and Trump is all nonsense. As soon as she gets her tiara, she'll be
right back to doing whatever she feels like doing. The two of them are off-the-charts narcissists
who simply want power and the ability to use that power. Everything either of their supporters
project onto them is just nonsensical wishful thinking.
The best and only answer with such a galling selection is to follow the path that gets
either of them out of office as fast as possible.
Hillary is too busy warmongering to listen. She's too busy threatening Snowden to listen. She
has too much Wall Street money stuffed in her ears to listen.
The basic problem is that New Democrats like Bill Clinton threw the traditional Democratic
constituencies under the bus. I gather that something similar happened in the UK, and that New
Labour under Tony Blair did likewise.
From what I can see here, it's hardly Jeremy Corbyn's fault that those traditional Labour constituencies
refused to do as they were told. Instead, they chose to make a stand against immigration, globalization,
and free trade. Of course, they get called racists for all that. It's the customary rejoinder
these days.
What needs to happen here and there is the re-empowerment of those people. They need the means
to stand up to globalization and free trade. The ideology that holds that these are some kind
of inevitable natural process, rather than the results of political decisions that hurt most people,
needs to go. This means tariffs and trade barriers on foreign manufactured goods, to bring the
factories back and revive organized labor.
"... "JUST DOING THE MATH" "Electoral Fraud In The 2016 Democratic Primaries": http://www.democracyintegrity.org/ElectoralFraud/just-doing-the-math.html
..."
"... The most profitable cliches ever coined are 'perceived threat', 'defense initiative', 'drug
war' and 'globalization'. These recent advents require a strong military and are developing police states
with the cyclical pattern of a willingness to take advantage of the weaker populace, both criminally
and financially. Corporations yanking the rug from under American business and government selling the
very country under our feet may eventually be recognized as predatory acts, yet are capitalism at its
best! Soon, a planned default on payment of our national debt will forever flush our American dream
down the toilet. (Thank Obama's midnight deal to recharter the federal reserve 'absent negotiation'
of our debt for this perpetual rim job. ..."
"... The US State Department investigates election fraud in countries holding democratic elections
if the exit polls are off by even 2%...in our own country, we've had 11 states with exit polls off by
anywhere from 5% to 33% and ALL in favor of Clinton, and all we hear from pundits is: "there is a perfectly
reasonable explanation for this..." ..."
"... Hillary is a self-indulging, power-hungry, war-mongering, law-breaking, seemingly above-the-law
Republican. How could any SANE person vote for her? ..."
"... I speak for thousands when I say as a former lifelong Democrat that Bernie Sanders is the only
candidate with a shred of integrity in this contest and who oddly enough resembles a Democrat instead
of the Neocon Conservative who is winning the primary campaign. ..."
"... A vote for anyone-but-Hillary will do the job. Trump has some important features in common
with Sanders; Libertarian Johnson could be considered ..."
"... Are we witnessing a dishonest election? Our first analysis showed that states wherein the voting
outcomes are difficult to verify show far greater support for Secretary Clinton. Second, our examination
of exit polling suggested large differences between the respondents that took the exit polls and the
claimed voters in the final tally. ..."
"... Your campaign --- I mean you, Guardian ---- & the Hillary supporters both professional and
amateur --- was THE first presidential campaign I have ever seen that targeted the supporters more than
the candidate. Months of slander and mischaracterization of people you don't even know. ..."
"... Your appeal now is that of the abuser who wants the relationship to continue, now that the
beating is over. Sanders supporters would have to be gullible idiots to come back Hillary under current
circumstances. ..."
"... The "Berniebro" smear promulgated by the asshole David Brock is just one of the reasons I'll
never vote for Clinton. I have plenty more, but the cynicism of that was really over the top. It matches
Clinton's scorched earth playing of the racism card in the 2008 campaign, when she was pitching herself
as the champion of "hard working white Americans," putting out pics of Obama in "African/Muslim" garb,
bringing up Reverend Wright (again), and originating the "birther" meme. They are a truly despicable
bunch and deserve to lose. ..."
"... She goes on, Trump says very scary things, deporting immigrants, massive militarism, and ignoring
the climate, well Hillary has a track record for doing all of those things!!! We are rushing towards
war with Hillary Clinton! The terrible things we might expect from Donald Trump we've already seen from
Hillary Clinton! ..."
"... Don't be a victim of this propaganda campaign – which is being waged by people who have selective
amnesia ..."
"... Yes, she is the female version of Trump. "Terrible things we expect from Donald Trump, we've
actually already seen from Hillary Clinton," Jill Stein warns ..."
"Sanders' famously loyal supporters could be forgiven for feeling distraught after investing
so much hope in the grassroots movement."
Then please forgive me;
If you ask someone in this government if governance itself should be considered socialistic,
they'll say 'no' because in actual socialism the population has expectation of a return. This
incorporated government (business) takes from most like any socialist government, but is simply
parasitic when only compelled to perform to its own benefit. The ingrained iconoclast of unbridled
capitalism are firmly rooted in the principle that they deserve what others don't and are overwhelmingly
entitled by birth. A new fast track authority with TPP will put the icing on their cake because
when the potus can make business deals, we've skipped any burden of socialism to effectively become
communistic (oops...wha...tpp top secret stuff? No wonder!). There is little greater evidence
that we suffer a neocon control set than when 'our' corrupt duopoly points the 'pinko' finger
at anyone suggesting a social agenda while existing social programs have a 10 to 1 cost/effect
ratio. This merely demonstrates the willful disconnect of money from purpose in the 'non-socialist'
government. The next step, privatize with a for-profit corporation to supposedly save money? Never
got that one...but somebody sure will!
We are largely poor people in the worlds richest country. A couple of hundred thousand folks
(including family members) proudly espouse paying over 70% of all tax while paying an effective
tax rate of less than 10%. Many pay no tax by using tax shelters, shell corps and offshore banking,
while lower socioeconomic groups pay half of their meager income in realized and hidden tax/fees.
Clearly, when you consider that over three hundred million people live on economic fumes and
social programs, those in our government are beholden to the few accruing trillions annually in
this top 10% wealth bracket. When average Americans know they are not being heard and money is
considered speech, then we see more clearly that being heard comes only with affluence. The resources
of this new country are more than enough to sustain every American, but are sold to the highest
bidder for profits that sustain this top 10%, and those with the deafened ears to whom we have
relinquished control.
The most profitable cliches ever coined are 'perceived threat', 'defense initiative', 'drug
war' and 'globalization'. These recent advents require a strong military and are developing police
states with the cyclical pattern of a willingness to take advantage of the weaker populace, both
criminally and financially. Corporations yanking the rug from under American business and government
selling the very country under our feet may eventually be recognized as predatory acts, yet are
capitalism at its best! Soon, a planned default on payment of our national debt will forever flush
our American dream down the toilet. (Thank Obama's midnight deal to recharter the federal reserve
'absent negotiation' of our debt for this perpetual rim job.
This directive is obviously how an unknown made it to the spotlight while repubs show their
willingness to ram it home in default for their owner$. They are one and the same ultimately,
as we will be reminded that it really was our fault to vote for them...but, by whom and through
what means? Hil and Jeb know!)
Chase Elliott
The US State Department investigates election fraud in countries holding democratic elections
if the exit polls are off by even 2%...in our own country, we've had 11 states with exit polls
off by anywhere from 5% to 33% and ALL in favor of Clinton, and all we hear from pundits is: "there
is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this..."
Yeah, they cheated.
NoSerf -> Chase Elliott
Rocky de la Fuente, Dem. presidential candidate, has the explanation: The DNC goes in within
1 min after final count and delimit Bernie's percentage win from 100%, 90%, whatever it actually
is in a particular county, to whatever the DNC determines (KY: 52%). He has proof on his website.
imothy Everton -> MrsMud
Hillary is a self-indulging, power-hungry, war-mongering, law-breaking, seemingly above-the-law
Republican. How could any SANE person vote for her? But our name is Mud; that I can understand.
Rchrd Hrrcks
It's very interesting to note that, when someone declares that 'voting for the lesser of two
evils leaves us with evil', no Hilary supporters retort with 'but Hilary isn't evil'. I never
see those words. It's an important point. Look out for it.
Ligaya Barlow
If Bernie wants his movement to succeed with revolutionary promise, he should have his name
placed in nomination at the convention then give a rousing speech on national television. Then
he should continue his candidacy as a Green or independent. Sanders-Stein. To be sure he would
get the 15% necessary to take part in the debates. This scenario has the following possible outcomes:
1. He could win the general election.
2. He could throw the election to Trump, culminating in a presidential disaster that would end
the Republican Party as a national party, and open the way to a multiparty system.
3. He could amass enough electoral votes to throw the issue into the House, whose Republican majority
would be put in a position where, if they reject Trump and therefore their own party's electorate,
the party is destroyed; if they elect him, the party is destroyed. This will be the first step
toward abolishing the electoral college, a progressive victory.
4. Clinton wins, but narrowly and at a price: no mandate or consensus, the likely outcome anyway.
If Bernie wants to avoid the dustbin of history, this is what he must do.
His revolutionary movement must include (a.) The abolishment of the electoral college and (b.)
The end of the two party system. Now us the time.
austinpratt -> GreatLizard
We will talk about honor when Hillary Clinton releases the texts of her speeches to donors
and explains why her husband has been on billionaire child-pimping Jeffrey Epstein's private aircraft
26 times, or she explains in detail why she thought killing thousands of people in the Islamic
world and wasting trillions of dollars was a good idea, and why she is sadistically torturing
us with one platitude after another.
I speak for thousands when I say as a former lifelong Democrat that Bernie Sanders is the
only candidate with a shred of integrity in this contest and who oddly enough resembles a Democrat
instead of the Neocon Conservative who is winning the primary campaign.
Longleveler
Greg Palast (who has also written for the Guardian) is a good source for news about the rigged
democratic primaries of 2016: http://www.gregpalast.com
nnedjo cameracoach
Joseph Stalin would be proud...
You mean, Joseph Stalin would be proud of Hillary. Because he has always loved people who know
how to "get things done".:-)
Diniz Ramos De Deus -> Patty Smith
The dems though are a private corporation. They can rig elections in their private company.
it is not a matter of the government what they do in their private company but it is be good reason
to not consider their candidates in the presidential election which is government election.
Kjell Beilman
My question is, what are we gong to do about this? Clearly the majority of people are sick
and tired of both sides, but in the end it's the citizens that need to come out and lobby or government
to change.
IMHO, I fear we have become too complacent with letting the oligarchy rule us. If this recent
election cycle doesn't show that the American people don't get real choices I don't know what
will. We literally have the two most disliked options being presented to us as a choice, give
me a break. I never thought we'd have worse choices then bush v gore, but man the oligarchy really
dug deep on this one!
Que twilight zone music.
cameracoach -> timshan
Since the election was a victim of fraud, the actual number of votes may never be known. Just
as we'll never know who actually won the Iowa caucus because - before the votes were counted -
the state (Hillary supporting) Dem committee announced Hillary won it. Then dumped the evidence.
California is rife with election fraud, Puerto Rico was blatant .. exit polls were eliminated
because after 10 states had different results from exit polls and voting machines .. the networks
decided they didn't want to look so foolish. There was an independent exit polling in CA and their
numbers are just beginning to show up .. showing Bernie winning in areas that the machines show
Hillary winning.
Lost votes, rejected votes and more .. there is no verifiable accurate counting of votes.
nnedjo
So, at first the DNC conceived plan like this. Former Madam Secretary should replace the first
black US president, whose only legacy is that he was the first black US president (although this
is only half true, because Obama is half white).
This is necessary first of all in order to corporate money continued to flow into the funds
of the DNC, and sometimes also directly on accounts of its members in the form of "speaking fees"
or something like that.
For this purpose, in addition to Hillary Clinton, they have chosen a few other candidates whose
name is "no matter what their name is."
Then someone said, "Wait, we can not do it like this! We have to create at least the illusion
of democratic elections, so that Madame Secretary has a "real challenger", someone who will bring
more vibrancy into elections."
And then the choice fell on the old Bernie Sanders, who is actually not a real Democrat, but
even better, because none of the real democrats really wanted to play the role of "mechanical
rabbit" in the race of Madam Secretary for the Democratic nomination.
And then they screwed up, because it turned out that the old Bernie has brought much more vibrancy
in the democratic primary elections than they needed.
How much their plan had been wrong one can conclude from the fact that for a certain period
of time even threatened the danger that Bernie could beat Madam Secretary and so bring into question
the very goals of the plan.
And now the DNC does not know what to do with the old Bernie and his thirty years or more younger
supporters. Meanwhile, Bernie and his supporters wonder why the DNC does not seem to be happy
about this "unexpected gift"? :-)))
Rachman Cantrell
So six people are going to vote for Hillary and one for Trump? This 'poll' is nonsense. Real
polls of Bernie supporters have over 80% saying they will never vote for Hillary! I am one of
them. If Bernie does not get the Dem nomination I am hoping he takes the top slot in the Green
party for the win!
Most independents will vote for Bernie and they make up 43% of the total voting group. Dems
and Repubs are only in the latter twenties and half of them will go with Bernie. He has a real
shot as a third party candidate.
If the Democrat party wants to keep any semblance of power they should get behind Bernie at
the convention because I and many others will be leaving if he is not the nominee! This is not
a threat. It is simply what will happen. Hillary supporters and establishment politicians have
no idea how strongly we feel about this.
panpipes -> Rachman Cantrell
Cite one of those "real polls".
Bernie is the most successful socialist in US history precisely because he is steadfast to
his ideals while knowing how to maneuver through the system that is stacked against him and his
values. Your all or nothing at all stance is not going to do anything good - just like Occupy,
you will burn out while the Bern will keep on with what he has been doing for decades.
inquisitor16 -> Rachman Cantrell
I hope you're right, and think you are.
A vote for anyone-but-Hillary will do the job. Trump has some important features in common
with Sanders; Libertarian Johnson could be considered, though I suggest it's unlikely either
he or the Greens will "win," and one strategy you didn't mention was just to write-in Bernie.
Anyone can easily do that, and it would ensure both that the presumptive nominee never enters
the Oval Office, and that Sanders supporters are identified clearly.
All the above presumes, however, that Clinton is insuperable. If only Bernie will give her
backers an ultimatum ("indict her now for high crimes, or I will endorse Trump") it seems to me
that that assumption can be readily reversed.
xtreemneo
Bernie Sanders' supporters vow the revolution will not be silenced.
Implying Bernie himself will concede to neoliberal dingbats? The man has been at it for 4 decades.
He knows a thing or two about intra-generational equity.
monoitiare
I love these comments, and note these folks read "The Intercept" which I am positive is completely
foreign to HRC supporters....who probably also think Glenn Greenwald is an agent of the underworld,
or something.
"Are we witnessing a dishonest election? Our first analysis showed that states wherein
the voting outcomes are difficult to verify show far greater support for Secretary Clinton.
Second, our examination of exit polling suggested large differences between the respondents
that took the exit polls and the claimed voters in the final tally. Beyond these points,
these irregular patterns of results did not exist in 2008. As such, as a whole, these data
suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary
election. This fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator
Sanders."
If you're a supporter of honest elections, I hope you spread this info far and wide.
RUwithmeDrWu
Your campaign --- I mean you, Guardian ---- & the Hillary supporters both professional
and amateur --- was THE first presidential campaign I have ever seen that targeted the supporters
more than the candidate. Months of slander and mischaracterization of people you don't even know.
Your appeal now is that of the abuser who wants the relationship to continue, now that the
beating is over. Sanders supporters would have to be gullible idiots to come back Hillary under
current circumstances.
malcolmjackson -> RUwithmeDrWu
Or under any circumstances. She represents everything we're campaigning against.
The "Berniebro" smear promulgated by the asshole David Brock is just one of the reasons
I'll never vote for Clinton. I have plenty more, but the cynicism of that was really over the
top. It matches Clinton's scorched earth playing of the racism card in the 2008 campaign, when
she was pitching herself as the champion of "hard working white Americans," putting out pics of
Obama in "African/Muslim" garb, bringing up Reverend Wright (again), and originating the "birther"
meme. They are a truly despicable bunch and deserve to lose.
Jennifer Marie
Two and a half million votes uncounted and the oligarchy media declares Hillary the winner
the night before? We are NOT giving or giving in .No to corrupt DNC puppet Hillary Clinton, NO
to corrupt GOP Trump, Bernie or bust.
MistMist
Congratulation Paul Lewis and Adithya Sambamurthy for filing an article and video that fails
on multiple levels to accurately portray the current climate and status of the Democratic Primary
election.
Where does it report that California still has close to 2.5 million ballots to count, with
a large portion of these being 'provisional'?
Where does it report that these ballots are likely to be Bernie votes?
Where does it bring to question why California was called at all with these facts being revealed?
Where does it question the role of the Associated Press in falsely claiming Hillary Clinton as
the 'Presumptive' nominee the night before the most important Primary in election history?
Where does it state that neither candidate, Hillary nor Bernie will have the needed 2383 votes
prior to the convention?
Where does is state that the DNC DOES NOT count superdelegates until the convention when they
vote?
Where does it state that the convention will therefore be a contested one?
Where does it reiterate the fact that Hillary Clinton is still under FBI investigation and the
possibility of indictment still looms?
Where does it explore the role of an indictment in determining the strongest candidate against
Donald Trump?
Where does it explore the current polling of Sanders V Trump compared to Clinton V Trump?
I'm no journalist, but I'd imagine these are all rather important points that deserve to be
recognised and reported on. You know, like it's news.
Georgine Henry
Watch Jill Stein, Green Party in an uplifting interview from Democracy Now! She points out
that voting for the lesser evil has no upside/only a downside because it has given us exactly
what we have now!
She goes on, Trump says very scary things, deporting immigrants, massive militarism, and
ignoring the climate, well Hillary has a track record for doing all of those things!!! We are
rushing towards war with Hillary Clinton! The terrible things we might expect from Donald Trump
we've already seen from Hillary Clinton!
Don't be a victim of this propaganda campaign – which is being waged by people who have
selective amnesia – very quick to tell you about the terrible things the Republicans did,
but very quick to forget the equally terrible things that have happened under a Democratic White
House with two Democratic houses of Congress. It's important to move ahead and take back the America
and the world that works for all of us, based on putting people, planet and peace over profit.
Isn't this often the case, someone (Stein) explains something and immediately you recognize
it makes sense – why doing what you've always done, voting for the lesser evil, in this case Trump
or Hillary depending on your perspective, will continue hurtling us down the same destructive
path! As Stein urges us, stand up and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it,
because they do! Finally I'm clear, no more dilemma, no voting for Trump or Hillary – I'm excited
to watch and see what Stein and Bernie do!
Yes, she is the female version of Trump. "Terrible things we expect from Donald Trump,
we've actually already seen from Hillary Clinton," Jill Stein warns
"... He has attacked Clinton as a "liberal war hawk", claiming that WikiLeaks had published emails showing her to be the leading champion in office to push for the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, despite Pentagon reluctance. ..."
New release likely to fan controversy and provide further ammunition for Republican presidential
rival Donald Trump
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has said his organisation is preparing to publish more
emails Hillary Clinton
sent and received while US secretary of state.
Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential
nominee,
is under FBI investigation to determine whether she broke federal law by using her private email
in sending classified information. A new WikiLeaks release of Clinton emails is likely to fan a controversy
that has bedevilled her campaign and provide further ammunition for Donald Trump, her Republican
presidential rival,
who has used the issue to attack her.
Assange's comments came in an interview on ITV's Peston on Sunday. "We have upcoming leaks in
relation to Hillary Clinton … We have emails pending publication, that is correct," Assange said.He
did not specify when or how many emails would be published.
WikiLeaks launched a searchable
archive in March of 30,322 emails and email attachments sent to and from Clinton's private email
server while she was secretary of state. The 50,547 pages of documents are from 30 June 2010 to 12
August 2014, and 7,570 of the documents were sent by Clinton, who served as secretary of state from
2009 to 2013.
Assange, a trenchant Clinton critic, said she was receiving constant personal updates on his situation.
The WikiLeaks founder has been confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London since July 2012, when
he sought asylum to avoid extradition.
Assange is wanted in Sweden over allegations of rape dating from 2010, which he denies, but he
has not been charged.
A Stockholm district court upheld an arrest warrant againstthe Australian last month, saying there was still "probable cause for suspicion" against him.
Assange said it was highly unlikely that the US attorney general, Loretta Lynch, would indict
Clinton. "She's not going to indict Hillary Clinton, that's not possible. It's not going to happen.
But the FBI can push for concessions from a Clinton government," he said.
He has attacked Clinton as a "liberal war hawk", claiming that WikiLeaks had published emails
showing her to be the leading champion in office to push for the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in
Libya, despite Pentagon reluctance.
"They predicted that the postwar outcome would be something like it is … she has a long history
of being a liberal war hawk," he said.
Google "is intensely aligned with US exceptionalism" and its employees will likely be rewarded
if Clinton wins the presidential election come November,Assange told an international media forum in Moscow.
The 78-page investigation by the inspector general of the state department singled out several
previously unknown breaches while Clinton was secretary of state, including the use of mobile devices
to conduct official business without checking whether they posed a security risk.
Note the word "appease" that Guardian neoliberal presstitutes use about possibility of appointment
of Warren as VP
Notable quotes:
"... Conscious of this continuing trust gap among young progressives, the Clinton campaign flirted with perhaps the ultimate response this week by meeting with Elizabeth Warren, the popular Massachusetts senator, for what many assumed were talks about making her a possible running mate. ..."
"... Another argument is that because Warren made a point of resisting endorsing Hillary during the campaign that, de facto, was an endorsement of Sanders in effect. Warren also wrote a couple of op-eds during the race which were like big smoke signals saying: "Vote Bernie! Vote Bernie!". ..."
"... They promise things on the campaign trail and actually deliver maybe 10% of it. The remaining 90% goes to corporate welfare. ..."
"... No, Clinton isn't going to get a lot of Sanders' supporters, but she might get a lot of Republican votes, since she's much closer to them than to progressives. I'd wager most Sanders supporters will vote Green, which is more their natural home than the Democratic Party. Those who won't vote Green will likely not vote at all. ..."
"... Clinton is disingenuous and Sanders supporters realize that. ..."
"... Employing Super delegates to sway the nomination against a popular vote for the nominee shows just how corrupt and contemptible the party is. ..."
"... I don't believe many Sanders supporters could endorse either party's nominee under the circumstances and are therefore going unrepresented in this election. Speaking for myself, I cannot support Clinton due to her commitments to the big money donors to her campaign. She can't be candid about her policy since those donors interests are incongruent with the interests of average Americans. Clinton cannot serve two masters. ..."
"... Both Trump and Sanders are waiting on the results of the FBI investigation. WaPo says that, unlike Holder, Lynch doesn't play political games and won't bow to pressure from Obama to not indict Hillary when the report comes out. ..."
"... Oh, Guardian, Guardian, you've sunk even below your own depths of meretriciousness. ..."
"... Not: "New release likely to show how corrupt, if not outright criminal Clinton is." Just "being found out as a perjurer and a crook is going to present a PR problem." The ethics of a flea. And I'm not just talking about Hillary. ..."
"... American politics is so sleazy and corrupt that neither party is capable of fielding an "honorable candidate". ..."
"... BTW, Wikileaks is about to publish more of Hillary's emails - stay tuned! ..."
"... HRC has a record (no pun intended). If you have examined that record on your own (rather than through the eyes of a biased media) and can see death is so much better than Armageddon, I'll respect your point of view. ..."
"... Trump may have the savvy not to screw with Putin in the git, but once the fire is set, he could be insane enough to pour gasoline on the fire. HRC is going to continue screwing with Putin, the middle class and anybody else who gets in her way. Can you live with that? ..."
"I am going to write in Bernie. Whether or not he's on the ticket, he's getting my vote," said
Chelsea Denman, a 27-year-old who works in the legal profession in Washington. "He's gotten a movement
going that's not dying down anytime soon. He needs to continue on to the convention. He needs to
keep himself out there and talk about the issues."
Asked why she was so opposed to Clinton, Denman replied as many do: "I don't think she's genuine.
I think she says what she thinks she needs to be said to get elected. I don't trust her. I think
it's unfortunate that as a woman I can't trust potentially the first woman president."
Conscious of this continuing trust gap among young progressives, the Clinton campaign flirted
with perhaps the ultimate response this week by meeting with Elizabeth Warren, the popular Massachusetts
senator, for what many assumed were talks about making her a possible running mate.
In contrast to pairings with other rumoured candidates, such as the Virginia senator Tim Kaine or
the New Jersey senator Cory Booker, sharing a ticket with Warren was once considered an unthinkable
lurch to the left by Clinton that is likely to appease many Sanders loyalists.
... ... ...
If Warren were the vice-presidential candidate, it could also alienate many moderate Republicans,
who regard the anti-Wall Street firebrand as a distinctly acquired taste.
"Elizabeth Warren could almost persuade me to re-think my opposition to Trump. She's insufferable,"
wrote one former adviser to John McCain this week.
For others on the left, the more important question is whether Clinton commits to the policies of
Sanders and Warren.
"Elizabeth Warren bolstered the case that the right way to achieve Democratic unity is to show voters
that Clinton, Sanders, and the Democratic party stand united behind big, bold, progressive ideas,"
said Adam Green, founder of the Progressive Change Campaign committee. His list of ideas included
"expanding social security benefits instead of cutting them, debt-free college, breaking up too-big-to-fail
banks, and jailing Wall Street bankers who break the law".
Haigin88 -> mbidding 12 Jun 2016 15:30
I'll argue that the system itself is set up to make almost anyone into a bullshitter or shill.
How can someone run against someone for months, then lose, then say that they endorse them after
all? One might ask: "Are you lying now or were you lying then, during the campaign?". I'm a European,
looking on, and there's much to vex an onlooker, believe me.
That's part of the reason why Bernie's in a tight spot. If he turned around and started saying
how great Hillary is, he'd be almost disavowing his own wonderful campaign but, at the same time,
he doesn't want the short-fingered scoundrel to win and Hillary's the only weapon to hand, so
that's why he had to step carefully after his Obama meeting. Falling in behind Hillary could splinter
his support in all directions. People have to understand that he's boxed in. He made a decision
not to run as a Green and went all in but now he's got to be very careful.
Everyone's a Monday morning quarterback but one argument is that Warren miscalculated; that
the Clintons respect power and that she'd actually have more weight if she *had* swung in behind
Sanders at the start and then come to Hillary after she won. That would have shown strength of
conviction and Warren's post-Sanders endorsement might have carried weight with the public at
large and the Clintons: Warren would have won either way.
Another argument is that because Warren made a point of resisting endorsing Hillary during
the campaign that, de facto, was an endorsement of Sanders in effect. Warren also wrote a couple
of op-eds during the race which were like big smoke signals saying: "Vote Bernie! Vote Bernie!".
Matthew Hartman -> SenseCir 12 Jun 2016 15:30
No, what she'll likely do is pander to both the left and right like her master did. This is
what centrists or "New Democrats" as coined by her husband in the 90's do.
They promise things on the campaign trail and actually deliver maybe 10% of it. The remaining
90% goes to corporate welfare.
So come next Tuesday Sander's is going to meet with her and demand she adopt's Bernie's policies
and she's going to say yes so Bernie will throw his endorsement behind her. She thinks this will
secure Bernie's supporters. Then she's going to turn around and run to the left to grab those
disenfranchised Republicans that are'nt sure about Trump.
Then when she's finally POTUS she's going to do whatever the hell she wants to do.
This woman doesn't want positive change for the American people. She wants to be president.
apacheman 12 Jun 2016 15:17
No, Clinton isn't going to get a lot of Sanders' supporters, but she might get a lot of
Republican votes, since she's much closer to them than to progressives. I'd wager most Sanders
supporters will vote Green, which is more their natural home than the Democratic Party. Those
who won't vote Green will likely not vote at all.
The Democrats are fond of gloating that voters have no choice but to vote for them, but the
reality is they have several choices other than voting for blatant corruption.
Michael Imanual Christos -> simpledino 12 Jun 2016 15:13
Sanders makes sense and in many ways Clinton has parroted Sanders to draw from his support
pool, but Clinton is disingenuous and Sanders supporters realize that.
The party Super delegates are the stich within. The Democrats employed an unethical bias into
its nomination process that completely undermines the integrity of US elections.
Employing Super delegates to sway the nomination against a popular vote for the nominee
shows just how corrupt and contemptible the party is.
We the people must not let this type of party singularity continue.
Michael Imanual Christos 12 Jun 2016 13:44
I don't believe many Sanders supporters could endorse either party's nominee under the
circumstances and are therefore going unrepresented in this election. Speaking for myself, I cannot
support Clinton due to her commitments to the big money donors to her campaign. She can't be candid
about her policy since those donors interests are incongruent with the interests of average Americans.
Clinton cannot serve two masters.
And Donald Trump is a film flam man. He has no clue (even if he thinks he does) how to run
this country or about how the country runs.
When a man criticizes trade deals past with rhetoric of Mr. Sanders solid position and without
characterizing the faults but (again without characterizing specifics) suggests he can make "fantastic"
trade agreements, it shows his lack of knowledge and is just lip service.
Mr. Trump, please tell us specifically what you believe the current trade deals have adversely
effecting the US, and what deals you'll renegotiate to bring balance to the US economy?
I will vote but not for either party in this election.
Without Sanders at the helm, I hold to little hope for my grand babies future.
peter nelson -> JackGC 12 Jun 2016 12:45
Both Trump and Sanders are waiting on the results of the FBI investigation. WaPo says that,
unlike Holder, Lynch doesn't play political games and won't bow to pressure from Obama to not
indict Hillary when the report comes out.
daWOID 12 Jun 2016 12:36
Oh, Guardian, Guardian, you've sunk even below your own depths of meretriciousness.
Here's another headline of yours:
WikiLeaks to publish more Hillary Clinton emails - Julian Assange
New release likely to fan controversy and provide further ammunition for Republican presidential
rival Donald Trump.
Not: "New release likely to show how corrupt, if not outright criminal Clinton is." Just
"being found out as a perjurer and a crook is going to present a PR problem." The ethics of a
flea. And I'm not just talking about Hillary.
peter nelson -> Suga 12 Jun 2016 12:34
Why do you think it's just the Republicans? You think Hillary is an "honorable" candidate?
American politics is so sleazy and corrupt that neither party is capable of fielding an "honorable
candidate".
BTW, Wikileaks is about to publish more of Hillary's emails - stay tuned!
curiouswes -> OurPlanet 12 Jun 2016 12:25
If he was a man true to his word ,why is he not running( Ross Perot) on an Independent ticket.
In case you haven't noticed, the deck is stacked against 3rd party candidates. Why do you think
Bernie ran as a democrat? Why did Ron Paul run as a republican? Perot was a disaster for the Dems
and Reps because he showed that both sides are bought. We don't have a choice between being sold
out and not being sold out. Our choice is between being sold out by whom
curiouswes -> Zepp 12 Jun 2016 12:10
Please don't mistake me for a Hillary supporter. I think she's a very poor choice. But
Trump is a lunatic.
So your point seems to be that we'd be better off with a sane, methodical opportunistic shyster
than we would be with an insane reckless opportunistic shyster. I think that is a fair point but
it is debatable in that we cannot trust what comes out of Trump's mouth so what you perceive as
lunacy could just be the sort of empty rhetoric that HRC continues to fill the heads of her supporters
with.
HRC has a record (no pun intended). If you have examined that record on your own (rather
than through the eyes of a biased media) and can see death is so much better than Armageddon,
I'll respect your point of view. I'm no Obama fan but I will admit that after he screwed
with Putin, he had the sanity to back down in order to avoid nuclear holocaust.
Trump may have the savvy not to screw with Putin in the git, but once the fire is set,
he could be insane enough to pour gasoline on the fire. HRC is going to continue screwing with
Putin, the middle class and anybody else who gets in her way. Can you live with that?
Ligaya Barlow 12 Jun 2016 11:44
If Bernie wants his movement to succeed with revolutionary promise, he should have his name
placed in nomination at the convention then give a rousing speech on national television. Then
he should continue his candidacy as a Green or independent. Sanders-Stein. To be sure he would
get the 15% necessary to take part in the debates. This scenario has the following possible outcomes:
1. He could win the general election.
2. He could throw the election to Trump, culminating in a presidential disaster that would
end the Republican Party as a national party, and open the way to a multiparty system.
3. He could amass enough electoral votes to throw the issue into the House, whose Republican
majority would be put in a position where, if they reject Trump and therefore their own party's
electorate, the party is destroyed; if they elect him, the party is destroyed.This will be the
first step toward abolishing the electoral college, a progressive victory.
4. Clinton wins, but narrowly and at a price: no mandate or consensus, the likely outcome anyway.
If Bernie wants to avoid the dustbin of history, this is what he must do.
His revolutionary movement must include (a.) The abolishment of the electoral college and (b.)
The end of the two party system. Now us the time.
Does sociopathic warmonger Hillary really have any chances? I doubt that many Sanders supporters
will vote for her, although I know one. Many probably will vote for Jill Stein, which implisidly will
be voting for Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... "You're not reporting, do your job!" yelled Chris Einfeldt, 54, an attorney in a baseball cap, jabbing his fingers toward the TV cameras. "You have a sacred duty to democracy to do your job – this is advocacy!" ..."
"... Much has been written about those "Bernie or Bust" supporters who insist they cannot back Clinton in November. ..."
"... "I'm not going to vote for a lesser of two evils, I'm still going to get an evil," said Wesley Stewart, a 19-year-old at Sanders rally in San Francisco. ..."
"... When I worked in his 2008 campaign (definitely lesser of two evils), I was amazed that many thought he was a liberal and a not inconsiderable number a "progressive". ..."
"... I may or may not vote for him, but I will never vote for Hillary. As stated above, we already know her penchant for killing, for accumulating wealth at ANY cost, and flagrant disregard for rules concerning our national interests. ..."
"... My conscience tells me to vote Jill, but I will do anything with my vote to keep Hillary out of the White House. ..."
"... She is arrogant, dismissive and insensitive and has a career record any sane person would be proud of. ..."
"... The main reason that Sanders is losing (the FBI holds the key), is because the rich control the media and the politicians. The system is rigged in favor of the rich and that is why Clinton has their support. Sanders would have the rich pay a fairer share of taxes and that is not what they want to hear. Bezos, who owns The Washington Post is responsible for the scummiest "journalism" I've ever seen with his daily dumping on Sanders. ..."
"... Please give more support to the alternative media and less to the mainstream media and its owners like Bezos. Support Jeff Cohen.org and Roots Action.org , who support alternative media. ..."
"... Will HRC destroy the Democratic Party too? Stay tuned. ..."
"... Clinton means perpetual war for perpetual dollars, more banking frauds, the worst legislation in u.s. history since her husband ushered in gatt, nafta and the 1996 telecommunications act--the TPP. ..."
"... It borders on inconceivable that Clinton didn't know that the emails she received, and more obviously, the emails that she created, stored and sent with the server, would contain classified information. Simply put, Mrs. Clinton is already in just as bad - or worse - of a legal situation than Petraeus faced. ..."
"... She broke the law. She should face criminal prosecution for it. ..."
"... No sane person will deny that she was selling arms for donations to the Clinton Foundation. ..."
"... She formerly railed about closing "tax loophole" accounts, and then was found with tens of millions of dollars in one in Delaware. ..."
"... She lies. She is self-serving and power hungry. She thinks nothing of taking human life (We came. we saw, he died..Cackle, cackle). No Progressive would act in that nature. She is unfit to be President. ..."
"... Kennedy said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." I fear that things will only get worse from here. ..."
"... What has become clear in this primary is that the Democratic Party has devolved into a cult of personality centered on Clinton, one devoted to neocon policies designed to usher in an era of rule by corporations. ..."
"... The Clinton cultists are oblivious to her sociopathic inability to tell the truth, or even attempt to keep her lies straight, her repeated criminality in failing to abide by the laws that protect national security while at the same time calling for prosecutions of others whose violations were lesser than hers, her constant errors of judgment, the blatant rigging of the elections through voter suppression, purging of voter lists, switching of party registration and hacking of voting machines. ..."
"... Besides reinforcing the campaign pillar of Hillary's single best trait -- not being Donald -- we have no idea what Donald will do in office. Hillary, we know, will support banks and corporations desires (i.e. disappearing middle-class opportunities and a downward spiraling global environment), and will continue our undeniably misdirected wars (i.e. mass destitution, migration, and terror). ..."
"... If Obama had not been a fraud, they might have gone to the polls. ..."
"... Yeah, Sanders was the most successful socialist, but Hillary was the even more successful neocon shill of Wall Street. ..."
"... Progressives are the ones who show up, volunteer, commit to the issues. Push them away and all you have left is lobbyist funded politicians who put their donors first. ..."
"... You do realise the AP released the news that superdelegates have been surveyed and according to the number who say they're voting for her, she's won! Let's imagine you have a poll about the Brexit referendum, and the results are 65% for Brexit, will you officially claim it's Brexit? And if you do, will you even dare call yourselves journalists afterwards? (though you did commit this article, so...) ..."
"... And third, because the Democratic primaries, that I observe from France, are rife with election fraud like I never thought could exist in a so-called "Western democracy", let alone in the self-appointed "leader of the free world", mouhahaha, and that you have to get to alternative news, youtube documenting videos or social media to hear a word about it. ..."
"... Hillary is on her own team that just so happens to be under the DNC just like Bernie. They are NOT on the same team. The difference being Bernie cares about more people than those that include "Me". ..."
"... Everyone has been bashing Bernie and his honeymoon in the USSR, but why is no one talking about Bill's 500K speaker fees in Russia for a bank linked to the kremlin? ..."
"... Debbie won't retain DNC Chairman, she admitted on national television the role of the DNC is to prevent establishment candidates from facing grass roots activists. Read: Corporate sponsored runners vs anyone else. ..."
"... The Guardian as well as the rest of the mainstream media have been smearing Bernie from Day One. I, as well as many others, have noticed how this new site has changed in the last year. ..."
"... What's insane is pretending that the primaries were fair, given that Bill, Hill and the DNC engaged in hacking voting machines, purging new voter rolls, closing polling places without notice, shortening poll hours, handing out ballots that aren't counted, abandoning exit polls to verify results. Oh, and Clinton colluding with the media to suppress last Tuesday's primaries by declaring her the nominee the night before. ..."
"... Also, thanks president Obama for endorsing Hillary even though she could be indicted for treason, corruption, national security breeches, and constant lies. Heckuva job Barack! ..."
"... You apparently are naïve enough to not fully understand the hell that a Clinton presidency will unleash?? You do know that her husband was responsible for destroying the party by selling out to corporate and banker interests and the military industrial complex, right? You do know that NAFTA was the beginning of the end of manufacturing in the US and solid jobs for middle and working class Americans? You do know that she wants to get all up in Putin in Syria? ..."
"... People forget just how far the entire political spectrum has been dragged into the right-field weeds over the last 30 years by an orchestrated effort with its roots in the rubble of Barry Goldwater's campaign which enlisted religious whackos and assorted Ayn Rand fetishists to the cause. ..."
"... We're at the point now where anyone advancing even Ronald Reagan's positions on taxation could not be nominated dogcatcher by today's GOP base. ..."
"... Politicians who once were marginally sane (even John McCain signed on with Russ Feingold years ago to question the wisdom of unlimited money being sluiced into the electoral system) and referred to as "moderate republicans" are all but gone from the GOP, and politicians who would once have been called "moderate republicans" are now heavy hitters in the Democrat party establishment. Hillary Clinton being a notable example of one of them. ..."
"... The new paperback version of her 2014 Hard Choices book (you won't find her server choice in it ... too easy) does not include the hardback's Trans-Pacific Partnership passages, because she firmly counts on you, the prospective American reader and voter, to be gullible and stupid (as has been readily evident since March of last year). ..."
"... Voting for Hillary Clinton is not a concession, it is consent. ..."
"... Disagree: Sanders simply brought the schisms within the DP to light, divisions that began with the DLC took over the DNC in 1985 and used that power to repudiate FDR and repeal the New Deal; while Sanders' campaign became a vehicle for organizing and activating the FDR/New-Deal wing(s) of the DP base. ..."
"... Given that the new line from Team Clinton to Sanders supporters is "fuck off, we don't need you", it shouldn't surprise anyone that the sentiment is being returned in kind. ..."
"... The Guardian poll is a bit of chicanery passing for science. An n-size of 1,046 seems reasonable until you read, they are not Sanders supporters, they are drawn from all voters. In fact it looks like only about 200 are genuine Sander supporters which drops your n-size to a little better than shit. ..."
"... The problem for me lies in that I KNOW Hillary Clinton is deceitful, has been lying about many, many things, is very power-hungry, and, in my opinion, evil. Donald Trump is bombastic and says some unpleasant things, but he does not want to go to war, and he wants to bring jobs back to the U.S. As a Sanders supporter, I can only hope that the F.B.I. does their job soon or I will have to vote for Trump. He could not be more evil than Hillary. ..."
"... It's hardly any surprise the MSM has tried to ignore and marginalize Bernie so much - it goes well with their efforts to bury or re-frame Hillary's history of deception, apparent impropriety, their evasion of reporting about the ridiculous exit poll discrepancies (even outside of AZ) and their efforts to switch the controversy of Roberta Lange in Nevada 180 degrees and try framing the outrage as being motivated by sexism. ..."
"... The MSM have been deceitful, disseminated propaganda (both applicable across the board), censored their audiences (CNN), switched audience polls with market-betting-odds to hide their audience's views (CNN), sabotaged their own polls (NPR), harassed superdelegates into commitment before they can technically commit in order to call it for Hillary early (AP / MSNBC). ..."
"... The slimy, manipulative, corporate-agenda-carrying propagandists are mostly with her. ..."
In scenes reminiscent of Donald Trump rallies, some turned on reporters, furious the media outlets,
not voters, were declaring the outcome.
"You're not reporting, do your job!" yelled Chris Einfeldt, 54, an attorney in a baseball
cap, jabbing his fingers toward the TV cameras. "You have a sacred duty to democracy to do your job
– this is advocacy!"
... ... ...
Much has been written about those "Bernie or Bust" supporters who insist they cannot back
Clinton in November. Many of them indeed appear unwilling to budge, even in the face of a Republican
nominee like Trump.
"I'm not going to vote for a lesser of two evils, I'm still going to get an evil," said Wesley
Stewart, a 19-year-old at Sanders rally in San Francisco.
Trump also believes his populist, outsider, campaign could lure some disaffected Sanders voters,
although it is rare to find fans of the Vermont senator who countenance supporting the billionaire.
WCM896 -> Ben Cantwell 11 Jun 2016 22:11
Nope.
The Incumbent was always with the establishment.
When I worked in his 2008 campaign (definitely lesser of two evils), I was amazed that
many thought he was a liberal and a not inconsiderable number a "progressive". I was even
told by more than a few starry eyed voters that with his persuasive ways and superior intellect,
he would persuade the GOP to enter into a new era of bipartisanship. I had to bite my lip really
hard to keep from breaking out in a chortle at any of these delusions. But, heck, we were trying
to win an election. So you go to the polls with the morons you have not with the intelligent voters
you wish you had to paraphrase our greatest SecDef in 2003 (note that limitation).
Some folks are just starting to awake to the fact that the current messiah is also part of
the establishment. Revolution by the Tsar's nephew really ain't a revolution.
Heathenlullaby -> nevermind84 11 Jun 2016 22:03
He ants to "bomb the hell out of ISIS", target the families of terrorists for murder, and has
a super secret plan to wipe out ISIS that he can't tell us about, which presumably involves boots
on the ground.
All of which is currently happening- Obama's Tuesday kill list has for years been targeting
and murdering innocent family members (at weddings for example) - He has put more money into Nuclear
technology than any president in history. Including tactical 'small' nuclear drone based weaponry,
which could quickly escalate into full blown nuclear world war if used. Hillary/Obama have deliberately
escalated tensions with Russia and China. This will continue under Hillary. I take some refuge
in the fact that Both Putin and Xi Jiping find Trump their preferred diplomat. Trump has questioned
American mass military presence in Asia (guns aimed at China) and also wants to restore relations
with Russia. Yes - he is unpredictable, but these small gestures could save the world from a grave
danger. It's no joke- we are extremely lucky that this War has not broken out already under current
Obama Administration. They have done everything to prompt it.
judyblue -> aeausa 11 Jun 2016 21:58
I'm going to LOL if the Democratic Party has to take a secret vote of the super-delegates in
Philadelphia. Democracy done in a corner is not democracy.
Diniz Ramos De Deus Sunset Blue 11 Jun 2016 21:57
It is pragmatic to support Jill Stein. She is a great candidate. There is no sense trying to
convince people to support a dead horse like Hillary but Jill is great everyone can vote for her.
Timothy Everton -> desertrat49 11 Jun 2016 21:49
Hillary is a known disaster. Trump is a "pretend" one. You don't get to the multi-billion dollar
category by being foolish. He's crazy like a fox.
The real point is: Trump IS destroying the Republican Party!! They are doing everything they
can to be rid of him, including trying to change the rules of party nomination!
I may or may not vote for him, but I will never vote for Hillary. As stated above, we already
know her penchant for killing, for accumulating wealth at ANY cost, and flagrant disregard for
rules concerning our national interests. She would do FAR more damage to this country than
Trump.
My conscience tells me to vote Jill, but I will do anything with my vote to keep Hillary
out of the White House.
Sunset Blue -> FugitiveColors 11 Jun 2016 21:43
What she really is, is a liberal who will do far more for progressives, being a pragmatist,
than some head in the clouds loser like Sanders who has done NOTHING in 30 years in politics.
She is arrogant, dismissive and insensitive and has a career record any sane person would
be proud of.
Georgine Henry 11 Jun 2016 21:36
Watch Jill Stein, Green Party in an uplifting interview from Democracy Now! She points out
that voting for the lesser evil has no upside/only a downside because it has given us exactly
what we have now!
She goes on, Trump says very scary things, deporting immigrants, massive militarism, and ignoring
the climate, well Hillary has a track record for doing all of those things!!! We are rushing towards
war with Hillary Clinton! The terrible things we might expect from Donald Trump we've already
seen from Hillary Clinton! Don't be a victim of this propaganda campaign – which is being waged
by people who have selective amnesia – very quick to tell you about the terrible things the Republicans
did, but very quick to forget the equally terrible things that have happened under a Democratic
White House with two Democratic houses of Congress. It's important to move ahead and take back
the America and the world that works for all of us, based on putting people, planet and peace
over profit.
Isn't this often the case, someone (Stein) explains something and immediately you recognize
it makes sense – why doing what you've always done, voting for the lesser evil, in this case Trump
or Hillary depending on your perspective, will continue hurtling us down the same destructive
path! As Stein urges us, stand up and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it,
because they do! Finally I'm clear, no more dilemma, no voting for Trump or Hillary – I'm excited
to watch and see what Stein and Bernie do!
The main reason that Sanders is losing (the FBI holds the key), is because the rich control
the media and the politicians. The system is rigged in favor of the rich and that is why Clinton
has their support. Sanders would have the rich pay a fairer share of taxes and that is not what
they want to hear. Bezos, who owns The Washington Post is responsible for the scummiest "journalism"
I've ever seen with his daily dumping on Sanders.
Please give more support to the alternative media and less to the mainstream media and
its owners like Bezos. Support Jeff Cohen.org and Roots Action.org , who support alternative media.
DracoFerret -> JimmySands 11 Jun 2016 21:00
Will HRC destroy the Democratic Party too? Stay tuned.
DanInTheDesert -> ExcaliburDefender 11 Jun 2016 20:46
Obama dismantled the coalition he built as soon as he got in office.
Single payer action was asked to not make trouble and their requests to meet with the president
were refused. If you are getting your news from the Guardian you should also check out Black Agenda
Report and DemocracyNow! -- both of which have covered the dismantling of the progressive coalition
pretty well.
QuetzalLove1 11 Jun 2016 20:45
Bernie supporter here switched to Independent yesterday (less than 5 minutes online) -- to
send signal to Dems that 42 to 48% of voters are Independents. We will likely decide by sheer
numbers the outcome of the election. Most of us are Independents because we feel conned by both
established parties who are owned by corporate interests. This is also true for many Trump supporters.
So HC -- either move decisively NOW to re-regulating banks, breaking up largest banks and insurance
companies, instituting an enormous jobs program in the areas of climate change to clean up our
country &rebuild our polluted and decaying infrastructure (from lead pipes to leaking mines &
so much more), enable our young people to receive free tuition for four years of college (instead
of forcing so many into the killing and maiming fields we have accepted so blindly for well into
two decades); and much more.
It's too late to "go slow". Trump will self-destruct -- we see more evidence every day -- we
need not worry about him. He has given us an exceptional opportunity to destroy the GOP.
MeereeneseLiberation -> devanand54 11 Jun 2016 20:42
Sanders is a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST. Not a "socialist."
Well, a HISTORICAL MATERIALIST is still a "materialist", a MOUNTAIN BIKE is still a "bike,"
and a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST is -- by all laws of logic and linguistics -- still a "socialist."
Socialism is a broad church, after all. And if it's such a horrific M$M insult to call Sanders
a socialist, why does he insist on identifying as such? Why doesn't he just call himself, far
more accurately, a social democrat? Or, maybe even more accurately, a populist?
And, just out of curiosity: Is there a difference between democratic socialists and DEMOCRATIC
SOCIALISTS? Not that I get it wrong again!
The Sanders platform is what - sorry Donald - made America "great" in the 40's - 60's.
I'm not altogether sure how much the people of Guatemala, Iran, or Vietnam would agree on America's
greatness when it comes to the 1950's and -60's. (MtnClimber already pointed out you're not talking
about "America," but about White America. More precisely: White Male America.)
tiggerpup -> Bjornpolitics 11 Jun 2016 20:40
The passion that Bernie has inspired by the younger generation won't go away because they grow
up. Evetually the mature base of the vote will be filled with people who have evolved their political
ideals based on such passion and energy that hasn't been seen in the younger generations in a
long time, if not forever. Socialism will never be a bad word to this generation, they didn't
grow up with the 'red scare' that so many of the older generation still cling to nowadays... proof
that just because you grow up doesn't change your beliefs and political ideology.
Timothy Everton 11 Jun 2016 20:31
"Clinton and her campaign have reiterated that the information transmitted was not classified
"at the time", but the inspectors general, as well as reporting by the New York Times and others,
said that it, in fact, was classified at the time. Information is considered classified if its
disclosure would likely harm national security, and government procedures and protocols require
that such information be sent or stored only on government computer networks with government safeguards"
And this is the person many people want to put in charge of national security?
The candidate who railed about closing "tax loophole" accounts, and is found to have tens of millions
of dollars in one in Delaware?
The person who was trading arms for donations to the Clinton Foundation?
Her "I misspokes" and many "It was a mistake" concerning issues such as support for the Keystone
Pipeline, TPP, TIPP and more until she saw herself losing ground in the polls to Bernie Sanders??
"We came, we saw, he died...Cackle, cackle"
You actually want this person for your President?
As Jill Stein has basically said: The things you worry about Trump doing, Hillary has already
done.
ChelseaPete -> desertrat49 11 Jun 2016 20:11
Well, it requires organization and an electorate that is energized for every election. The
Right has this figured out. They dominate local and state elections, and then use that power to
redraw Congressional districts. It would be nice if the Bernie supporters would start organizing
locally and stand for things like school board elections (which are frequently surrendered to
the religious Right). I would love for them to go door to door in their communities and stand
for state legislative elections.
But it seems they're not willing to put in the actual work involved to do this. Much easier
to poke the eyes of fellow Democrats and progressives and gnash their teeth at "the system." A
revolution has to be a quiet revolution working within the system to change thing incrementally,
step by step. But incremental is a dirty word for Bernie fans. They want immediate change -- but
they're never going to get that. Change is hard work, something they're apparently not accustomed
to.
yinyanggrl ChelseaPete 11 Jun 2016 20:09
You're just essentially saying he voted against the Brady Bill, which is correct. You have
not listed a single specific piece of legislation that would have in any way impacted the occurrence
or outcome of Sandy Hook. But I can list many other votes which would have made a difference:
In 2013, he voted FOR Amendment 711, Prohibiting the Sale of Automatic Weapons (which failed
to pass)
Also in 2013, he voted FOR Amendment 174, Limiting Firearm Magazine capacity
I could go on. I'm not here to distort the facts. Sanders is a moderate on gun control, more
moderate than I am.
Sanders comes from a hunting state -- a state where even the most left-wing people I know own
and use guns (I don't live there, but I have friends who do). I don't dispute that he tries to
represent those constituents.
But there is zero argument for calling him "Sandershook." Really, it makes the skin crawl that
you think you can leap to that conclusion. Good luck with that.
Billy Wolf -> Ryan Lipshay 11 Jun 2016 20:08
You speak for a whole lot of us..And We will see you at the convention.. All 40,000 of us...We
will not fail....Its too important and Washington does NOTHING for the people..They all need to
be removed ASAP...As a Dem I am so disappointed in this Corrupt Party...It is no longer the party
of the People and has not been for a long time..DWS and HRC need to be gone ASAP.
Sanders /Stein 2016
Morris Davidson -> gettinggolder 11 Jun 2016 20:01
It is unthinkable to me that anybody who supports sanders could vote for clinton. people are
saying that this movement won't go away and it seems from minute to minute they keep falling into
the myth that we actually have elections. the bernie movement will keep being suppressed. he would
have been the rightful winner of the primary season but has been outflanked by the DNC and the
demonic wasserman-schultz.
Before voting for clinton consider this. she is directly responsible for the murder of over
a million people by supporting every single military action in her tenure so far.
She and her criminal cabal have stolen the election from the only candidate who has spoken
honestly and passionately since eugene mccarthy.
She is a shill for the banking industry.
She committed treason and is a serial liar. she is the enemy.
One could argue that things might be better under trump. the bottom line here is do you want
to vote for the candidate who derailed the only candidate that could have possible affected some
change where it will actually affect our lives for the better.
Clinton means perpetual war for perpetual dollars, more banking frauds, the worst legislation
in u.s. history since her husband ushered in gatt, nafta and the 1996 telecommunications act--the
TPP.
all of that will affect our lives for the worse, our tax dollars will continue to go to cold
blooded murder, our health care costs and services will be even more expensive and confusing then
they could have been, more jobs will go out of the country, the rich will NEVER be taxed and we
will continue to finance the global takeover of everything.
Hillary Clinton is the enemy.
Timothy Everton -> GreatLizard 11 Jun 2016 19:57
It borders on inconceivable that Clinton didn't know that the emails she received, and
more obviously, the emails that she created, stored and sent with the server, would contain classified
information. Simply put, Mrs. Clinton is already in just as bad - or worse - of a legal situation
than Petraeus faced.
She broke the law. She should face criminal prosecution for it.
No sane person will deny that she was selling arms for donations to the Clinton Foundation.
She formerly railed about closing "tax loophole" accounts, and then was found with tens
of millions of dollars in one in Delaware.
She lies. She is self-serving and power hungry. She thinks nothing of taking human life
(We came. we saw, he died..Cackle, cackle). No Progressive would act in that nature. She is unfit
to be President.
apacheman ExcaliburDefender 11 Jun 2016 19:48
What happens is that the long, hard slog to restore the country begins.
I would expect a lot of executive orders to create greater transparency, fewer drone strikes,
more accountable intelligence agencies, more union-friendly environments.
I would expect the appointment of strong leaders to the Justice Department with marching orders
to shift resources from pursuing pot shops to bringing banksters before the courts.
I would expect the appointment of a Treasury Secretary not beholden to Wall Street.
In short, I would expect a strong effort to clean up the corruption pervading DC.
I would also expect him to engage the people of this country, mobilizing them to fight for
what is theirs and to breathe new life into the political process form the federal level down
to county levels.
I would expect Obama's failed and forgotten "Hope and Change" to actually reach fruition in
a Sanders administration.
gettinggolder 11 Jun 2016 19:47
My family came from Ukraine and my husbands from Belorus. His father remembered the revolution.
Our relatives remembered their losses with sorrow. But that was their experience, not mine and
probably not yours. It is time to give this up and not wallow in resentment about experiences
of previous generations. That way lies perpetual anger and war.
Diniz Ramos -> De Deus Morris1798 11 Jun 2016 19:38
The corporate media is clueless and so are most people I'm afraid. Even something basic like
food goes way over their heads. They think that spraying poison on it and growing in dead soils
is going to produce good food. It is the corporate education system you know these people are
learning from text books written by monsanto. There will be those that know and are just lieing
but some of them really believe all this nonsense and it is. Pretty much their whole reality is
a fiction built out of corporate lies for profit.
Ryan Lipshay 11 Jun 2016 19:08
Kennedy said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution
inevitable." I fear that things will only get worse from here. We will not back down, we
will not give in, and we will take our country back, through what ever means necessary. Maybe
not everyone shares my sentiment, but perhaps more will with time. Bernie has inspired an entire
generation and we will see to it that things change.
Jared Hall -> Morris1798 11 Jun 2016 18:58
Eugene Debs died 8 years before Stalin came to power. How could he have possibly "praised Stalin's
USSR" ?
It appears your version of events is based entirely on a history that you just made up.
daveybaby -> Sappho53 11 Jun 2016 18:57
Look at her foreign policy choices as senator & SoS for the real Hillary Clinton. Iraq invasion
as important for liberation and to bring capitalism to their economy. She said that. Libya. We
came we saw he died. She said that. Silence on Saudi Arabia. Silence on Egypt. Silence on Bharain.
Ineptitude on so many levels as she visited 100 countries and still left the disaster of the Middle
East to Kerry. She is a Cold War ideologue, and it will show how so soon.
greven 11 Jun 2016 18:53
Things have changed and will change more. This is a very different situation not experienced
since the 1930's but this time people are becoming aware that it's only Americans who are being
screwed in other modern nations people have none of the problems blighting their lives. In no
other nation do you risk bankruptcy if you become ill, in no other nation do you have to go back
to work a couple of weeks after giving birth, in no other nation do you need 2 jobs and still
not getting ahead, in no other nation do so many people live from pay check to pay check with
no safety net. When a majority realizes that some else decided they should live that way and it's
not fate then they will realize someone can decide to change it.
hillbillyzombie 11 Jun 2016 18:28
I think Bernie has a good chance of seeing his agenda advanced, assuming the Democrats keep
the Presidency and regain at least the Senate. For one thing, Bernie personally will have a larger
role in the coming Senate.
Bernie doesn't seem to want to be in the Senate leadership, but I bet he wouldn't turn down
a committee chairmanship, like maybe Finance. I think Ron Wyden is the current ranking member,
but I bet he'd step aside to let Bernie take on the Banks directly. Hillary would have to sign
whatever legislation Bernie sent her. And in any event, he will be the de facto leader of the
progressive wing of the party. That's not nothing.
The Republicans, on the other hand, are boned. Trump publicly advocates a religious test for
entry to the country. That's a pretty fundamental assault on a basic principle upon which our
republic was founded.
On the Democratic side, the criticisms of Hillary revolve around her personal corruption, or
lack thereof. But Democrats as a whole agree on most basic principles, from the economic reforms
needed in banking and campaign financing stressed by Bernie supporters to the issues of racism
and sexism that Hillary supporters feel she best addresses. Both groups largely agree on a broad
range of policies. That's not a bad place for a party to be, however awkward it may appear at
the present.
Contrast that with the state of the Republican party. Trump seems to accurately reflect the
views and mood of the base - angry and looking for someone to blame. He's normalized language
and behavior I haven't heard since my youth in the 60's, down in the South.
So Republican elites are in a bind. Cross Trump and you run the risk of becoming electoral
toast. The alternative is to join up, sell your soul, and buy a few brown suits.
NottaBot -> Lissette Gomez 11 Jun 2016 18:25
the urgency is now that a woman is nominated.
The "urgency" is that the wife of a former president (and darling of Wall Street) is nominated.
There, fixed it for you.
When a REAL woman, a person who made it there all on her own, is nominated, us Berniebros will
be the first to support her.
Me, I'm keeping my eye on Kshama Sawant, city councilor of Seattle and a real Socialist. Maybe
in 8 or 12 years she'll be ready for the national stage. She's a real fighter for working people
and not the wife of some disgraced ex-politician.
apacheman 11 Jun 2016 18:20
What has become clear in this primary is that the Democratic Party has devolved into a
cult of personality centered on Clinton, one devoted to neocon policies designed to usher in an
era of rule by corporations.
The Clinton cultists are oblivious to her sociopathic inability to tell the truth, or even
attempt to keep her lies straight, her repeated criminality in failing to abide by the laws that
protect national security while at the same time calling for prosecutions of others whose violations
were lesser than hers, her constant errors of judgment, the blatant rigging of the elections through
voter suppression, purging of voter lists, switching of party registration and hacking of voting
machines.
We are at a moment in history that defines the future of this country.
Any student of history sees the symptoms of imminent collapse, the pattern has been repeated
hundreds of times before: a nation falls under the control of a limited group of corrupt families
whose members or carefully selected, controllable "outsiders" are appointed leaders through family
connections and wealthy backers under whose control they are, and who are mostly incompetent sock
puppets who give the elites whatever they want.
The incompetence gives rise to demagogues like Trump and to patriotic restorative movements
like Bernie's.
What happens next depends on how well the populace understands what's at stake.
Clinton will help cement the rule of the oligarchs gradually implementing policies, appointments,
and fostering laws that degrade individual liberties in the name of corporate control masquerading
as public safety. She will foment more wars to profit the oligarchs, creating more enemies. Under
Clinton, you can expect a further reduction in the standard of living as more corporate-friendly
judges are appointed, and trade deals like the TPP and TTIP surrender national sovereignty to
corporate courts.
She's a slow walk to an openly oligarchical system based on the idea that the Congress has
proven to be dysfunctional and an impediment to good governance, that only the knowledgeable businessmen
and politicians of select families are capable of managing a modern country.
Trump is a fast walk to chaos, out of which anything might emerge, both good or bad, but the
odds are on bad.
Bernie represents the common sense of the country pushing back against the oligarchs. His phenomenon
is one with the spirit that created Occupy Wall Street and MoveOn. What his opponents can't understand
is that it isn't so much about him in particular, as about the ideas he brings to the table and
the fact that he gives a focus to opposition to the oligarchs.
They, being cultists themselves, can't separate the man from the ideas, and think that if the
stop the man they stop the ideas.
That ain't happening.
Sure, they can prevent Bernie from getting the nomination, but they can't force his supporters
to support them, and they can't make his ideas and proposals go away.
The people have awakened to the danger the country is in, and the slimy plans of the oligarchs
to do away with effective democracy through election rigging.
What is occurring is in fact, a non-violent civil war.
I just pray it doesn't devolve into a violently hot one, but the danger is clearly there.
desertrat49 -> whotosupport 11 Jun 2016 18:19
Just as the Civil War was an inevitable result of unresolved issues at the founding....and
those issues of race and inequality still reverberate...it has long been my fear that another
such conflict is not impossible....one that would result in the breakup of the nation into several
regions. We are definitely in a period not unlike the 1840s/1850s....and the final implosion of
the Republican Party appears to be at hand....with the Democratic Party to follow if it doesn't
mend its Plutocratic ways.
The Trump campaign ( representing a party that wants to see the end of a Federal government!),
promises to further exacerbate the rifts and rents.....which will continue to divide the country
no matter who wins ...with continued gridlock and dysfunction. History does not have a good take
on what the final result of a trend like this tends to be: revolution, civil war and dictatorship
( of one kind or another) is what history offers up!
makaio -> desertrat49 11 Jun 2016 18:17
Besides reinforcing the campaign pillar of Hillary's single best trait -- not being Donald
-- we have no idea what Donald will do in office. Hillary, we know, will support banks and corporations
desires (i.e. disappearing middle-class opportunities and a downward spiraling global environment),
and will continue our undeniably misdirected wars (i.e. mass destitution, migration, and terror).
The Trump as dictator theory, besides being crucial to Hillary's as-long-as-it's-not-about-me
campaign, and unless you're into Robert Kagan's comedy piece on facism, has no present logical
basis whatsoever beyond his stupid statements.
geot22 -> Morris1798 11 Jun 2016 18:09
I sympathize. Well, it's not obvious, is it?
Some Sanders supports, the ones that make movements, will disappoint the staid. They will vote
Green, if Bernie ultimately drops his own bid.
Greens will, of course, lose. The inured will sadly, mock-wisely, nod their heads. But I hope
everyone takes note of the issue, the third party blockade; the duopoly that prevents third parties
from forming by the all-or-nothing ballot, the object that gives people The Fear; the fear of
splitting the vote. It can be quickly cured.
Jill Green is the only candidate invested in Ranked Choice voting (I've always called it instant
runoff voting). This enables multiparty democracy, whereas the all-or-nothing ballot we have,
as you see, kills it.
I understand why Rep.s are for this inhibition of democracy; democracy was never their cause,
but only vague republic, the likes of which may as well be served by kings. But why Democrats?
I understand why Libertarians are against it, for though their name sounds perfect for backing
open democracy, they are in fact just Republican shills. Ditto, The Tea Party, though there, among
the more naive adherents, I've found some traction for free elections.
But why not Dem.s? Would they not have profited by a ballot that let's us progressives mark
a '1' by Nader and a '2' by Gore? Why not?
Because The Two Party system most emphatically requires that people be unable to form their
own associations, their parties, freely, but all must sign up for the red or blue banners, the
newest established during slavery.
If you, as I do, believe that corporations are the problem, then you must eventually conclude
the Duopoly is their device, and not your own, and that you vote for whatever Dem. the party picks,
in spite of her lower odds against Trump, and not by either your own electoral wisdom, nor your
conscience. Just fear. Deliberately created fear.
For a quickly growing number of progressives, this singular wall, against free parties that
might challenge corporatization seriously, as neither the red nor blue are much concerned to do,
becomes very important.
Thus, they drop out. Thus they may, hopefully, with hope, join Green Party's Jill Stein (see
her on last Thursday's DemocracyNow.org:
http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2016/6/9
).
The Two must be broken. Until you see that, I'm afraid that you will suffer the sorrow of a
declining love, a future that threatens to pass you by, and great wonderment that half your mind
is with, and half without, a vision of a way out. All progressives will see this, starting now,
and growing for the four year term. It will be their definition.
The bandages of our bleeding country, and progressivism, to be mended, must be torn. And quickly,
rather than excruciatingly lengthily.
MajorRoadRage Ezajur 11 Jun 2016 17:57
Grown ups support logical alternatives to problems, Hillary resorts to war first, diplomacy
later.
Grown ups support having a future, for ourselves and potential children, Hillary resorts to
only telling deregulated banks "Knock it off" when the banks decide to cause a recession with
no consequence and receive a free bail out courtesy of tax payers.
Grown ups support a fair playing field, Hillary resorts to having 400 super delegates pledged
before a single vote is cast to suppress opposition and a democratic function of american government.
Grown ups support earning what they have in life, Hillary resorts to stuffing her Clinton Foundation
coffer with Kremlin money for Bill's speaker fee of 500k in russia last year, and donations from
known felons bill pardoned on his way out of office, as well as the banks responsible for the
'08 housing crash
Grown ups support a world where people aren't subject to nuclear radiation for the next century+,
Hillary supports using cluster bombs, toxic agents, and nuclear weaponry as "keepers of the peace"
in American war theaters.
Grown ups support common sense of adhering to rule of law, Hillary has shown blatant disregard
for federal policy, and partakes in obstruction of justice, illegal fund raising, and mishandling
of classified information with previous experience and knowledge of such protocols during her
tenure as a Congressional member prior to her office of Secretary of State.
The list goes on, and on, and on, and Hillary has no one to blame but herself.
NottaBot -> BWillow 11 Jun 2016 17:44
Clinton's ceiling: the first ex-wife of a US president to be nominated as major party candidate
for president.
This is actually a fairly shameful event that says MUCH more about the power of oligarchy than
it does about the state of women in our country.
MajorRoadRage -> apoapsis 11 Jun 2016 17:44
Counting rigged caucuses. Really? Some of the most prominent turnout for voting less than 3%,
and you try to use caucuses? Well, let's discuss that then, let's discuss the DieBold machines
that are ~15-20 years old, and easily tampered with. Let's look at the margin of error in the
caucuses that "Hillary devastated Bernie". Compared with the minimum audit, those caucuses were
rigged. You can argue all you want with rumors and heresay, but evidence you can't. There is evidence
of election fraud within the democratic nominees, and it's going to state and federal courts under
the RICO statute.
Hillary will NOT win the democratic presidential nominee until July 25th
marshwren marksupial 11 Jun 2016 17:39
But the Clinton-Trump counter-revolution is on every channel, 24/7/365...
NottaBot -> ChelseaPete 11 Jun 2016 17:38
Hopefully my vote for Nader and disdain for the ticket of Gore/Lieberman* helped do in that
ticket in 2000, and with any luck my vote for Trump this time, if it comes down to Trump v. Clinton,
will do the same this time as well.
*it's sometimes easy to forget that Lieberman was such a fucking Democratic party loyalist
that he wound up running against the Democratic candidate for Senate in 2006 and wound up fucking
endorsing John McCain and speaking at the GOP convention in 2008. But sure. We should have voted
for that DREAMY ticket.
marshwren -> apoapsis 11 Jun 2016 17:36
Don't blame me if your Mommy Dearest Leader can't beat the GOP's Daddy Dearest Leader. Clinton
as a habit of blowing huge leads and squandering allegedly insurmountable advantages: hundreds
of millions in her campaign accounts, hundreds of millions more in a score of dark-money super
pacs, A-list endorsements from the DNC/DSCC/DCCC, Wall Street, the foreign policy establishment
(mostly Republican neo-cons), Hollywood, union leadership (but not rank-and-file, a 'weak' field
to run against, the open support of the M$M--and she's still going to limp into the convention
some 200 pledged (elected) delegates short of securing the nomination and will still need the
intervention of her super-delegates to win. And despite being anointed the nominee by the M$M,
hasn't gotten more than a 'dead cat bounce' in the polls.
Sanders didn't create the split in the DP between its meritocracy-serving 'leaders' and it's
increasingly anti-capitalist base; it's always been there, and is back again with renewed force.
Only this time the FDR/New-Deal wing(s) of the Party aren't going to meekly surrender to the Clinton/DLC
clique--they've been failing us, and the country, for 31 years, and it's time for them to join
their RNC cousins on the ash-heap of history. We know the future we want, and the DNC is just
as incapable as the GOP in providing it, and just as resistant to even trying.
sharethewealth Ulricii 11 Jun 2016 17:14
I can't help but ask questions about this. Whether the voter count was legit or not we need
to be asking because there is evidence to suggest we should.
From an earlier link posted to GiF:
'It has been learned from poll workers that 50% to 90% of voters who were supposed to have
been eligible to vote in the Democratic primary were told they would have to vote provisional
ballots. There were two irregularities leading to the forced use of provisional ballots instead
of regular ballots. The first was that previously registered voters' names had been removed from
the rolls. The second was that someone (in most cases, not the voter) had marked them as vote
by mail voters but they had received no ballot in the mail. Oddly, virtually all of those not
allowed to vote and forced to vote provisional ballots were Bernie Sanders supporters.'
NottaBot -> Claire Charles 11 Jun 2016 17:14
It's suddenly in the news because of a Citizens United FOIA lawsuit. Yes, THAT Citizens United,
the one we're all supposed to loathe and despise. Yet here there are, finding dirt on Madame Secretary
Clinton.
By the way, the ABC report that this CNN report is based on is far more comprehensive and detailed,
and includes the emails in question. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624
And, quite significantly, the CNN report leaves out what I think is perhaps the most pertinent
detail, which is that Raj Fernando is a fucking superdelegate, as a member of the DNC.
When we're in the streets we like to chant This is what democracy looks like.
Well, Raj Fernando is what CORRUPTION looks like. All he brings to the Democratic party is
money. Buy your way into a position where you can have a hugely outsize role in electing the Democratic
nominee.
Shaharazade777 -> woopig 11 Jun 2016 17:12
So does HRC aka The Mad Bomber. A candidate who kisses Kissenger and has the backing of Kagan
a PNAC neocon and as SoS was a cackling war criminal is not only not anti-war but a huge proponent
of endless bloody war for power and profit. We came, we saw, we killed is her idea of foreign
policy. all those deaths including children killed by Big Dogs Iraq flyovers and sanctions, it
was worth it.
JCDavis -> ID4890750 11 Jun 2016 17:02
If Obama had not been a fraud, they might have gone to the polls.
Ulricii -> sharethewealth 11 Jun 2016 17:01
58 percent of California voters are on the permanent Vote-By-Mail list. I'm one of them. Last-minute
rallies are close to worthless in measuring candidate support. We'd already mailed in our ballots
weeks ago.
NottaBot -> macktan894 11 Jun 2016 17:01
You're completely right. While the old farts contribute money (and being such an old fart I
did my bit and contributed hundreds of dollars to Bernie's campaign) it's the younger people who
are willing to do the scut work that's necessary to run campaigns, the door knocking, the phone
calling, etc.
One of the reasons that caucuses are ALSO an important measure of candidate support is because
it's the activists who actually do the party's work that are important there. The activist base
of the Democratic party is much more progressive than the turds who boss it around from the top.
What Sanders campaign has done is separate the activists from the turds. While a lot of those
activists will sigh and decide to vote for Clinton, it will be with weary resignation.
This is likely to prove to be a watershed year, where the activist base melted away from the
Democrats. All that will be left are the moneybags and their cronies and fixers at the top. They
may be able to run television only campaigns, but going forward they are going to get increasingly
weak "on the ground."
Clinton lost the caucuses in 2008 too, because she lacked any connection and pull with the
progressive activist base of the party -- they were inspired by Barack Obama, not her.
MtnClimber is a typical "dead ender" Democrat. Something is happening here but he don't know
what it is.
JCDavis 11 Jun 2016 16:55
Bernie Sanders, the most successful socialist in modern US politics...
Yeah, Sanders was the most successful socialist, but Hillary was the even more successful
neocon shill of Wall Street.
NottaBot -> MooseMcNaulty 11 Jun 2016 16:53
I'm voting for Trump to maximize pain for the corporate Dems. I honestly think Trump will be
an utter failure while Clinton would be the more EFFECTIVE evil.
marshwren -> sbabcock 11 Jun 2016 16:46
I do wish the Hill shills would make up their minds: OOH, they gloat that they don't need us
because we are so few and irrelevant; OTOH, they're always accusing us of throwing the election
to Trump. And to imagine all this time we thought the belief in both sides of a mutually-exclusive
proposition was unique to 'conservatives'.
yinyanggrl -> macktan894 11 Jun 2016 16:44
It's frustrating to see so many journalists right now -- in particular Rachel Maddow -- dismissively
saying Bernie hasn't built an organization, even as I get constant e-mails from Sanders asking
me to support Congressional candidates ... several of which I have! He is building an organization.
He also happened to be running an extremely challenging, against-the-odds Presidential campaign
so that was the bulk of his focus, but the two were never mutually exclusive.
MooseMcNaulty -> Bitty31985 11 Jun 2016 16:30
As a protest voting Sanders supporter, I have to say that a write-in vote for Sanders is a
complete waste of time. If you want to challenge the two-party duopoly, you need to vote for an
independent candidate or a third party. Sanders is going to be a failed Democratic candidate who
isn't on the ballot. Voting for him is saying you're still with the Democrats as long as they
nominate your preferred candidate, which is hardly a challenge to the two-party system. I'm going
to vote for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green party, and I advise all the write-in Sanders voters to
look her up and see if you might not want to vote for her instead.
I fail to understand this view of Bernie's voters, which constitute nearly half of the people
who voted in these primaries, as mindless zombies. Progressives have been, always been, the heart
and soul of the deteriorating Democratic Party. If they go away, the Party is toast, really.
Progressives are the ones who show up, volunteer, commit to the issues. Push them away and
all you have left is lobbyist funded politicians who put their donors first.
As for the young people in this group--myself not included being that I'm black and 65 years old--they'll
be here longer than you or I. And, yes, since they are the ones carrying the load of debt for
college and facing poor pay in the job market, I believe they have good incentive to fight for
their futures.
As far as being "politically active," not a lot of people who vote are politically active.
They don't volunteer, they don't go to rallies, they don't read or think. These young people did
more than just vote--they worked hard, often for nothing, and gave a lot. They should be honored
for that, not insulted.
(a la Journey)
Don't stop deceiving
Ya know we're gonna have them kneeling
Sheep-like, people… whoa ohhhhhh
Claire Charles 11 Jun 2016 16:23
You know why they're angry at the press ? Because Sanders "was not convincingly defeated in
California" since there remains around 2.5 MILLION BALLOTS to be counted, first. Because Clinton
has not been anointed nominee, whatever the whole mainstream media galaxy may be claiming, second.
You do realise the AP released the news that superdelegates have been surveyed and according
to the number who say they're voting for her, she's won! Let's imagine you have a poll about the
Brexit referendum, and the results are 65% for Brexit, will you officially claim it's Brexit?
And if you do, will you even dare call yourselves journalists afterwards? (though you did commit
this article, so...)
And third, because the Democratic primaries, that I observe from France, are rife with
election fraud like I never thought could exist in a so-called "Western democracy", let alone
in the self-appointed "leader of the free world", mouhahaha, and that you have to get to alternative
news, youtube documenting videos or social media to hear a word about it.
But believe me, outside of the mainstream media and her rallies with "tens of dozens" of people,
in the US the word is BUZZING.
MooseMcNaulty 11 Jun 2016 16:22
I certainly hope this becomes a movement that leads to grassroots organization and activism,
which is what you need to make gains legislatively and electorally. It's obviously a bit too soon
to say just what this is or might become, though.
He's definitely sparked a serious desire to be informed and involved in the political process
among some of the youth, and informed, evangelical leftist liberals could certainly have a positive
impact in the future. That said, it's going to be quite difficult to turn the disparate folks
who Feel the Bern into an organized and mobilized force that brings pressure to bear around one
or another piece of legislation, rather than them just being a vague demographic group of American
Socialists. There are so many different issues that motivate people that I think it'll be hard
to get them focused on single pieces of legislation or issues.
For some their biggest concern is the military-industrial complex, the surveillance state and
perpetual war. For others it's gender and racial equality. Some people are most concerned about
carbon emissions, pollution and climate change. The college kids are largely focused on tuition
costs and student debt. Personally, I'm most passionate on the subjects of healthcare costs and
availability, and corporate power in the political process as a result of campaign and Super PAC
contributions, lobbying, and the revolving door that keeps giving us CEOs and corporate lobbyists
as elected officials. Trying to get these people to coalesce around a particular piece of legislation
is no going to be no mean feat, but that's the only way I can see that we can have any serious
impact on the legislative process.
MajorRoadRage MontyJohnston 11 Jun 2016 16:21
Hillary is on her own team that just so happens to be under the DNC just like Bernie. They
are NOT on the same team. The difference being Bernie cares about more people than those that
include "Me". Which is why some of us Bernie supporters would choose Trump's presidency over
Clinton's. Trump and Clinton both are about nothing more than "Me", at least Trump's too dumb
to cause too much harm, unlike Clinton.
She's already mishandled classified information, flip flopped on every talking point under the
sun and then claimed to be consistent, lied repeatedly to the American people about her brazen
disregard of federal policy. She wants war with Iran, if they
attack (read:instigate) Israel during her presidency, even though she proclaimed Iraqi war was
wasteful?
Everyone has been bashing Bernie and his honeymoon in the USSR, but why is no one talking
about Bill's 500K speaker fees in Russia for a bank linked to the kremlin?
MajorRoadRage HopeWFaith 11 Jun 2016 16:15
Debbie won't retain DNC Chairman, she admitted on national television the role of the DNC
is to prevent establishment candidates from facing grass roots activists. Read: Corporate sponsored
runners vs anyone else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLTfWo6yh-8
There's a racketeering lawsuit that should be filed today at the state and fed level to force
this issue of voting fraud into public light. trustvote.org
They have compiled issues present at all the of the past primaries for this presidential run,
as well as going as far back as good ole Barry "Intercepted" Obama.
No one can deny fraud has taken place in this election. There's a plethora of evidence.
The Guardian as well as the rest of the mainstream media have been smearing Bernie from
Day One. I, as well as many others, have noticed how this new site has changed in the last year.
It's not the same paper that brought us Ed Snowden or exposed the horrible number of police
killings. They call Bernie a socialist; what do they call Clinton? Do they call her a suspect
under criminal investigation by the FBI? No, she's a philanthropist and public servant, a govt
employee, who's made millions in charity and a govt job. Who would have thought that charity and
govt service could be so...lucrative?
macktan894 11 Jun 2016 16:01
Apart from the nomination, Sanders has built an army of supporters who are committed to pushing
the issues he has brought to the fore. That doesn't just go away, and he'd be a fool to abandon
his and our mission. He has built a contact list of supporters who'll give what they can to realize
these goals...and who still respond to his emails that identify candidates who share these goals.
I continue to contribute and support because I believe that people shouldn't be weighed down with
lifetime debt incurred to treat an illness or to go to college or that a for- profit corporatocracy
should replace democracy.
I also believe that candidates must be challenged and pushed to represent the people. If you
just roll over and capitulate and don't force these politicians to respond to your concerns, then
they won't. And what you get is the same old shit. Double talk. Secret wars. Secret surveillance.
$15000 hospital bills to treat snake bite.
Sanders earned my vote. Any other candidate will have to do the same thing.
dejinx -> devanand54 11 Jun 2016 15:57
Possibly.
Or have an economic or foreign policy view that has moved on since M*A*S*H
was gathering source material.
Genuinely the stuff Sanders was saying on trade or economics was absolutely retarded and would
solve no problems. Trump is worse because he would actively fuck people on trade, cause wars and
is ..hmm. ..possible in some ways on trade but fuck a lot of people .
And I seriously hate Clinton on economics.
Writerinres -> John Bata 11 Jun 2016 15:56
What's insane is pretending that the primaries were fair, given that Bill, Hill and the
DNC engaged in hacking voting machines, purging new voter rolls, closing polling places without
notice, shortening poll hours, handing out ballots that aren't counted, abandoning exit polls
to verify results. Oh, and Clinton colluding with the media to suppress last Tuesday's primaries
by declaring her the nominee the night before. We never did learn who those "ten superdelegates
who changed their votes" for Clinton are. Hell, they're not even going to vote until the convention.
Also, thanks president Obama for endorsing Hillary even though she could be indicted for
treason, corruption, national security breeches, and constant lies. Heckuva job Barack!
devanand54 -> Lissette Gomez 11 Jun 2016 15:54
You apparently are naïve enough to not fully understand the hell that a Clinton presidency
will unleash?? You do know that her husband was responsible for destroying the party by selling
out to corporate and banker interests and the military industrial complex, right? You do know
that NAFTA was the beginning of the end of manufacturing in the US and solid jobs for middle and
working class Americans? You do know that she wants to get all up in Putin in Syria?
gunnison -> devanand54 11 Jun 2016 15:51
Yes, well said.
People forget just how far the entire political spectrum has been dragged into the right-field
weeds over the last 30 years by an orchestrated effort with its roots in the rubble of Barry Goldwater's
campaign which enlisted religious whackos and assorted Ayn Rand fetishists to the cause.
We're at the point now where anyone advancing even Ronald Reagan's positions on taxation
could not be nominated dogcatcher by today's GOP base.
Politicians who once were marginally sane (even John McCain signed on with Russ Feingold
years ago to question the wisdom of unlimited money being sluiced into the electoral system) and
referred to as "moderate republicans" are all but gone from the GOP, and politicians who would
once have been called "moderate republicans" are now heavy hitters in the Democrat party establishment.
Hillary Clinton being a notable example of one of them.
Nothing Sanders is espousing would have upset FDR or Bobby Kennedy, they would have been "feeling
the Bern" along with the rest of sane America.
Hillary will be nuancing her "marked classified" position soon. Text marked confidential here
with a "(C)", with related content thereafter redacted from the public...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/06/10/banda-email/
The new paperback version of her 2014 Hard Choices book (you won't find her server choice
in it ... too easy) does not include the hardback's Trans-Pacific Partnership passages, because
she firmly counts on you, the prospective American reader and voter, to be gullible and stupid
(as has been readily evident since March of last year).
Brought to you via Fox News of all outlets, because The Guardian doesn't give crap about government
officials' accountability, despite Jonathan Freedland's (long read piece) and others' claims to
the contrary.
In 2014's Hard Choices btw, Hillary finally recognized the 2003 sure-fire Iraqi human catastrophe
was bad. She found her soul. Or realized she was running for president and better goddamn fix
her position once and for all, after much polling.
Fact, fact, fact, and fact. If Hillary fans had tears, they'd weep.
In the space below, Hillary fans can as usual dabble in whataboutery to avoid facing the above
facts ... ... .... after all, such denial is what Hillary's campaign is all about.
devanand54 11 Jun 2016 15:41
Earth to Guardian: Sanders is a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST. Not a "socialist." His agenda is straight
up FDR New Deal and totally in-line with the direction Bobby Kennedy would have taken the country
if he hadn't been shot and won the presidency. Stop acting like Bernie is some far-left radical.
The Sanders platform is what - sorry Donald - made America "great" in the 40's - 60's.
TomTalay 11 Jun 2016 14:57
The MSM is allowing a Shillary oligarchy based on Goldman Sachs money to go mainstream while
voter suppression via the AP denies the power of $27 donations to the revolution to be heard.
Did I miss anything?
misterflam 11 Jun 2016 14:57
Voting for Hillary Clinton is not a concession, it is consent.
PotholeKid -> Michael Teigen 11 Jun 2016 14:32
Problem is Americans have very short memories and that's what the establishment counts on for
keeping it bottled up.. This time around might be different..the Clintons have a closet that has
more skeletons in it than Imelda Marcos had shoes. Everyone of those will be ripped out of the
memory hole by Trump.
PotholeKid -> Kira Kinski 11 Jun 2016 14:14
If Trump does become president it will at least inspire a real revolution against him and at
the same time drive a stake into the democratic Party.. kills two birds with one stone..
notndmushroom nevermind84 11 Jun 2016 14:14
I'm surprised at your naivety. Do you really think "listening to Trump speak" actually says
anything about what Trump will do? The guy says one thing and five minutes later pretends he never
said anything in the first place. Btw, "bombing the hell out of ISIS" is what the US has been
doing for quite some time now, and it's still not enough to satisfy Clinton.
But if you want to talk seriously, I'd be willing to bet money on Trump not going to a new
war, for a very simple reason: even if the GOP win the house majorities (which shouldn't be taken
for granted. Even if Bernie or busters vote for Trump, they sure as hell ain't going to vote for
a GOP Rep. as well), support for Trump will be lukeworm at home, and virtually non-existent abroad.
Do you think the US under Trump will command the same gravitas that has, in the past, made other
western countries more or less grudgingly participate in wars they didn't believe in? And do you
think the US under Trump will have the economic, military and diplomatic might to say "well, if
no one else wants to join, we're going at it alone"?
Timothy Everton -> purplearth 11 Jun 2016 13:57
Since your comment quoted me, I'll say that I respectfully disagree. Hillary is evil and nothing
more than self-serving. Her "Fighting For Us" slogan means just that: Fighting for future Clinton
wealth, not We, The People.
marshwren -> TyroneBHorneigh 11 Jun 2016 13:34
Disagree: Sanders simply brought the schisms within the DP to light, divisions that began
with the DLC took over the DNC in 1985 and used that power to repudiate FDR and repeal the New
Deal; while Sanders' campaign became a vehicle for organizing and activating the FDR/New-Deal
wing(s) of the DP base.
This split has been building over the course of Obama's terms, as the DNC, DSCC and DCCC ran
away as far and as fast as they could from Occupy, Wisconsin and Ferguson, signalling the complete
abandonment of the old New Deal constituencies, just as their support for TPP/TIPP, fracking/KXL
and Israel alienated newer constituencies.
It's also exposed the rift between "liberals" and the left that Phil Ochs sang about 50 years
ago ("Love Me, I'm a Liberal") which is well worth listening to again these days.
Given that the new line from Team Clinton to Sanders supporters is "fuck off, we don't
need you", it shouldn't surprise anyone that the sentiment is being returned in kind.
varyat 11 Jun 2016 13:34
The Guardian poll is a bit of chicanery passing for science. An n-size of 1,046 seems reasonable
until you read, they are not Sanders supporters, they are drawn from all voters. In fact it looks
like only about 200 are genuine Sander supporters which drops your n-size to a little better than
shit. From this shit, you determine that Sanders Supporters are 6 times more likely to break
for HRC than Trump. The Guardian should know better than trying to create the news. Just do your
effing jobs and report it.
PotholeKid -> Pamela Valemont 11 Jun 2016 13:28
"Yes, but note they did not tell us".. They won't tell you in MSM ..unless they have something
to gain and regrettably Fox News is one of the go too's for updates..Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
is updated fairly regularly and there are also some excellent timelines if you search.
Timothy Everton 11 Jun 2016 13:26
The problem for me lies in that I KNOW Hillary Clinton is deceitful, has been lying about
many, many things, is very power-hungry, and, in my opinion, evil.
Donald Trump is bombastic and says some unpleasant things, but he does not want to go to war,
and he wants to bring jobs back to the U.S.
As a Sanders supporter, I can only hope that the F.B.I. does their job soon or I will have to
vote for Trump. He could not be more evil than Hillary.
Guy Freewood 11 Jun 2016 13:07
The MSM press execs and parent media companies invest in Hillary for a reason. - They want
strong IPR laws globally, strong to the point they want a candidate that is authoritarian, will
try to break or outlaw encryption to mitigate privacy and will justify the censorship of - and
the monitoring of private use by citizens use of - the Internet. Even to the point their industry
lobby groups want them to have control of blacklists around the world.
For them it means profits and profiteering through strong global copyright enforcement and
control of information channels. - and for MSNBC's parent GE... they'll get the region-destabilizing
hawk that's good for their line of business.
It's hardly any surprise the MSM has tried to ignore and marginalize Bernie so much - it
goes well with their efforts to bury or re-frame Hillary's history of deception, apparent impropriety,
their evasion of reporting about the ridiculous exit poll discrepancies (even outside of AZ) and
their efforts to switch the controversy of Roberta Lange in Nevada 180 degrees and try framing
the outrage as being motivated by sexism.
The MSM have been deceitful, disseminated propaganda (both applicable across the board),
censored their audiences (CNN), switched audience polls with market-betting-odds to hide their
audience's views (CNN), sabotaged their own polls (NPR), harassed superdelegates into commitment
before they can technically commit in order to call it for Hillary early (AP / MSNBC).
Hillary's campaign didn't cheat America out of democracy, the MSM press did - because for the
largest media monopolies... The slimy, manipulative, corporate-agenda-carrying propagandists
are mostly with her.
PotholeKid -> Pamela Valemont 11 Jun 2016 13:02
From the get go the DNC conspired with the corporate media in throwing Bernie under the bus
and they couldn't keep him down. The last desperate act to declare Clinton the winner shows you
how desperate they were..What it did was to completely expose the power of the corporate state
and to what lengths they will go to in maintaining control..I'm just hoping the FBI who are known
to lean towards the republicans will continue to leak..
My grandfather was a newspaper editor. Some things die hard: I pay attention to the sources,
bylines notwithstanding. I cruise through Reuters, AFP, DW, buzzfeed, reddit, Vice, etc. Unless
broad-specrum reading goes the way of broad-spectrum antibiotics, I may even get something approximating
actual news.
FeatherWood 11 Jun 2016 12:40
I wonder how many Bernie supporters, like me, will simply not make a choice between our two
Reality TV contestants. I hate reality TV, and I'm convinced that's all a Clinton-Trump race is
-- a reality TV show that ends with Hillary in the White House.
What we are seeing is Reality TV, directed by Bill Clinton, who talked with Donald Trump prior
to Trump's entering the race and reportedly encouraged him to get into it. Bill and Donny are
working together to elect Hillary.
The more outrageous Trump is, the more he pushes people who 2 years ago would have said they
would NEVER vote for Hillary, into voting for her in the fall. It's the only way she can plausibly
win, so that's the theater show Bill and Donald are producing.
I refuse to buy into TrumpFEAR. I won't be pushed into voting to validate the status quo, a
status quo where half the people in the country couldn't handle an unexpected $400 expense, just
because Trump is a blowhard clown. If Trump is the new Mussolini, what were the Clintons doing
at his wedding? Why are the Trump and Clinton families buddy-buddy? Hillary didn't attend the
wedding of tens of thousands of other New Yorkers who got married while she was a senator. Ruthless,
greedy oligarchs hang out together, and I think it is ridiculous to be so afraid of Trump but
to believe that one of his wedding guests is our savior.
I'll vote for Jill Stein, the person on my ballot who reflects my values.
aeausa -> Rosannedingdong 11 Jun 2016 12:36
And that AP got "leaked" information from a couple of super-delegates.
See this, from Glenn Greenwald. Remember him? He broke the Snowden story in the Guardian, so
how come the Guardian didn't run anything on this?
AP claims that superdelegates who had not previously announced their intentions privately told
AP reporters that they intend to vote for Clinton, bringing her over the threshold. AP is concealing
the identity of the decisive superdelegates who said this.
TyroneBHorneigh 11 Jun 2016 12:10
The most important takeaway, perhaps, from the Sanders candidacy is that millions of Americans
have discovered that "socialism" isn't the evil, or poison to democracy, the corporate/two party
monopoly has been shining people on over for generations already. Instead of being the existential
threat to democracy the establishment has been lying about for so long it may actually be the
salvation of democracy, not its undertaker.
While Hillary's campaign and achievement is a momentous moment in American political life,
Bernie's accomplishment is perhaps even more tectonic because while being a woman has its peculiar
problems in work and professional life, being a socialist is probably even more of a disadvantage.
Everyone over a certain age and political sophistication can remember when, as it still is among
many on the right and center, "socialist" is like n- or b-word of modern politics.
Congratulations Bernie and his legions of supporters. He may have lost the nomination but he's
won the future of the democratic party. Now is the time for that vast constituency to hit the
local elections for school boards, utility commissions, road commissions, mayoralties and sundry
grassroots offices to ENSURE that the Sanders momentum isn't squandered on petty, internecine
party bickering and CONTINUE the hard work of transforming the party into the champions of workers
it once was and still may be if this opportunity is seized upon now.
Gearing -> marshwren 11 Jun 2016 11:58
@marshwren
"[P]rovisional and mail-in ballots left to count."
The California Secretary of State reported there are an estimated 2,423,607 unprocessed ballots
statewide from the 07Jun2016 California primary as of 10Jun2016 5:00p.
Most counties have not provided an update since election night or early the next morning.
Reference
"Estimated Unprocessed Ballots for the June 7, 2016, Presidential Primary Election," California
Secretary of State (08Jun2016, updated to 10Jun2016 5:00p).
Pamela Valemont 11 Jun 2016 11:43
First time the Guardian has reported what was actually happening, and it's too late, so take
a large share of the blame, you apologies for reporters and a newspaper. You knew all along that
the people would never vote for Hillary, it's Bernie they want. Hillary will lose and President
Obama has lost a lot of the devotion and support that he previously enjoyed. If I as a Number
One fan have lost respect for Obama, what does that say about the rest of his supporters? Progressives
are gob-smacked to say the least. I can't believe he has endorsed and supported as future President
( like hell!) a cheat, a liar and a person still awaiting the outcome of a criminal FBI investigation.
He has tarnished his political record. This amazingly stupid move lacking foresight, will go down
in history as just that. Hillary cannot become President if the people don't like her and don't
want her. And they don't, on both counts.
DanInTheDesert 11 Jun 2016 11:38
On Thursday, two days after Sanders was convincingly defeated in the California primary
Paul Lewis,
I have no idea if you are in the minority that reads comments but here goes. You need to look
into the 2.5 million votes that haven't been counted yet. This isn't a conspiracy -- the election
is still undetermined. 2.5 outstanding when the front runner has .5 million vote lead? This could
be another Dewey beats Truman moment.
Wrapped in the flag neocon bottom feeders like Hillary (and quite possibly Trump, although
this article is from Guardian which is a fiercely pro-Clinton rag) might eventually destroy
this nice country.
Notable quotes:
"... the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing. ..."
"... Maybe they get away with it because we the people who keep voting them into office don't know anything about war ourselves. ..."
"... As long as we're cocooned in our comfortable homeland fantasy of war, one can safely predict a long and successful run for the Era of the Chickenhawk ..."
"... The author, like most Americans, is in denial about America's role in the world. The reason the US spends more on defense than the next 12 countries has nothing to do with self-defense. America wants to maintain its global military dominance. Both parties agree on this. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the war's purpose was to demonstrate American military power. Bill Kristol takes this a stage further and wants America to play the role of global hegemon and be in a state of constant war. This is a stupid idea. ..."
"... It is a simple an obvious fact that the people most eager to see the US go to war, in every generation, are not the people who will suffer and die in those wars. Today is our Memorial Day. This is an article suggesting we, as Americans, stop and think about the people who were wounded and those who died in service to our country. Set aside your partisan rage and consider those people and their deaths, before you listen to words from any politician calling for more of those deaths. ..."
"... And the hypocrisy of all this is how Hillary Clinton doesn't have a problem with war. She participated in toppling Libya and she was doing the same to Syria. So how is it all about Trump and what a war monger he is? ..."
"... The corporations that sell war materiel actively push their products, ensure the support of the government through political contributions, and engage in blackmail by spreading out manufacturing over many locations. In this manner, the only way to profit is by selling weapons, killing more people. What state or city will want to lose employment by letting a manufacturer close? It is incredibly difficult to close an un-needed military base for the same reason, whether here or abroad. War is a great racket, the US has it down pat. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has started more wars, caused more death than Donald Trump....and yet....you don't mention that do you "We came, He died, We Laughed" ..."
"... Unfortunately we're in a position where the United States is a debtor nation, and the easiest way to keep the house of cards from falling is to maintain "full spectrum dominance" in the words of the Pentagon. There's no easy way to unwind this situation. It is, however, absolutely crucial to keep a known psychopath like Clinton out of the command chair. ..."
"... When congress votes to fund wars then [they need to] add 75% more for after care. As a combat veteran it pisses me off that [instead] charities are used to care for us. Most are run by want a be military, Senease, types. No charities, it's up to American people to pay every penny for our care, they voted for the war mongers so, so pay up people. Citizens need to know true costs, tax raises, cuts in SS , welfare, cuts in schools. Biggest thing, all elected officials and families and those work for them must use VA hospitals, let's see how that works out. ..."
"... we insulate ourselves in a nice, warm cocoon of "Support Our Veterans" slogans and flag waving. ..."
"... "Endless war: Trump and the fantasy of cost-free conflict " How about Hillary and the fantasy of war, PERIOD. There hasn't been a war she didn't like. Did you listen to her AIPAC speech? No 2 State solution there. ..."
"... So easy to be the hero in your wet dreams, your shooter games, your securely located war rooms stocked with emergency rations and the external defibrillator. This sort of unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people – old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich – who never experienced war – who in their youth ran as fast from it as they could – send young men and women – most of them middle- and working-class – across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing. ..."
"... It is actually NOT Donald Trump who is advocating the endless global conflict and confrontation with Russia, China, India, Iran, Europe and North Korea. The candidate secretly advocating a never-ending war with the rest of the world is -- Madame Secretary, Hillary Clinton, in person. Aided and abetted - publicly - by her right-hand woman, another Madame Secretary, Madeleine Albright and yet another Madame Undersecretary, Samantha Power. All chicken hawks, all neoconservatives, all pseudo-democrats, all on Wall Street payroll, all white, and all women who will never see a second of combat for the rest of their lives. ..."
"... So, the very major premise of the article is flawed and unsustainable. Which, of course, then makes the entire article collapse as false and misleading. ..."
"... John Mearsheimer who is a history professor at the University of Chicago wrote a great book about American foreign policy. Mearsheimer explains how American foreign policy has developed over the centuries. He argues that it firs objective was to dominate the Western Hemisphere before extending its reach to Asia and Europe. The War of 1812 and the Monroe Doctrine was part of a plan to dominate the Americas. The U.S. stopped Japan and Germany dominating Asia and Europe in the 20th century. The U.S. continued to view the British Empire as its greatest threat and Roosevelt set about dismantling it during WW2. Once WW2 was won, the Soviet Union became America's new adversary and it maintained forces in Europe to check Soviet expansion. ..."
"... Mearsheimer argues that the U.S. is often in denial about its behavior and Americans are taught that the U.S. is altruistic and a force for good in the world. Measheimer states that "idealist rhetoric provided a proper mask for the brutal policies that underpinned the tremendous growth of American power." In 1991 the U.S. became the world's only super-power and according to Mearsheimer its main foreign policy objective was to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. ..."
"... Mearsheimer claims that America's foreign policy elite is still largely made up of people who want to keep America on top, but these days they usually prefer to keep their views under wraps. ..."
"... Trump is the only candidate I've ever heard question the cost of war, it's part of the reason he said we should flush NATO and we can't police the world for free any longer. ..."
"... I have no problem with destroying ISIS. I have a problem with fighting Russia over every former Soviet state on their doorstep ala Madam Secretary. The best way to remember the war dead is to work to ensure that their ranks do not swell. ..."
As America marks Memorial Day, politicians should spare us the saber-rattling and reserve
some space for silence
... ... ...
The times are such that fantasy war-mongering is solidly mainstream. We've seen candidates call
for a new campaign of "shock and awe" (Kasich), for carpet-bombing and making the desert glow (Cruz),
for "bomb[ing] the shit out of them" (Trump), for waterboarding "and a hell of a lot worse" (Trump
again), and for pre-emptive strikes and massive troop deployments (Jeb). One candidate purchased
a handgun as "the last line of defense between Isis and my family" (Rubio), and the likely Democratic
nominee includes
"the nail-eaters – McChrystal, Petraeus, Keane" among her preferred military advisers, and supports
"intensification and acceleration" of US military efforts in Iraq and Syria. Yes, America has many
enemies who heartily hate our guts and would do us every harm they're able to inflict, but the failures
of hard power over the past 15 years seem utterly lost on our political class. After the Paris attacks
last December, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard suggested that a force of 50,000 US troops deployed
to Syria, supported by air power, would crush Isis in short order, leading to the liberation of Fallujah,
Mosul, and other Isis strongholds.
"I don't think there's much in the way of unanticipated side-effects that are going to be bad there,"
opined Kristol – funny guy! – who back in 2002 said that removing Saddam Hussein "could start
a chain reaction in the Arab world that would be very healthy".
... ... ...
"A night of waking," as Bierce tersely described it years later. The sheer volume and accuracy
of ordnance made this a new kind of war, a machine for pulping acres of human flesh. Regardless of
who was winning or losing, shock-and-awe was the common experience of both sides; Confederate and
Union soldiers alike could hardly believe the things they were doing and having done to them, and
when Bierce turned to the writer's trade after the war, some fundamental rigor or just plain contrariness
wouldn't let him portray his war in conventionally heroic terms. In his hands, sentimentality and
melodrama became foils for twisted jokes. Glory was ambiguous at best, a stale notion that barely
hinted at the suicidal nature of valor in this kind of war. A wicked gift for honesty served up the
eternal clash between duty and the survival instinct, as when, early in the war, Bierce and his fellow
rookies come across a group of Union dead:
How repulsive they looked with their blood-smears, their blank, staring eyes, their teeth uncovered
by contraction of the lips! The frost had begun already to whiten their deranged clothing. We
were as patriotic as ever, but we did not wish to be that way.
... ... ...
Black humor sits alongside mordantly cool accounts of battles, wounds, horrors, absurd and tragic
turns of luck. There are lots of ghosts in Bierce's work, a menagerie of spirits and bugaboos as
well as hauntings of the more prosaic sort, people detached in one way or another from themselves
– amnesiacs, hallucinators, somnambulists, time trippers. People missing some part of their souls.
Often Bierce writes of the fatal, or nearly so, shock, the twist that flips conventional wisdom on
its back and shows reality to be much darker and crueler than we want to believe. It's hard not to
read the war into much of Bierce's writing, even when the subject is ostensibly otherwise. He was
the first American writer of note to experience modern warfare, war as mass-produced death, and the
first to try for words that would be true to the experience. He charted this new terrain, and it's
in Bierce that we find the original experience that all subsequent American war writers would grapple
with. Hemingway and Dos Passos in the first world war; Mailer, Heller, Jones and Vonnegut in the
second world war; O'Brien, Herr and Marlantes in Vietnam: they're all heritors of Bierce.
It's not decorative, what these writers were going for. They weren't trying to write fancy, or
entertain, or preach a sermon; they weren't writing to serve a political cause, at least not in any
immediate sense. One suspects that on some level they didn't have a choice, as if they realized they
would never know any peace in themselves unless they found a way of writing that, if it couldn't
make sense of their war, at least respected it. Words that represented the experience for what it
was, without illusion or fantasy. Words that would resist the eternal American genius for cheapening
and dumbing down.
.... ... ...
...unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people
– old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich – who never experienced war – who in their
youth ran as fast from it as they could – send young men and women – most of them middle- and working-class
– across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the
grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless
War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic
experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing.
Maybe they get away with it because we the people who keep voting them into office don't know
anything about war ourselves. We know the fantasy version, the movie version, but only that
1% of the nation – and their families – who have fought the wars truly know the hardship involved.
For the rest of us, no sacrifice has been called for: none. No draft. No war tax (but huge deficits),
and here it bears noting that the top tax rate during the second world war was 90%. No rationing,
the very mention of which is good for a laugh. Rationing? That was never part of the discussion.
But those years when US soldiers were piling sandbags into their thin-skinned Humvees and welding
scrap metal on to the sides also happened to coincide with the heyday of the Hummer here at home.
Where I live in Dallas, you couldn't drive a couple of blocks without passing one of those beasts,
8,600 hulking pounds of chrome and steel. Or for a really good laugh, how about this: gas rationing.
If it's really about the oil, we could support the troops by driving less, walking more. Or suppose
it's not about the oil at all, but about our freedoms, our values, our very way of life – that it's
truly "a clash of civilizations", in the words of Senator Rubio. If that's the case, if this is what
we truly believe, then our politicians should call for, and we should accept no less than, full-scale
mobilization: a draft, confiscatory tax rates, rationing.
Some 3.5 million Americans fought in the civil war, out of a population of 31 million. For years
the number killed in action was estimated at 620,000, though recent scholarship suggests a significantly
higher figure, from a low of 650,000 to a high of 850,000. In any case, it's clear that the vast
majority of American families had, as we say these days, skin in the game. The war was real; having
loved ones at risk made it real. Many saw battles being fought in their literal backyards. Lincoln
himself watched the fighting from the DC ramparts, saw men shot and killed. The lived reality of
the thing was so brutally direct that it would be more than 50 years before the US embarked on another
major war. To be sure, there was the brief Spanish-American war in 1898, and a three-year native
insurgency in the Philippines, and various forays around the Caribbean and Central America, but the
trauma of the civil war cut so deep and raw that the generation that fought it was largely cured
of war. Our own generation's appetite seems steadily robust even as we approach the 15th anniversary
of the AUMF, which, given the circumstances, makes sense. As long as we're cocooned in our comfortable
homeland fantasy of war, one can safely predict a long and successful run for the Era of the Chickenhawk
Bierce survived his own war, barely. Two weeks after writing to a friend "my turn will come",
and one day before his 22nd birthday, he was shot in the head near Kennesaw Mountain, Georgia. The
sniper's ball broke his skull "like a walnut", penetrating the left temple, fracturing the temporal
lobe and doglegging down and around behind his left ear, where it stayed. Head shots in that era
were almost always fatal, but Bierce survived not only the initial wound, but an awful two-day train
ride on an open flatcar to an army hospital in Chattanooga.
He recovered, more or less. Not the easiest personality to begin with, Bierce showed no appreciable
mellowing from his war experience. His life is an ugly litany of feuds, ruptures, lawsuits, friends
betrayed or abandoned, epic temper tantrums and equally epic funks. He was a lousy husband – cold,
critical, philandering – and essentially abandoned his wife after 17 years of marriage. His older
son shot himself dead at age 16, and the younger drank himself to death in his 20s; for his own part,
Bierce maintained a lifelong obsession with suicide. In October 1913, after a distinguished, contentious
50-year career that had made him one of the most famous and hated men in America, Bierce left Washington
DC and headed for Mexico, intending to join, or report on – it was never quite clear – Pancho Villa's
revolutionary army. En route, dressing every day entirely in black, he paid final visits to the battlefields
of his youth, hiking for miles in the Indian summer heat around Orchard Knob, Missionary Ridge, Hell's
Half-Acre. For one whole day at Shiloh he sat by himself in the blazing sun. In November he crossed
from Laredo into Mexico, and was never heard from again, an exit dramatic enough to inspire a bestselling
novel by Carlos Fuentes, The Old Gringo, and a movie adaptation of the same name starring Gregory
Peck.
Late in life, Bierce described his military service in these terms:
It was once my fortune to command a company of soldiers – real soldiers. Not professional life-long
fighters, the product of European militarism – just plain, ordinary American volunteer soldiers,
who loved their country and fought for it with never a thought of grabbing it for themselves;
that is a trick which the survivors were taught later by gentlemen desiring their votes.
About those gentlemen – and women – desiring votes: since when did it become not just acceptable
but required for politicians to hold forth on Memorial Day? Who gave them permission to speak for
the violently dead? Come Monday we'll be up to our ears in some of the emptiest, most self-serving
dreck ever to ripple the atmosphere, the standard war-fantasy talk of American politics along with
televangelist-style purlings about heroes, freedoms, the supreme sacrifice. Trump will tell us how
much he loves the veterans, and how much they love him back. Down-ticket pols will re-terrorize and
titillate voters with tough talk about Isis. Hemingway, for one, had no use for this kind of guff,
as shown in a famous passage from A Farewell to Arms:
There were many words that you could not stand to hear and finally only the names of the places
had dignity. Certain numbers were the same way and certain dates and these with the names of the
places were all you could say and have them mean anything. Abstract words such as glory, honor,
courage, or hallow were obscene beside the concrete names of villages, the numbers of roads, the
names of rivers, the numbers of regiments and the dates.
The author, like most Americans, is in denial about America's role in the world. The reason the
US spends more on defense than the next 12 countries has nothing to do with self-defense. America
wants to maintain its global military dominance. Both parties agree on this. Iraq had nothing
to do with 9/11, the war's purpose was to demonstrate American military power. Bill Kristol takes
this a stage further and wants America to play the role of global hegemon and be in a state of
constant war. This is a stupid idea.
Even if Saddam had WMDs, he still had nothing to do with 9/11. The politicians are very good
at finding new scapegoats and switching the blame. A bunch of Saudis attacked the US on 9/11 so
invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Bin Laden moves to Pakistan so pretend you don't know where he is.
Some European terrorists kill other Europeans so Hillary wants to invade Syria. The assumption
seems to be that all Muslims are the same, it does not matter where you kill them.
Fantastic writing...shame Murika won't listen to any of it.
charlieblue
Reading the comments and conversations below, I found myself sickened and saddened by how
many of my fellow Americans can read a considered and well written article like this and
imagine it is a partisan screed.
It is a simple an obvious fact that the people most eager to see the US go to war, in
every generation, are not the people who will suffer and die in those wars. Today is our
Memorial Day. This is an article suggesting we, as Americans, stop and think about the people
who were wounded and those who died in service to our country. Set aside your partisan rage
and consider those people and their deaths, before you listen to words from any politician
calling for more of those deaths.
"Endless war," but it's not only attacks against other nations, it's a war against civil
liberties thus leading to a state in which, whistle blowers, folks who poke holes in the
government's 911 theory or complain about military operations in the China Sea may be
considered unpatriotic, maybe worse.
Dubikau
A friend recently asked, "What's the big deal about wars? I'v seen them on TV lots of times. They have nothing to do with me." Alas, a generation or two after a devastating conflict, it seems people forget. The lessons of history are unknown or irrelevant to the ignorant, the horror beyond imagination. That the clown, Trump, has made it this far is a living horror movie. As Emerson said about someone:
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."
He's a liar and a joke. Neither friends nor enemies can take him seriously and he is unpredictable.
Bellanova Nova
Excellent article.
We must start talking seriously about Trump's pathology guarantees conflict and chaos, and should he get elected, an escalation of an endless war. The ramifications of his incurable and uncontrollable character defect in a political leader are dire and people should be educated about them before it's too late: https://medium.com/@Elamika/the-unbearable-lightness-of-being-a-narcissist-251ec901dae7#.xywh6cceu
Philip Lundt
As a veteran I have to ask you Ben: who gave you "permission to speak for the violently dead?"
A lot of people love Donald Trump. It's not because they are racists warmongers, ignorant, misinformed or stupid. Veterans overwhelmingly support Donald trump. Go ahead call us racists and warmongers too.
And the hypocrisy of all this is how Hillary Clinton doesn't have a problem with war. She participated in toppling Libya and she was doing the same to Syria. So how is it all about Trump and what a war monger he is?
villas1
Bravo. War is a racket.
olman132 -> villas1
As practiced in the US, certainly. The corporations that sell war materiel actively push their products, ensure the support of the government through political contributions, and engage in blackmail by spreading out manufacturing over many locations. In this manner, the only way to profit is by selling weapons, killing more people. What state or city will want to lose employment by letting a manufacturer close? It is incredibly difficult to close an un-needed military base for the same reason, whether here or abroad. War is a great racket, the US has it down pat.
Jim Given
When your'e putting your life at risk in a war zone wondering if you're going to make it back home, there's damned little discussion about politics. Whatever your reasons might have been for signing on the dotted line, all that matters then is the sailor, soldier, marine or airman standing beside you. It's discouraging, although painfully predictable, to read so few comments about veterans and so many comments about divisive politics.
Mshand
Hillary Clinton has started more wars, caused more death than Donald Trump....and yet....you don't mention that do you "We came, He died, We Laughed"
USApatriot12
Unfortunately we're in a position where the United States is a debtor nation, and the easiest way to keep the house of cards from falling is to maintain "full spectrum dominance" in the words of the Pentagon. There's no easy way to unwind this situation. It is, however, absolutely crucial to keep a known psychopath like Clinton out of the command chair.
talenttruth
For over 30 years, Americans have been carefully "programmed" 24/7, by deliberate Fear / Fear /
Fear propaganda, so we would believe that the entire world is full of evil, maniacal enemies out to
"get us."
Of course there always ARE insane haters out there, who are either jealous of America's wealth, or
who (more sophisticated than that) resent America's attempt to colonize-by-marketing, the entire
world for its unchecked capitalism. Two sides of the same American "coin." Those who are
conscripting jobless, hopeless young men overseas to be part of an equally mad "fundamentalist" army
against America ~ benefit hugely FROM our militarism, which "proves their point," from their warped
perspective.
Thus do the (tiny minority) of crazy America-haters out there (who we help create WITH our
militarism), serve as ongoing Perfectly Plausible Proof for Paranoia ~ the fuel for 24/7
fear/fear/fear propaganda. And who benefits from that propaganda? Oh wait, let us all think on that.
For five seconds.
In 1959, Republican war hero and President Dwight David Eisenhower warned us against combining the
incentives of capitalism with the un-audited profitability of wars: the "military industrial
complex." But in we Americans' orgy of personal materialism since the 1960's, we all forgot his
warning and have let that "complex" take over the nation, the world, all our pocketbooks (53% or
more of our treasury now goes to "defense" ~ what a lying word THAT is).
Answer? It it the 1-percent, crazily Wealth Hoarder super-rich who (a) profit insanely from Eternal
War and who now own (b) America's so-called "free press" (ha ha), the latter of which now slants all
news towards Threat, Fear, and War, again, 24/7. And now that "their" Nazi Supreme Court has ruled
that "money" = free speech, that same of sociopathic criminal class ALSO is coming to own politics.
Welcome to fully blooming Corporate Fascism, folks.
bullypulpit
In his book "1984" George Orwell wrote, "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is
strength." Have we fallen so far that we are living that nightmare without question? When we hear
the voices of politicians, with those on the political right being the most egregious offenders,
clamoring for war, we must not forget the cost. Not just in terms of treasure, but especially of the
blood spilled by our men and women in uniform. Ask, "Are the causes they are being asked to
fight...and die...for, worthy of the sacrifice?"
Jim Given -> bullypulpit
I'm afraid that yes, we actually have fallen that far. The Patriot Act is the quintessential
example. Who could possibly oppose something called The Patriot Act?
Jim Given -> bullypulpit
The War on Terror, another fine example. What, you oppose fighting terrorists? The language
stifles (reasoned) dissent. It's brilliant, really.
Tom Farkas
Every year I get an uncomfortable sensation around Memorial Day. I know why now thanks to
this article. I didn't serve in the armed forces. Not for want. I was a post Vietnam teenager.
The armed forces were a joke during the Carter years and the US was in the middle of detante
with the USSR. Nothing to fight about and the word terrorist was still a few years away from
being reinvented. My Dad was a decorated veteran of the police action in Korea. He lost his
best friend there. He rarely talked about it. He and I sat on the couch watching the fall of
Saigon on TV. He silently cried. It was all for not. All those lives, all that misery, all for
nothing but power and glory. He knew it and I've known it since but just couldn't put a finger
on it. Thanks for this article.
talenttruth -> Tom Farkas
Tom, what a beautiful post. My husband and I (recently married after we were finally
"allowed" to, just like "real people"), are both Vietnam veterans (we had to "hide" in order
to serve). And I had majored in college in "U.S. Constitutional History," then worked worked
(ironically!) in the advertising "industry" (the Lie Factory) for enough years to see how
America, business and our society actually works, INSTEAD of "constitutionally."
My self-preoccupied generation sleepwalked from the 1960's until now, foolishly allowing the
super-rich to gradually make nearly every giant corporation dependent on military contracts.
Example? The European Union has openly subsidized its aircraft manufacturer, Airbus. But here,
in the USA ~ that would be "socialism," and so Boeing was forced instead (in order to compete)
to rely on military contracts ("military welfare.") They're both "government subsidization,"
but ours is crooked.
So what do we get when all corporations "must have" ongoing Business, in order to keep their
insatiable profits rolling in? Eternal War. And its "unfortunate side effects" - maimed
veterans, dead soldiers, sailors and airmen, and the revolting hypocrisy of "Memorial Day."
On that day, we pay "respect" to those who died serving the Military Marketing Department for
America's totally out of control, unchecked capitalism, which only serves the overlords at the
top.
Sorry to sound so grim, but I did not serve my country, to have it thus stolen.
Barclay Reynolds
When congress votes to fund wars then [they need to] add 75% more for after care. As a
combat veteran it pisses me off that [instead] charities are used to care for us. Most are run
by want a be military, Senease, types. No charities, it's up to American people to pay every
penny for our care, they voted for the war mongers so, so pay up people. Citizens need to know
true costs, tax raises, cuts in SS , welfare, cuts in schools. Biggest thing, all elected
officials and families and those work for them must use VA hospitals, let's see how that works
out.
Jim Given -> Barclay Reynolds
Failure to care for our veterans is a national disgrace. Thanks for your service brother.
SusanPrice58 -> Barclay Reynolds
I agree. While I'm sure that most of these charities try to do well, it always makes me
angry to think about why the need for charities to care for veterans exists. If we are
determined to fight these wars - then every citizen should have to have deep involvement of
some sort. Raise taxes, ration oil, watch footage of battles, restore the draft - whatever.
Instead, we insulate ourselves in a nice, warm cocoon of "Support Our Veterans" slogans
and flag waving.
Tom Wessel
"Endless war: Trump and the fantasy of cost-free conflict "
How about Hillary and the fantasy of war, PERIOD. There hasn't been a war she didn't like. Did
you listen to her AIPAC speech? No 2 State solution there.
gwpriester
The obscene amount of money the US pays just on the interest on the trillions "borrowed" for the Afghanistan and Iraq adventures would fix most that is wrong with the world. Bush & Cheney discovered if you don't raise taxes, require financial sacrifices, and do not have a draft, that you can wage bogus wars of choice for over a decade without so much as a peep of protest from the public. It is sickening how much good that money could do instead of all the death and destruction it bought.
AllenPitt
"So easy to be the hero in your wet dreams, your shooter games, your securely located war rooms stocked with emergency rations and the external defibrillator. This sort of unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people – old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich – who never experienced war – who in their youth ran as fast from it as they could – send young men and women – most of them middle- and working-class – across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing."
EXACTLY!
OZGODRK
It is actually NOT Donald Trump who is advocating the endless global conflict and
confrontation with Russia, China, India, Iran, Europe and North Korea. The candidate secretly
advocating a never-ending war with the rest of the world is -- Madame Secretary, Hillary
Clinton, in person. Aided and abetted - publicly - by her right-hand woman, another Madame
Secretary, Madeleine Albright and yet another Madame Undersecretary, Samantha Power. All
chicken hawks, all neoconservatives, all pseudo-democrats, all on Wall Street payroll, all
white, and all women who will never see a second of combat for the rest of their lives.
So, the very major premise of the article is flawed and unsustainable. Which, of course,
then makes the entire article collapse as false and misleading.
MOZGODRK -> arrggh
But you are missing the entire point. Trump is NOT advocating the conflict; he is
advocating that we TALK to our enemies, so his lack of combat experience is a moot point.
On the other hand, the Clintons, the Alzhe...er, Albright, and the Samantha Power-Tripp are
all totally kosher with sending millions to die, knowing that they themselves will not
experience a nanosecond of hot cognitive experience.
caravanserai
John Mearsheimer who is a history professor at the University of Chicago wrote a great
book about American foreign policy. Mearsheimer explains how American foreign policy has
developed over the centuries. He argues that it firs objective was to dominate the Western
Hemisphere before extending its reach to Asia and Europe. The War of 1812 and the Monroe
Doctrine was part of a plan to dominate the Americas. The U.S. stopped Japan and Germany
dominating Asia and Europe in the 20th century. The U.S. continued to view the British Empire
as its greatest threat and Roosevelt set about dismantling it during WW2. Once WW2 was won,
the Soviet Union became America's new adversary and it maintained forces in Europe to check
Soviet expansion.
Mearsheimer argues that the U.S. is often in denial about its behavior and Americans are
taught that the U.S. is altruistic and a force for good in the world. Measheimer states that
"idealist rhetoric provided a proper mask for the brutal policies that underpinned the
tremendous growth of American power." In 1991 the U.S. became the world's only super-power and
according to Mearsheimer its main foreign policy objective was to prevent the re-emergence of
a new rival. Following the difficult wars in Afghanistan and Iraq the U.S. is less
certain of its global role. Mearsheimer claims that America's foreign policy elite is
still largely made up of people who want to keep America on top, but these days they usually
prefer to keep their views under wraps. Trump seems to be proposing something completely
different.
Rescue caravanserai
Trump is not proposing anything different. His foreign policy is the same as the establishment. He is not anti-war, nor more hawkish than Obama or Clinton.
Trumps FP is unilateral i.e. The US will go it alone without the UN or anyone else, attack any country he feels is threatning, without paying attention to intl. law, or "political correctness" as he calls it, i.e. the US will kill and torture as many ppl as it feels like to feel safe, and pay no attention to the Geneva Conventions. Other statements about his intended FP, that the msm calls shocking, has already been done, i.e. bomb the crap out of people, kill families of terrorists, waterboarding and much worse. These have been common policies since 9/11 & before. Another policy is to steal Iraq's oil. This has been de facto US FP in the Middle East since Eisenhower. The difference is that Trump says it outright. He makes subtext into the text.
Falanx
I agree with the overall point of this article... but focusing on the GOP and Trump, detracts from its otherwise valid points. What about Wilson, Truman, Johnson, Clinton, Obama and Hillary? Especially Hillary ("We came, We saw, He died") who evidently considers herself a latter day Caesar. The plain fact is that the US was conceived as a warmongering nation. Everyone else in the world understands this.
DanInTheDesert
Wow. What a fantastic article . This is what we need in the era of twitter journalism -- a long think piece. Thank you.[*]
Having said that I have disagree with the conclusion -- we have just a little over a week to avoid a forced choice between two hawks. The chances are slim but not impossible -- be active this weekend. Phonebank for Sanders. Convince a Californian to show up and vote.
PrinceVlad
Trump is the only candidate I've ever heard question the cost of war, it's part of the
reason he said we should flush NATO and we can't police the world for free any longer.
Kenarmy -> PrinceVlad
"Donald Trump would deploy up to 30,000 American soldiers in the Middle East to defeat the
Islamic State, he said at Thursday night's debate."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-iraq-syria-220608#ixzz49yJWQras
I have no problem with destroying ISIS. I have a problem with fighting Russia over
every former Soviet state on their doorstep ala Madam Secretary.
The best way to remember the war dead is to work to ensure that their ranks do not swell.
[*] and if anyone is reading who deals with such things -- y'all need to accept paypal or bitcoin so I can subscribe. Who uses their credit card online anymore?
how can it be 'on the whole' women support HRC when the next breath says '49%' do not? I
smell bias in this article. People tend to forget that Margaret Thatcher was a woman whose
vicious attacks on working people and trade unions and enthusiastic support of criminal
right wing dictators inspired Reagan in their ruthlessness. And whose bellicose foreign
adventures scared us all. HRC is in this class except her ideology seems to be greed rather
than outright 1% class war on the poor but same difference?
Smear campaign? Billy boy has abused women sexually for decades and then smeared his
victims. This isn't the Republicans' fault. Unless you think that James Carville (former
chief of staff for Clinton) saying "drag a $20 through a trailer park & see what you'll
get" is respectful to women. He basically called every one of Bill's victims trailer trash.
Nope, Bill's abuse of women and Hillary's enabling of it IS NOT the fault of Republicans.
Bill & Hillary WERE the war on women!
You know ... support your party's nominee, vote in midterms ... little things like
that.
You assume incorrectly that we "lefties" have a political party. The Democratic party is
currently not one that even attempts to listen to our needs. Across the political spectrum
Americans seem to have at long last discovered that not only does the government not meet
the minimum needs of the populace, voters have started to figure out that neither political
party will send to Washington leaders who have any intention of helping anyone but
high-level campaign contributors.
This is why the only voter enthusiasm is for two complete outsiders- Trump and Sanders.
We could take your advice and hold our noses and carry the garbage to the curb every 4
years in hopes that something good will happen.
But isn't there an old saw about the definition of insanity being the repetition of the
same ineffectual routine while hoping for a different outcome?
Possession of ovaries does not equal qualified. Not saying they hurt, but if you want a
woman president, why on earth would you take the first one offered simply because she is
the first one offered, especially someone as venal, corrupt, morally bankrupt, uncaring,
and mendacious as Hillary Clinton? It's myopic when you fail to see that if this gargoyle
is elected, her record as POTUS will absolutely reflect poorly on women, giving all those
who oppose women presidents plenty of ammo to suggest they were right all along. I don't
mind a female POTUS, just don't make it Hillary Clinton. Nope.
Do you mean besides securing healthcare coverage for 8 million of their children through
SCHIP, advocating for women's rights & issues around the world as Secretary of State, and
compiling an extraordinarily strong voting record on women's issues in the Senate that won
her endorsements from NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and other women's organizations ... ?
And what has TRUMP done for women besides insult them??
What neither of you two geniuses seem to realize is that Hillary Clinton cannot succeed in
becoming president. No matter how the coronation has been fixed and promised, she simply is
unelectable, and if she is the Democratic nominee then that idiot Trump will be sitting in
the Oval Office.
I used to admire the loyalty, albeit naivety, of Clinton fans, but things are getting
far too serious. Do you guys really want President Trump? Because that seems to be where
you are heading.
I am glad that Hillary is supporting abortion, even is she is beginning to quibble about
terms. Of course, Bernie supports it unequivocally.
The only difference between the two
on this matter essentially is that one hell of a lot more women will have to consider
abortion under a Clinton administration to get out of the low wage jobs, unaffordable
health care for themselves or their children death spiral for the low and low middle
incomers who are going to be caught AGAIN in a hell of Hillary's making. Hillary protects
the mass profit taking of insurance, pharma, and medical industry...she also stutters over
even a 12$ minimum wage (and that only in SOME states), has backed trade agreements that
force ever more working people into those going nowhere jobs... so yeah...there are going
to be a LOT more desperate women needing those abortions. Of course, as any fool
knows...abortions are not illegal in many countries in middle and northern Europe...and
guess what...they don't need as many of them because they do more for workers, and have a
right to health care!
I am not a Trump supporter. But his awfulness does not make her any better.
That Clinton
was married to a president doesn't impress me in the slightest. That she became a senator
was because she exploited her name-recognition after her husband's term of office. As Sec
State she was not just a pathological liar, but also incompetent.
If I was religious, I would pray for her indictment. Then the dems would be compelled to
pick someone else.
Ironic that you don't realize how sexist your comment is. But it is an attitude not
untypical of Clinton supporters.
Hillary will not give us a third term of Obama, she will
give us a third term for her husband. And this is all that Bill wants, to be back holding
the reins of power again.
How many "true feminists" hire private detectives to intimidate women accusing their
husbands of sexual harassment or actual assault? Hillary is a hypocrite of the highest
order - "All women must be believed" - except the ones accusing her husband. If Monica
Lewinski hadn't had DNA evidence to back up her claims they would have had her committed to
a mental institution.
Trump and Clinton deserve each other. That's why they are running neck and neck in the
unpopularity stakes. Trouble is that Trump is starting to gain on her - and she has nothing
to fight back with and stop her slide.
You really haven't a clue, have you? Obama was a pretty poor president as far as the
Democratic party was concerned. He made no effort whatever to build up the party, and spent
wasteful years trying to compromise with the Republicans (when it was obvious to everyone
he was getting nowhere.
The first two years of his presidency could have been the golden years had he lived up
to the hype he projected during the nomination process. He destroyed the Democratic party
with his attempts to compromise with Republican rattle snakes when no compromise was
possible. And, yes, Hillary wants to carry on his good work! And she is already well in
with the republican elite like the Bushes and Romney. Friend, take your head out of your
...
"... Everything is just getting that bit more embarrassing for Clinton now, as if it wasn't for her early jump on Sanders before people got to know who he was, she could well be behind. ..."
"... Vote for Bernie is more like a protest vote: people just show their disgust with neocon Killary posing as a Democrat. That's why if Dems nominate Killary, many Bernie supporters won't vote at all, and some would even vote Trump. Trump and Bernie are opposites in many things, but they have one thing in common: Republicratic establishment is afraid of both. ..."
Maybe the 'mis-spoke' argument for Clinton's crushing in WV today (a
state she won in 2008) is not the only a influence on today's vote?
Perhaps the people of WV have also been reading or hearing about
Clinton's appalling polling in a showdown with Trump compared to
Sanders? Meanwhile, if the state does goes Repub in the general, it will
just be like all those other southern states that Hillary won!
I do believe it may be yourself and your beloved Hillary that are
hitting the bottle. The more Sanders wins the more he may be able to
swing the Super Delegates who are free to pledge for who they want.
Everything is just getting that bit more embarrassing for Clinton now,
as if it wasn't for her early jump on Sanders before people got to know
who he was, she could well be behind.
It is something the Democrats can't ignore, just as they can't ignore
Clintons popularity ratings along side Trump.
Why pull out when you're winning? Sounds like something a loser would
do.
Got to love the Guardian, first they get a bit over
excited and announce Clinton and Trump win after almost
no votes counted, with their ridiculous little
Clinton/Trump graphics waving their arms, then have to
wakeup from their warm fuzzy dream and face reality,
Sanders and done it again.
The Fat Lady is starting to
get nervous as the Orchestra start to leave the pit.
Whereas cocaine capitalists are so good at maths that
they sold sub-prime mortgage packages, created the GFC
and destroyed the world economy... and then got bailed
out by the people... (that is, they suddenly and briefly
embraced socialism in their time of need, in case that's
lost on you.)
Vote for Bernie is more like a protest vote: people
just show their disgust with neocon Killary posing as a
Democrat. That's why if Dems nominate Killary, many
Bernie supporters won't vote at all, and some would even
vote Trump. Trump and Bernie are opposites in many
things, but they have one thing in common: Republicratic
establishment is afraid of both.
Guardian: I'm getting tired of
waiting for a fair headline
from you, for example, "Bernie
Takes West Virginia in May
10th state primary" instead of
"Trump this, Trump
that/hillary_clinton. blah, blah,
blah". It's as simple as Who,
What, When, Where &
Why-accurately reported. As
taught in 9th grade journalism
classes.
Im waiting for an article
without the negatives such as
West Virginians only voted for
Sanders because they are
waiting to vote for Trump.
It's bad enough to have
Hillary, Bill, the Koch bros.,
the banksters, the Supreme
Court et al subverting our
democracy, must you join in as
well?
Bernie's formidable & we, his
supporters are tenacious!
GO BERNIE!!!!
Sociopath taps into public discontent amongst smaller
demographic group by giving them someone to blame and
displaying authoritarian strength in the face of hated
establishment (who lets be honest with maybe one
exception were hopeless candidates). Tbf I'd be less
concerned with what Republicans think and more concerned
with the Independent voting block who have massive
concerns about Hillary for mostly different reasons
Clinton's campaign has soaked up a goodly portion of this
allegedly donated money. She believes that *she* is the
Democratic Party heir. Clinton is for Clinton and will do
anything to get what she wants.
The point is that while Sanders gets support from people
to the left of Clinton, he also gets a lot of support
from people to the right of Clinton and who are backing
him as an anti-establishment guy, not a left-wing guy.
Why would Sanders, who has made his entire campaign about
the corrupting influence of Wall Street and corporate
interests in government, and has self funded his campaign
as a result, team up with a person who is the living
embodiment of all he disdains? Hillary Clinton's campaign
is the nexus of Wall Street and corruption, with an FBI
investigation thrown in for good measure.
He says it was a disaster, is against regime change,
questions our relationship with the Saudis, wants to be
neutral with regard to Israel and Palestine, and
questions why we need NATO decades after the Soviet Union
collapsed. All sound positions in my book.
Not me. I'm voting Sanders. And if its not Sanders, then
I'm voting Trump.
The problem is corruption in
government, and how the government and economy are
rigged.
Only Sanders and Trump talk about this. Clinton...
with her speech money and tens of millions from Wall
Street donors and Pentagon supplier donors... she is part
of the problem, and certainly not the solution.
Once again we have uniformly
lousy, almost criminally
responsibly terrible political
reporting from the Guardian
concerning the Democratic
Party's race. I come expecting
you to be awful and you never
disappoint. You know nothing,
you understand nothing.
Well Hillary's fucked in that case but I disagree that
Americans only care about tax cuts especially when you
consider certain studies...
TPC found that the average tax burden would
increase by about $9,000 in 2017 but the average
amount of benefits would increase by more than
$13,000. As a result, households would on average
receive a net income gain of almost $4,300 under
Sanders's proposals, TPC said.
Households in the bottom fifth of income would
on average receive a net gain of more than $10,000,
and those in the middle fifth of income would have an
average gain of about $8,500.
Those in the top 5
percent of income would see a net loss of about
$111,000, TPC said.
Bernie has a very strong case to not only be the most
progressive candidate but also the one lightest on the
average American's pocket
She's a greedy warmongering horror with nothing to offer
anyone. Sanders supports will simply not vote. At all.
For anyone. A handful might vote for Trump but not in
significant numbers.
I would refrain from too many
predictions six months out. (a) USA is a moody country
with (b) a love of novelty and (c) there's no frame of
reference for what's going to come next. Except that
we're in for a wild ride.
to the extent Trump generates buzz, clicks, excitement
& controversy -- the press must secretly praying for him
to win
Welcome to our live wire coverage with our rock star
interns. After another terrible night for Sanders, who
was expected to gain 99.9% of the vote, this latest win
in West Virginia is another devastating blow to the
Sanders campaign, coming after a series of 17 incredibly
lucky shock results by landslide margins which of course
don't mean anything.
Because of the large number of
comments which disagree with the Guardian editorial line
we will be closing this blog shortly.
You can make the case that Hillary's 30,000 deleted
personal emails are = to Nixons 18 minutes of missing
tape. Also her use of "enemies list" and her use of the
Super Pac "Correct the Record" cyber war against anyone
who speaks out about her in a negative manner, as well as
her hawkish foreign policy and her close relationship
with Kissenger to me be very similar to Nixon.
Except
for your already disproved slander that Sanders is a
"socialist" there is not much else he has in common with
Lenin.
Well, the moderator is making it easier for Clinton's
super Pac to work these comments now. You can't debate
these people rationally, they are paid to distort and
reflect back to you the opposite of everything.
Body language works on a different level. You can't fake it easily. It's
almost impossible to fake micro expressions. And we all pick them up.
This is probably the main reason why Clinton is deemed untrustworthy.
It's because her body's expressions can't hide her lies
Bernie Sanders got 72% in West Virginia among those who want
more
liberal policies than the Obama Administration. Or in a nutshell
according to the Guardian, "Trump voters".
My view is that Hillary is bought and sold by
a small group of ultra-wealthy 0.001%ers who
have some form of personality disorder which
means that they are only interested in
unending self-enrichment beyond any from of
rational limit, all at the expense of
*everybody else* on the planet
The article
rather backs this up, and furthermore points
out that at least some of these same people
were also backing the frightful Cruz until he
dropped out of the race
Are you happy to be shilling for Hillary
now you have this information?
Guardian office alert !!! Guardian office alert !!!
There are elections in the USA at the moment in some of the states and
the Guardian editor in charge is worried. Why ?
There are not enough anti Trump articles yet written for today and one
(?new) staffer had the audacity to write an article on Hillary that had
one line in it that was seen as a bit 'negative' for our former first
lady.
The editor in charge may have to write a negative article on Trump
him/herself.... so what to do now.........the news staffer is walking
down the road already
If you need some help Guardian staff..ask me.. I have read so many of
your anti Trump articles that I can memorize most of the
lines.....................
True colours, alright. Bernie voters have principles- they're not
willing to toss those aside in order to support NAFTA-loving,
email-losing, regime-change-addict Clinton, the woman whose campaign
platform changes entirely depending on which way the wind is blowing. It
beats me why anyone voting for Bernie would want to vote for Clinton-
expect more outsourcing, more 'free trade', more TPIP, and more Middle
East interventions if she snakes her way into the Oval office.
Yes Clinton is
cleverly using a
LEGAL way to
bypass campaign
financing laws
thanks to her
joint account with
the DNC.
Although, to be
fair, she is not
the first
candidate to do
that.
The legality is
not for debate
here but I won't
say that much
about the
morality...
She consistently has shown that money and power is all she is interested in. She does not care where that money or power comes from as long as she gets it.
That's why she took "the evil ones" campaign contribution.
"But I believe that it is not enough to just reject Trump – this is an
opportunity to define a progressive vision for America."
Exactly! The
Clinton campaign is basically stating "Vote Hillary, she's less worse
than Trump!", there's nothing progressive or innovative about it, just
plain sailing everything thing is fine stop thinking now and get back to
work stuff. Shame really, the woulda shoulda coulda that's coming to the
US in a few months after Trump wins...because he's going to, dour
predictions by the media aside (they didn't see any of this coming) he's
just the kind of guy Americans will vote for, I mean, we elected Bush II
twice! Well...once, really.
Simons, a string theory expert and former cold war codebreaker,
has made an estimated $15.5bn from Renaissance Technologies the
mathematics-driven "quant" hedge fund he set up 34 years ago.
The fund, which is run from the tiny Long Island village of
Setauket where Simons owns a huge beachfront compound,
has donated
$13m to Cruz's failed campaign. With Cruz out of the race,
Renaissance has switched donations to Hillary Clinton, with more than
$2m donated so far. Euclidean Capital, Simon's family office, has
donated more than $7m to Clinton.
The media and the parties conveniently forget that more than 40% of
Americans are Independents and they can swing this election. Most of
them would vote for Sanders in the general election in Nov., but they
won't vote for Clinton. The DNC should be assessing who could best win
the White House and back that candidate. I am at a lose as to why they
aren't doing that.
Hillary, let's face it: you and the working class just don't go
together. It is a very awkward , tense and schizo combination. You
should be campaigning on Broadway, Sunset Strip or Rodeo Drive. West
Virginia just isn't your natural habitat: It is like putting an
anaerobic bacterium into an oxygen tank.
Stick to the 1% quarters, and you'll do just fine (plus, they give
good speech fees). And you don't even have to watch those unwashed
coalminers' faces and pretend that you are one of them.
Hey Guardian fascinating to know what the Clinton Camp (Machine) thinks
about tonight but what does Senator Sanders campaign think? Just curious
you know. Helps to have reporting from both sides to help unbiased
voters make up their minds.
Don't get me wrong I think it was nice you
mentioned Bernie's landslide in Nebraska but what is he saying? Sure
he's holding 25,000 rallies but could you cover his actual words and
policies with an equal amount of reporting as you are covering Clinton?
Of note I read elsewhere he is 281 delegates behind and expected to
win 8 out of 9 remaining states. Does that mean Clinton has no chance of
becoming the presumptive nominee until the Convention? Also have you
investigated her Goldman Sachs speeches? She said she'd release them
when others have and I do not think Sanders or Trump are withholding
their speeches.
Key word.... Integrity. It's not about Bernie,it's about us. No more
taxation without representation. Corporations aren't people.. I should
know as I work for one and own one. Capitalism without regulation self
cannibalises as it is left with no consumers. That's what the new deal
was really about... Saving capitalism and I'm all for that.
This liveblog is illustrative of the inane soma that the media,
unfortunately this appears to include the guardian, will feed to its
readers over the general election. Again you have forgotten that smart
young people, who make up a large proportion of your readership, are
extremely put off by the extent of Trump's coverage. I know he's the
presumptive nominee, but that puts the onus on discussing his policies
more, contrasting them with hillary's etc, but you do nothing of the
sort. I know it's a liveblog and you're scraping through the day for
tidbits but i really think more analysis instead of random useless
coverage of events is in order. Oh Trump's a buffoon that says stupid
things? Thanks, I needed more evidence of that. Oh he polls worse than
Nickelback? Hilarious. No, no, no. Give us some real information and not
this public interest nonsense - that's what social media is for.
Delegate math in the primaries is one thing; electoral college math in
the general election is quite another. Clinton's margin in popular votes
derives from red (mostly southern) state primaries that, with few
exceptions (like NC), neither will win in the general. As others have
noted, in swing states Sanders lost, he's polling better against Trump
than Clinton does (FL, OH, PA). There's even an interesting poll from NH
that has Sanders ahead of Trump by 21 points (the same as his primary
win margin), but Clinton is only up +5--the difference between Clinton
keeping Sen. Ayotte (R) in the Senate for another term, and Sanders
dragging the Hill-shill Gov. Hassen (D) into the Senate.
Given Clinton's poor showing against Trump, both nationally and
state-by-state, i'm beginning to suspect that difference isn't Trump
gaining supporters against Clinton, but Clinton losing supporters to
those not voting, voting third party (mostly Green), or writing Sanders'
in--aka, the Bernie or Bust movement.
It's still very possible Clinton goes to the Convention well short of
the 2,383 pledged delegates she needs to win the nomination without the
help of super delegates. And if her polls keep tanking (and taking any
chance of winning back the Senate, the House, governors and statehouses)
with it, the SD's will have a very hard time justifying awarding her the
nomination simply out of personal loyalty, and still face the prospect
of losing the presidency anyway.
1) The New York Board of
Elections received whopping pay raises, for unexplained reasons.
2) The NY BOE's own internal minutes of July 7, 2015 (available to
the public) show that the full board were completely aware of purging
~160,000 NY voters, treated that as a routine vote, and moved onto other
apparently more pressing business
"... Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty ..."
"... So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex. ..."
"... Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!! ..."
"... The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it. ..."
"... In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston. ..."
"... Popular vote? When closed primaries arn't enough good old fashioned fraud will do. ..."
"... Sanders has been consistently winning smaller states and may well have won New York too if not for the shenanigans going on there. ..."
"... it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him after another series of massive wins. ..."
"... Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life. ..."
"... The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked". ..."
"... The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage, it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada). ..."
"... The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy , I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses. ..."
"... This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats. ..."
"... Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in. ..."
"... This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal, and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down" ..."
"... Using a dysfunctional system to change that very system is not hypocritical. ..."
"... Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her. ..."
"... wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy. ..."
"... Bow out gracefully, what a joke. Obama only got her support after she extorted the price of Secretary of State from him. ..."
"... NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker. ..."
"... Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman). ..."
"... The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State, has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. ..."
"... Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland> Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American ... ..."
"... Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative ..."
"... Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil " which is evil . ..."
"... Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well, just that, characters--cartoon characters. ..."
"... Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign. ..."
"... On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. ..."
There is nothing "shocking" about Bernie Sanders' victory in Indiana. Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions
and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the
reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still
comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty - than the rest of the man-made, prefabricated plastic
stuff that Republican party has to offer. There is a perfectly good and legitimate reason why Jebb Bush and Carly Fiorina could
not crawl out of their lower single-digit poll ratings: the general public found them insincere, dishonest and carrying hidden
agendas -- and this was NOT merely a misperception on part of the paranoid nation: you CAN'T con 330 million people into perpetual
dumbness simultaneously. It just isn't done.
So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of
lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election,
she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack
and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex.
Bernie Sanders is America's last best hope and change , and the very first real one. Come November,
America has only one choice: to vote for one of the neoliberal corporate pieces of toxic human waste , or to vote for a decent
human being. Alternatives do not exist. This is it.
I don't see how the DNC can support a candidate who is under F.B.I. investigation. It doesn't matter if she is indicted?
I'm so glad Bernie is going the distance.
Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!!
The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans
to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large
segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support
that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have
no doubt about it.
In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting
machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton
clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston.
Hillary can't win in a fair fight, so she resorts to dirty tricks that would shame Richard Nixon.
I don't think anyone, anyone who has followed the primaries thus far. I thought it was 'likely' myself, only doubt that lingered
was the supposed 'lost momentum' theories after Philly. Sanders is solid, I think most people now see through the mainstream bias
against him. He'll fight till the convention, and it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him
after another series of massive wins.
Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the
DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life.
I keep seeing that argument that Sander's supporters will vote for Trump. People aroused by his message of anti war; opposing
the growing disparity of wealth; increasing the taxes for the rich to match the benefits they have been privileged to have such
a greater share of the wealth; and other reforms: in what world would they easily switch to voting for an egomaniac, elitist,
narcissist, misogynist, racist, xenophobe? I for one could consider skipping a vote, but NEVER could I see going from a Sanders
to a Fascist.
Hear we go again with the gratuitous elitist spin. First it was how Trump was going to be stopped short of cinching the nomination
"this time" - just you wait! Now the Guardian journalists have been instructed to feign "shock" that Sanders has once again shown
what pull he has in this primary season.
The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political
system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked".
The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take
it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's
demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage,
it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada).
The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy
, I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses.
This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why
Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats.
That shifting of funds from the National committees to the states and then back to the national to avoid scrutiny of funds is
the similar trick that tom DeLay used in texas that he was charged with evading election laws. Clinton does the same and there
is no coverage?
When you think about it rationally, which Clintonistas are incapable of, how weak a candidate Hillary is that a little known Senator
from a small North Eastern state can carry forth a campaign into May.
After all she has repared her run for four years, placed her flunky Debbie Wassermann Schultz as head of the DNC, built a war
chest from Corporate money, lined up commitments from over 400 Super Delegates before the primaries even began and yet, Bernie's
still hanging in there.
"In Friday, while Hillary Clinton was addressing the Democratic National Committee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, senior campaign
officials announced that Clinton had already received pledges of support from at least 440 of the party's estimated 713 super
delegates. That total includes 130 superdelegates who have publicly endorsed Clinton, as well as an additional 310 who have made
private commitments to support Hillary."
Bernie had no name recognition, campaign staff and very little money to begin with, but his message of hope resonated enough
to attract millions of supporters who were tired of the status quo. and they have raised over $200,000,000 in small donations
without any SuperPacs.
Keep going Bernie, you are a true Progressive and American Hero.
There is a God! You go Bernie. I am waiting for you here in California.
When Bernie was speaking about healthcare for all .I started wondering how many people died at home .because there they are
with a pain in their chests and then they grab their healthcare booklets and they start adding it all up and what it takes just
to get them to the hospital and the hospital stay.
There is the .. "Ambulance co-pay" ..$225.00 one way. ( God forbid you decide to go for a joy-ride.) Oh wait ..you have to
add the "Emergency Room co-pay $75.00, then if you get admitted .it is a co-pay of $250.00 per day (PER DAY) for six days. If
you stay longer whoopee it's for free. ( I could be staying at Four Seasons for that.)
Who is fucking kidding who? What in the hell am I paying health insurance for and I am retired I have Medicare too? Who is
making money on my and other people's misfortunes? We are all victims who have been convinced that ALL OF THIS shite is our own
faults and individually we are on our own.
Little do we realize that if we stand shoulder to shoulder and we get together and protest this travesty called healthcare,
that we could get all of this changed to our benefit.
It is time for Medicare for all. My taxes are to be used for the Common Good of everyone in this country. I do not want my
taxes to go to war, war and more war.
Bernie also addresses our shameful infrastructure in this country. The rich corporations and individuals take all of these
illicit profits; my money, and yours and they just sit on it and do nothing to help this country or its people. When do we start
getting smarter?
Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire
of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the
corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in.
metropoled, and merely 'posing' as our former country ---- and which Bernie's only partially revealed and vague, "Political
Revolution" is going to be expanding into his, and OUR, fully defined sentence (with an 'object') and is growing into a loud,
courageous, but peaceful, "Political Revolution against EMPIRE" as the Second American Revolution against EMPIRE again before
this the 240th year's anniversary of our First (and only successful) American Revolution against EMPIRE.
Everyone, and every sector, of this EMPIRE is deaf, dumb, and blind about this Revolution against Empire:
"There's something happening here
But what it is ain't exactly clear ...
Stop, children, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's going down"
This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which
is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal,
and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con
'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down"
Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the
ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her.
For the good of the country, the Democrat Party should consider having Clinton pull out, because Trump will beat her, but Sanders
would be him. But they won't and she won't, because they serve their owners, and their arrogance, hubris and sense of entitlement
is supreme to their concerns for the rest of the 99%. Hopefully this election year ill see the destruction of both corrupt major
corporate parties, and a rebirth of actual democracy in the USA. One person, one vote, not bought and unsuppressed.
wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy.
California is an open primary, means that the 40 independents can vote.
Hmmm, looking at the math today things have gotten very interesting. Clinton has 1701 pledged delegates, Bernie has 1417. To win
outright before the convention you need 2382 pledged delegates. That would mean 1) Bernie cannot do it. 2) Hillary would have
to win 681 out of the final 933 delegates up for grabs. That's 73% she needs to win.
That ain't going to happen so it pretty much a fact now that the super delegates will pick this years Democratic nominee.
Let's start putting the pressure on them NOW to make the right choice. Call them, write to them.....
NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing
Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker.
Christian Zionist, John
Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago
School of Economics (Friedman).
If Bernie, a socialist can win in a conservative Nazi state like Indiana, he can win any where.
He even won in Indiana"s third largest city (Evansville) the most conservative large city in Indiana.
Yeah cause Clinton has detailed policies on fixing this? Or does she play identity politics and hand wave?
"In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000.
Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."
At this point, the only hope for world peace is Sanders. I'll write in Sanders before I would vote for Hillary "Failed State"
Clinton. Hillary carries too high a load of baggage to prevail, even with historical trivia like Trevor 0691 above.
Trump is safer bet because he will not be able to get Congressional support, the same problem Jimmy Carter, the Washington
outsider had. Hillary's commitment to war, with her experience on Capital Hill is a most depressing specter.
No comments allowed on the 'what is sander's route to the Democratic nomination' article but it is exceptionally poor journalism
I quote: No numbers are available for the primaries that will be held in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Oregon and Kentucky,
partly because pollsters know the voters there won't change the political calculus much – they're not "wasting" their time in
places with few delegates available.
Polls are available for Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia.
The most recent Oregon poll shows Sanders 1 point behind. The West Virginia poll shows him 5 points ahead, the most recent Kentucky
poll (taken at start of March) has him 5 points behind.
The latest New Jersey poll shows a 9 point deficit for him (compared with a 23 point deficit less than 2 months earlier).
It's fair enough that journalists have their opinions in opinion pieces, but when factual inaccuracies are mixed up in such
pieces, or so-called analytical pieces, it's just really shoddy, unprofessional journalism...
The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State,
has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has
supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.
How then are we to think that she will not import this treatment to the women of America?
She supports human rights criminal Bibi Netanyahu and AIPAC with undying expressions of apology for extreme Zionism and Orthodox
suppression of women. She opposes Jewish Voice for Peace and the indigenous Israel peace movement.
Remember Dixie Lee Ray who was elected disastrous Governor of WA State when ERA movement shooed her in? Women voters beware.
Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary
in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol
of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland>
Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American
...
Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is
wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative
Can you guys please make sure the Guardian reports on the Hillary Victory Fund hoarding 99% of the money it raises "for State
races". It is of critical importance that voters be made aware of how the Clinton campaign is behaving (or mis-behaving).
Sorry media controlling elites, Bernie has not lost yet. After her canary died in Indiana... Hillary has 1700 or 71% of the 2383
pledged delegates needed. So HRC will need 60% of the remaining 1114 pledged delegates to clinch. Bernie is favored in most of
the remaining states. Contested convention!!! And what a rowdy party in the streets it will be. Bernie will likely go in into
Philly just slightly behind in pledged delegates but with majority of states - and many of these states the ones Dems most count
on to win in the general. Considering Bernie's popularity with Independents(had they been allowed to vote in the primary he would
have won big) he would be the best choice against Trump. But as we all know from exit poll discrepancies - this election is rigged.
Pointing to evidence of the corrupted process he will announce his run as the Green Party candidate.
actually, it was only during this campaign that I bothered to check out why HRC had a private server, and it's not pretty. Washington
Examiner did an excellent researched piece, laying out how the Clintons amassed $3b through their private foundation and big speaking
feeds, and that's where the private server was needed, to organize the millions in state department contracts in line with donations.
Prime time, mainstream media including the Guardian has simply refused to check out the work that has been done in the emails
released last year. This is no GOP conspiracy. In fact, the Examiner lays out how Bush family used similar methods to amass their
$3b fortune. That is the amassing of private wealth through the use of public office that is endemic to Washington - pretty close
to Oligarchy at the scale of operations by former presidents, and heads of state. It's a level of corruption that has reached
proportions that led to the $700billion bailout and $6 trillion loan bailout - the Clintons use neo-liberal 'charity' to mask
their real program, personal wealth and unlimited power.
Sanders once again proved his appeal to disaffected midwest voters
Hah! What a joke!
Disaffected? More like realistic, compassionate, ethical, intelligent, and fair to all... Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know
a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil
" which is evil .
Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices.
Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well,
just that, characters--cartoon characters.
"Sanders led front-runner Hillary Clinton by 6 points, with 68 percent of precincts reporting, when networks declared him the
winner. Exit polls had Sanders winning by 12 points, but they were based solely on interviews with voters on Election Day. "
'Bernie Sanders Wins Indiana Democratic Primary' Huffington Post 3 May 2016
More voting machine hijinks. The Democratic Primary winner should not be decided until all investigations are complete.
who illegally gets millions from the DNC to pay young people to post comments for her ... He can beat Trump, 40 percent of all
American registered voters are independent who'll vote for Sanders, not for the DNC candidate (Dems are split 50/50 since April
7, and that's with tricky campaign finance rules thanks to your 'qualified' candidate. She is very qualified to sell out the American
people on every score, from Nafta to support for military coup in Hondurus. I mean, is she even a Democrat, or just a closeted
GOP zombie Kissinger lover?
This isn't a football game where you put on the colors and cheer on your team. People are not interested in business as usual,
every four years, support the platform, my party right or wrong politics. I don't know you, and I don't know how tough or easy
you have things. But here in Indy, about 90% of the people I know struggle to make ends meet. Those of us who voted for Bernie
are not necessarily trying to destroy the democratic party, but there's more to life for us than electing Hillary Clinton the
1st female president.
Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes
you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence
of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign.
At least be original. That article isn't a showstopping mic-drop, and trashing Bernie doesn't make HRC look any better. People
aren't loyal to Bernie for his party affiliation, they're loyal to him for his consistent policy positions. Not just his consistency,
but also the fact that he's been proven right again and again. That's an arena where HRC simply can't compete.
On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. First and foremost, do
no harm. Someone who compromises to insert slivers of good legislation into bad bills still, in the net, passes more bad laws
than good ones. Maybe we're all traumatized by the incompetence of congress over the past several years, but seeing the gears
of lawmaking in motion for the sake of motion is not the answer.
"... Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty ..."
"... So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex. ..."
"... Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!! ..."
"... The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it. ..."
"... In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston. ..."
"... Popular vote? When closed primaries arn't enough good old fashioned fraud will do. ..."
"... Sanders has been consistently winning smaller states and may well have won New York too if not for the shenanigans going on there. ..."
"... it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him after another series of massive wins. ..."
"... Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life. ..."
"... The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked". ..."
"... The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage, it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada). ..."
"... The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy , I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses. ..."
"... This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats. ..."
"... After all she has prepared her run for four years, placed her flunky Debbie Wassermann Schultz as head of the DNC, built a war chest from Corporate money, lined up commitments from over 400 Super Delegates before the primaries even began and yet, Bernie's still hanging in there. ..."
"... Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in. ..."
"... This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal, and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down" ..."
"... Using a dysfunctional system to change that very system is not hypocritical. ..."
"... Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her. ..."
"... wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy. ..."
"... Bow out gracefully, what a joke. Obama only got her support after she extorted the price of Secretary of State from him. ..."
"... NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker. ..."
"... Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman). ..."
"... The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State, has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. ..."
"... Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland> Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American ... ..."
"... Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative ..."
"... Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil " which is evil . ..."
"... Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well, just that, characters--cartoon characters. ..."
"... Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign. ..."
"... On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. ..."
There is nothing "shocking" about Bernie Sanders' victory in Indiana. Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions
and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the
reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still
comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty - than the rest of the man-made, prefabricated plastic
stuff that Republican party has to offer. There is a perfectly good and legitimate reason why Jebb Bush and Carly Fiorina could
not crawl out of their lower single-digit poll ratings: the general public found them insincere, dishonest and carrying hidden
agendas -- and this was NOT merely a misperception on part of the paranoid nation: you CAN'T con 330 million people into perpetual
dumbness simultaneously. It just isn't done.
So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of
lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election,
she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack
and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex.
Bernie Sanders is America's last best hope and change , and the very first real one. Come November,
America has only one choice: to vote for one of the neoliberal corporate pieces of toxic human waste , or to vote for a decent
human being. Alternatives do not exist. This is it.
I don't see how the DNC can support a candidate who is under F.B.I. investigation. It doesn't matter if she is indicted?
I'm so glad Bernie is going the distance.
Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!!
The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans
to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large
segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support
that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have
no doubt about it.
In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting
machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton
clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston.
Hillary can't win in a fair fight, so she resorts to dirty tricks that would shame Richard Nixon.
I don't think anyone, anyone who has followed the primaries thus far. I thought it was 'likely' myself, only doubt that lingered
was the supposed 'lost momentum' theories after Philly. Sanders is solid, I think most people now see through the mainstream bias
against him. He'll fight till the convention, and it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him
after another series of massive wins.
Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the
DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life.
I keep seeing that argument that Sander's supporters will vote for Trump. People aroused by his message of anti war; opposing
the growing disparity of wealth; increasing the taxes for the rich to match the benefits they have been privileged to have such
a greater share of the wealth; and other reforms: in what world would they easily switch to voting for an egomaniac, elitist,
narcissist, misogynist, racist, xenophobe? I for one could consider skipping a vote, but NEVER could I see going from a Sanders
to a Fascist.
Hear we go again with the gratuitous elitist spin. First it was how Trump was going to be stopped short of cinching the nomination
"this time" - just you wait! Now the Guardian journalists have been instructed to feign "shock" that Sanders has once again shown
what pull he has in this primary season.
The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political
system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked".
The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take
it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's
demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage,
it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada).
The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy
, I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses.
This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why
Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats.
That shifting of funds from the National committees to the states and then back to the national to avoid scrutiny of funds is
the similar trick that tom DeLay used in texas that he was charged with evading election laws. Clinton does the same and there
is no coverage?
When you think about it rationally, which Clintonistas are incapable of, how weak a candidate Hillary is that a little known Senator
from a small North Eastern state can carry forth a campaign into May.
After all she has prepared her run for four years, placed her flunky Debbie Wassermann Schultz as head of the DNC, built
a war chest from Corporate money, lined up commitments from over 400 Super Delegates before the primaries even began and yet,
Bernie's still hanging in there.
"In Friday, while Hillary Clinton was addressing the Democratic National Committee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, senior campaign
officials announced that Clinton had already received pledges of support from at least 440 of the party's estimated 713 super
delegates. That total includes 130 superdelegates who have publicly endorsed Clinton, as well as an additional 310 who have made
private commitments to support Hillary."
Bernie had no name recognition, campaign staff and very little money to begin with, but his message of hope resonated enough
to attract millions of supporters who were tired of the status quo. and they have raised over $200,000,000 in small donations
without any SuperPacs.
Keep going Bernie, you are a true Progressive and American Hero.
There is a God! You go Bernie. I am waiting for you here in California.
When Bernie was speaking about healthcare for all .I started wondering how many people died at home .because there they are
with a pain in their chests and then they grab their healthcare booklets and they start adding it all up and what it takes just
to get them to the hospital and the hospital stay.
There is the .. "Ambulance co-pay" ..$225.00 one way. ( God forbid you decide to go for a joy-ride.) Oh wait ..you have to
add the "Emergency Room co-pay $75.00, then if you get admitted .it is a co-pay of $250.00 per day (PER DAY) for six days. If
you stay longer whoopee it's for free. ( I could be staying at Four Seasons for that.)
Who is fucking kidding who? What in the hell am I paying health insurance for and I am retired I have Medicare too? Who is
making money on my and other people's misfortunes? We are all victims who have been convinced that ALL OF THIS shite is our own
faults and individually we are on our own.
Little do we realize that if we stand shoulder to shoulder and we get together and protest this travesty called healthcare,
that we could get all of this changed to our benefit.
It is time for Medicare for all. My taxes are to be used for the Common Good of everyone in this country. I do not want my
taxes to go to war, war and more war.
Bernie also addresses our shameful infrastructure in this country. The rich corporations and individuals take all of these
illicit profits; my money, and yours and they just sit on it and do nothing to help this country or its people. When do we start
getting smarter?
Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire
of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the
corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in.
metropoled, and merely 'posing' as our former country ---- and which Bernie's only partially revealed and vague, "Political
Revolution" is going to be expanding into his, and OUR, fully defined sentence (with an 'object') and is growing into a loud,
courageous, but peaceful, "Political Revolution against EMPIRE" as the Second American Revolution against EMPIRE again before
this the 240th year's anniversary of our First (and only successful) American Revolution against EMPIRE.
Everyone, and every sector, of this EMPIRE is deaf, dumb, and blind about this Revolution against Empire:
"There's something happening here
But what it is ain't exactly clear ...
Stop, children, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's going down"
This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which
is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal,
and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con
'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down"
Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the
ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her.
For the good of the country, the Democrat Party should consider having Clinton pull out, because Trump will beat her, but Sanders
would be him. But they won't and she won't, because they serve their owners, and their arrogance, hubris and sense of entitlement
is supreme to their concerns for the rest of the 99%. Hopefully this election year ill see the destruction of both corrupt major
corporate parties, and a rebirth of actual democracy in the USA. One person, one vote, not bought and unsuppressed.
wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy.
California is an open primary, means that the 40 independents can vote.
Hmmm, looking at the math today things have gotten very interesting. Clinton has 1701 pledged delegates, Bernie has 1417. To win
outright before the convention you need 2382 pledged delegates. That would mean 1) Bernie cannot do it. 2) Hillary would have
to win 681 out of the final 933 delegates up for grabs. That's 73% she needs to win.
That ain't going to happen so it pretty much a fact now that the super delegates will pick this years Democratic nominee.
Let's start putting the pressure on them NOW to make the right choice. Call them, write to them.....
NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right
wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker.
Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet
of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman).
If Bernie, a socialist can win in a conservative Nazi state like Indiana, he can win any where.
He even won in Indiana"s third largest city (Evansville) the most conservative large city in Indiana.
Yeah cause Clinton has detailed policies on fixing this? Or does she play identity politics and hand wave?
"In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000.
Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."
At this point, the only hope for world peace is Sanders. I'll write in Sanders before I would vote for Hillary "Failed State"
Clinton. Hillary carries too high a load of baggage to prevail, even with historical trivia like Trevor 0691 above.
Trump is safer bet because he will not be able to get Congressional support, the same problem Jimmy Carter, the Washington
outsider had. Hillary's commitment to war, with her experience on Capital Hill is a most depressing specter.
No comments allowed on the 'what is sander's route to the Democratic nomination' article but it is exceptionally poor journalism
I quote: No numbers are available for the primaries that will be held in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Oregon and Kentucky,
partly because pollsters know the voters there won't change the political calculus much – they're not "wasting" their time in
places with few delegates available.
Polls are available for Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia.
The most recent Oregon poll shows Sanders 1 point behind. The West Virginia poll shows him 5 points ahead, the most recent Kentucky
poll (taken at start of March) has him 5 points behind.
The latest New Jersey poll shows a 9 point deficit for him (compared with a 23 point deficit less than 2 months earlier).
It's fair enough that journalists have their opinions in opinion pieces, but when factual inaccuracies are mixed up in such
pieces, or so-called analytical pieces, it's just really shoddy, unprofessional journalism...
The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State,
has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has
supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.
How then are we to think that she will not import this treatment to the women of America?
She supports human rights criminal Bibi Netanyahu and AIPAC with undying expressions of apology for extreme Zionism and Orthodox
suppression of women. She opposes Jewish Voice for Peace and the indigenous Israel peace movement.
Remember Dixie Lee Ray who was elected disastrous Governor of WA State when ERA movement shooed her in? Women voters beware.
Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary
in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol
of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland>
Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American
...
Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is
wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative
Can you guys please make sure the Guardian reports on the Hillary Victory Fund hoarding 99% of the money it raises "for State
races". It is of critical importance that voters be made aware of how the Clinton campaign is behaving (or mis-behaving).
Sorry media controlling elites, Bernie has not lost yet. After her canary died in Indiana... Hillary has 1700 or 71% of the 2383
pledged delegates needed. So HRC will need 60% of the remaining 1114 pledged delegates to clinch. Bernie is favored in most of
the remaining states. Contested convention!!! And what a rowdy party in the streets it will be. Bernie will likely go in into
Philly just slightly behind in pledged delegates but with majority of states - and many of these states the ones Dems most count
on to win in the general. Considering Bernie's popularity with Independents(had they been allowed to vote in the primary he would
have won big) he would be the best choice against Trump. But as we all know from exit poll discrepancies - this election is rigged.
Pointing to evidence of the corrupted process he will announce his run as the Green Party candidate.
actually, it was only during this campaign that I bothered to check out why HRC had a private server, and it's not pretty. Washington
Examiner did an excellent researched piece, laying out how the Clintons amassed $3b through their private foundation and big speaking
feeds, and that's where the private server was needed, to organize the millions in state department contracts in line with donations.
Prime time, mainstream media including the Guardian has simply refused to check out the work that has been done in the emails
released last year. This is no GOP conspiracy. In fact, the Examiner lays out how Bush family used similar methods to amass their
$3b fortune. That is the amassing of private wealth through the use of public office that is endemic to Washington - pretty close
to Oligarchy at the scale of operations by former presidents, and heads of state. It's a level of corruption that has reached
proportions that led to the $700billion bailout and $6 trillion loan bailout - the Clintons use neo-liberal 'charity' to mask
their real program, personal wealth and unlimited power.
Sanders once again proved his appeal to disaffected midwest voters
Hah! What a joke!
Disaffected? More like realistic, compassionate, ethical, intelligent, and fair to all... Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know
a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil
" which is evil .
Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices.
Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well,
just that, characters--cartoon characters.
"Sanders led front-runner Hillary Clinton by 6 points, with 68 percent of precincts reporting, when networks declared him the
winner. Exit polls had Sanders winning by 12 points, but they were based solely on interviews with voters on Election Day. "
'Bernie Sanders Wins Indiana Democratic Primary' Huffington Post 3 May 2016
More voting machine hijinks. The Democratic Primary winner should not be decided until all investigations are complete.
who illegally gets millions from the DNC to pay young people to post comments for her ... He can beat Trump, 40 percent of all
American registered voters are independent who'll vote for Sanders, not for the DNC candidate (Dems are split 50/50 since April
7, and that's with tricky campaign finance rules thanks to your 'qualified' candidate. She is very qualified to sell out the American
people on every score, from Nafta to support for military coup in Hondurus. I mean, is she even a Democrat, or just a closeted
GOP zombie Kissinger lover?
This isn't a football game where you put on the colors and cheer on your team. People are not interested in business as usual,
every four years, support the platform, my party right or wrong politics. I don't know you, and I don't know how tough or easy
you have things. But here in Indy, about 90% of the people I know struggle to make ends meet. Those of us who voted for Bernie
are not necessarily trying to destroy the democratic party, but there's more to life for us than electing Hillary Clinton the
1st female president.
Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes
you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence
of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign.
At least be original. That article isn't a showstopping mic-drop, and trashing Bernie doesn't make HRC look any better. People
aren't loyal to Bernie for his party affiliation, they're loyal to him for his consistent policy positions. Not just his consistency,
but also the fact that he's been proven right again and again. That's an arena where HRC simply can't compete.
On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. First and foremost, do
no harm. Someone who compromises to insert slivers of good legislation into bad bills still, in the net, passes more bad laws
than good ones. Maybe we're all traumatized by the incompetence of congress over the past several years, but seeing the gears
of lawmaking in motion for the sake of motion is not the answer.
"... At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD ..."
"... Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all that this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen! ..."
"... She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail. ..."
"... "David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 . ..."
"... "Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15 February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him. ..."
"... Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene. ..."
"... If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere. ..."
"... What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in office illustrates that. ..."
"... the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard. ..."
"... It would be perhaps remotely Marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats, socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing Marxist about it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans. ..."
"... I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn about laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. ..."
"... Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance. ..."
"... Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice for their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing the savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy Hilary is to these people. ..."
"... Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro, called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively. You can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a Dem. Up until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never heard of Obama. Things changed real fast. ..."
"... But to pick out my favorite Hillary statement of the week, in honor of her close associate and fellow gonif, Hillary superdelegate, Sheldon Silver, who recently got 12 years in the slammer: https://www.americarisingpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/clinton-sheldon-silver-meme1.jpg ..."
"... In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York Times, Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support ..."
"... If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only is a distraction from their lack of policy. Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it). ..."
"... If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone not Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters. ..."
"... She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi, turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected president in Honduras and said nothing, takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to disclose the transcripts because she KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted manufacturing in the USA....should I go on? ..."
"... Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt.... ..."
"... Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive. ..."
Most politicians these days don't care about the people and this ridiculous cycle is repeating
every 4 years! Candidates who actually want to make progress get dumped by the corrupt system
and the parties that are being controlled by their corporate masters and their money to do as
they want to return the more money to them later when they have the office!
At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead
of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just
repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has
been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections!
xD
Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all
that this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen!
Starts with the USA and the world will follow over time. I personally am done with following these
corrupt political systems and their media and do as they tell me to (same goes for the financial
system but there's no escaping this one in the near future with corps and banks being in total
control of the society).
"As Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas and Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune have
now shown, the claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar al-Qaddafi
from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand up to even
casual scrutiny. Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not
conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent
threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule,
not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive
qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as Obama
put it) was slight. "
"If humanitarian intervention is to remain a live possibility, there must be much more public
scrutiny, debate and discussion of what triggers that intervention and what level of evidence
we can reasonably require. Did administration officials have communications intercepts suggesting
plans for large-scale killings of civilians? How exactly did they reach their conclusion that
these reprisals were likely? It should be no more acceptable to simply accept government claims
on this score than it was for previous administrations.
As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and the
informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody) and outright
massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding, the debate about
the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's barely begun."
"David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from
the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style
massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention.
But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured –
to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against
an armed city of 700,000 .
What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was
perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than
ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders
vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional
Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.
Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and
Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most
bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has
multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.
For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost in
Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically
sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state
whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary
is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists
American companies are needed on a "big scale".
But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition
of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets.
Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military leaders
on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to be tortured
in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from the NTC.
"Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted
as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15
February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support
and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that
the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi
was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies,
who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no
less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later
years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him.
This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring, when
foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides in
what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about government
atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while
government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International
and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these stories, although
their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on."
And then in another note, why do people like you condemn the Taliban but give a free pass to the
Saudi's who have a lot to do with the state of fundamentalism in Afghanistan, and essentially
operate the same as the Taliban? Why are we not intervening in Saudi Arabia to free the people?
Nah. Do people die from either side in Afghanistan? Yes. Excusively the Taliban? no. The western
press prefers the narrative of Taliban extremism. The western press ignores and fails to report
killings by US troops, one incident I know of personally in Kabul. Never reported in the press.
So I suggest you educate yourself on the complexities of Afghanistan before you sound off with
smugness. It is obvious you have no idea of what really goes on there.
Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia? Want a litany of the horrors there? No, you don't. You
have a narrative which I suspect is ill informed.
the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that a
lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and
Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in
like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability.
"was if ending Taliban rule had made things better"
You try to simplify a very complex situation. In fact there was never absolute rule by the
Taliban. You seem to forget there was a civil war in the country before 9/11. There was the Taliban
and the Northern Alliance. There was Pakistan and the ISI ( Pakistan of course if often supported
by the US, then we had Saudi Arabia, again supported by us). Before 9/11 The northern alliance
was about to be defeated. On both sides was indiscriminate killings. You also had a complex mix
if Pashtun Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. You had multiple political alliances which I will not bother
to list. Kabul was destroyed by the fighting. Atrocities on both sides. You had Dostum with the
Northern Alliance and Massod as well. Massod was reasonable, Dostum was an animal worse than the
Taliban.
What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable.
Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected.
The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in
essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia,
and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them.
So, you want to simplify the Taliban atrocities and ignore the rest. Afghans did not have the
luxury of this. They had to choose the lesser evil. Had Massood not been entangled with Dostum,
perhaps things would have been different.
We came in and supported the Northern Alliance, which did NOT sit well with a lot of people.
The majority? I don't have statistics exactly pointing this out. The Pashtun felt pushed out of
affairs by the minority remnants of the Northern Alliance. Every ..... and I mean every government
office had photos of Massood on the wall. Not Karzai. Karzai was seen as irrelevant by all sides,
he was seen as the American imposed choice. ( I will not even discuss the "election" but I was
on the ground dealing with Identity cards before the UN arrived, had meetings with the UN team
about approaches to getting ID cards out to all voters, and there is a stink over aspects of the
participation in the elections).
"And seeing a self-described leftist explaining that life under the Taliban wasn't all that
bad if you just grew a beard [!] and fell in line is really sort of pathetic."
Your smug simplistic statement indicates you have no idea of the horrors enacted on both sides.
I was told this time and time again as how people decided to survive by picking a side where there
were rules and they could survive the rules.
But lets put aside my anecdotal evidence and look at the people of Afghanistan:
"Looking at Afghans' views on reconciling with the Taliban does not appear to bear out the
concerns over ethnic divisions shared by Jones and Kilcullen. When asked whether the Afghan central
government should negotiate a settlement with the Taliban or continue fighting the Taliban and
not negotiate, a recent national survey of Afghanistan found that roughly three- quarters (74%)
of Afghans favor negotiating with the Taliban .74 This is in line with previous studies, such
as a series of polls sponsored by ABC News which found that the number of Afghans favoring reconciliation
had risen from 60% in 2007 to 73% in 2009."
""Do you think the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban
in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they stop fighting, or do you think the
government in Kabul should continue to fight the Taliban and not negotiate a settlement?""
77% of men and 70% of women agree with this.
Here is the ultimate point. We intervened and we had no fucking idea what we were doing. The
Afghans saw the money flowing to Beltway Bandits rather than flowing to real aid and needs. They
saw this! They were not stupid. They saw that the Pashtuns were pushed out of Government, ( hence
the Massod images in ALL government offices [My project of reform dealt with EVERY government
offices and I visited a fair few personally and finally had to ask abut why each office had Masood
an not Karzai)
My opinion? I see indications that the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden. We refused.
Is this disputed? Yes. Were we right to favour the Northern Alliance? No. They were as bad as
the Taliban, but more ..... unpredictable.
Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were
stupid to intervene.
Robin is relentless is arguing AGAINST, but he is quite light on arguing for anything. It is an
interesting question as to what he stands for.
His main argument is that zero information from "right wing" press is true. He seems unaware
that at times, actual facts are presented or not presented or suppressed by either media outlet,
depending on their corporate ownership and management slant of what should be reported. Me? I
read everything and decide if something is a fact. It is strange that factual reporting about
the actual many many FOIA lawsuits only gets printed in right wing press. They of course have
an agenda, but does not negate the facts they report. Like Clinton being allowed to be deposed
in a civil FOIA suit. That is a fact, with quotes from the Judge. CNN? I guess they couldn't afford
to report this factual development.
When you only read the press looking for a partisan set of narratives, you end up being partisan
and ill informed. When you read all the flavours of press in an desire to inform yourself, when
your goal is not a narrative but factual accounts of the truth, then you can be better informed.
So we have partisans, who only view Fox and we also have partisans who only view CNN. Both are
as bad as each other. One must be capable of decreeing the motives of each, and discarding the
nonfactual narratives, and then one can be fully informed.
Robin makes the assumption that facts only occur in his selected set of informational partisan
sources. Why? Because he is partisan. This then enables him to argue against a narrative, rather
than support his own narrative. He plays the neat trick of simply discarding any factual reporting
from places like Breibart. One can see interesting lacks of coverage on google search.
"Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any
communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a
person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession."
So surely in America, Clinton with her wealth would take some legal action? I would if I had
her money, and wealth. Interesting that she has not? Perhaps you could write to her and suggest
she defend herself in a real and palpable way?
Yes and a lot of the press are trying to bury the news about another Sanders success. When you
look at how many voting districts he comes out top in, in is a large percentage. Clinton tends
to get closer or take the district if their is a higher population density.
The influence of the super delegates is a scandal in a "democratic process".
If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young
voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere.
Clinton won't cut it and she won't beat Trump. Trump will out her on every crooked deal she
has been involved in.
You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed
to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what
party is in office.
Is this is a Fox News plant article? yeah yeah, let's vote Clinton who promises a continuation
of Obama's policies. Will Trump make this much worse? Maybe. Trump or Clinton will in my opinion
do little to improve these issues quoted below. You have a different opinion. Great.
"Like the rest of America, Black America, in the aggregate, is better off now than it was when
I came into office," said President Obama on December 19, in response to a question by Urban Radio
Networks White House Correspondent April Ryan.
What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that
President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation
since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in office
illustrates that.
Unemployment. The average Black unemployment under President Bush was 10 percent.
The average under President Obama after six years is 14 percent. Black unemployment, "has always
been double" [that of Whites] but it hasn't always been 14 percent. The administration was
silent when Black unemployment hit 16 percent – a 27-year high – in late 2011 .
Poverty. The percentage of Blacks in poverty in 2009 was 25 percent; it is now 27 percent.
The issue of poverty is rarely mentioned by the president or any members of his cabinet. Currently,
more than 45 million people – 1 in 7 Americans – live below the poverty line.
The Black/White Wealth Gap. The wealth gap between Blacks and Whites in America is at a
24-year high. A December study by PEW Research Center revealed the average White household
is worth $141,900, and the average Black household is worth $11,000. From 2010 to 2013, the
median income for Black households plunged 9 percent.
Income inequality. "Between 2009 and 2012 the top one percent of Americans enjoyed 95 percent
of all income gains, according to research from U.C. Berkeley," reported The Atlantic. It was
the worst since 1928. As income inequality has widened during President Obama's time in office,
the president has endorsed tax policy that has widened inequality, such as the Bush Tax cuts.
Education: The high school dropout rate has improved during the Obama administration. However,
currently 42 percent of Black children attend high poverty schools, compared to only 6 percent
of White students. The Department of Education's change to Parent PLUS loans requirements cost
HBCU's more than $150 million and interrupted the educations of 28,000-plus HBCU students.
SBA Loans. In March 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that only 1.7 percent of $23
billion in SBA loans went to Black-owned businesses in 2013, the lowest loan of SBA lending
to Black businesses on record. During the Bush presidency, the percentage of SBA loans to Black
businesses was 8 percent – more than four times the Obama rate.
"All the equations showed strikingly uni- form statistical results: racism as we have measured
it was a significantly disequalizing force on the white income distribution, even when other factors
were held constant. A 1 percent increase in the ratio of black to white median incomes (that is,
a 1 percent decrease in racism) was associated with a .2 percent decrease in white inequality,
as measured by the Gini coefficient. The corresponding effect on top 1 percent share of white
income was two and a half times as large, indicating that most of the inequality among whites
generated by racism was associated with increased income for the richest 1 percent of white families.
Further statistical investigation reveals that increases in the racism variable had an insignifi-
cant effect on the. share received by the poorest whites and resulted in a decrease in the income
share of the whites in the middle income brackets."
"What I said, and still maintain, is that the struggle against racism is as important as the struggle
against other forms of oppression, including those with economic and financial causes."
We can agree on this statement. However, do we need to recognise that legislation alone will
not solve racism. A percentage of poor people turn against the "other" and apportion blame for
their issues.
" that campaign finance and banking reform will fix everything"
Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms
or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is
that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service
to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are
very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates
a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress
them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change
and motives of votes become transparent.
"The various forms of discrimination are not separable in real life. Employers' hiring and
promotion practices; resource allocation in city schools; the structure of transportation sys-
tems; residential segregation and housing quality; availability of decent health care; be- havior
of policemen and judges; foremen's prejudices; images of blacks presented in the media and the
schools; price gouging in ghetto stores-these and the other forms of social and economic discrimination
interact strongly with each other in determining the occupational status and annual income, and
welfare, of black people. The processes are not simply additive but are mutually reinforcing.
Often, a decrease in one narrow form of discrimination is accompanied by an increase in another
form. Since all aspects of racism interact, an analysis of racism should incorporate all its as-
pects in a unified manner."
My thesis is this: build economic equality and the the pressing toxins of racism diminish.
But yeah dismiss Sanders as a one issue candidate. he is a politician, which I acknowledge. He
has a different approach to clinton who will micro triangulate constantly depending on who she
in front of. I find his approach ore honest. Your mileage may vary.
" money spent on campaigns does not correlate very highly to winning"
No but overall money gets to decide on a narrow set of compliance in the candidates. But it
still correlates to winning. Look at the Greens with no cash. Without the cash, they will never
win. Sanders has proved that 1. We do not need to depend on the rich power brokers to select narrowly
who will be presented as a candidate. 2. He has proved that a voter can donate and compete with
corporate donations. I would rather scads of voter cash financing rather than corporate cash buying
influence. ABSCAM was a brief flash, never repeated to show us what really happens in back rooms
when a wad of cash arrives with a politician. That we cannot PROVE what happens off the grid,
we can and should rely on common sense about the influence of money. 85% of the American people
believe cash buys influence. The only influence on a politician should be the will of the people.
Sure, corporates can speak. Speech is free. Corporate cash as speech is a different matter. It
is a moral corruption.
"most contributions come after electoral success"
Yes part of the implied contract of corporates and people like the Koch Brothers: Look after
us and we will look after you. We will keep you in power, as long as you slant the legislation
to favour us over the voters.
You do realise the Clinton Foundation bought the assets of the DLC, a defunct organisation.
Part of the assets are the documents and records that contain the information about the Koch Brothers
donations and their executives joining the "management" of the DLC. Why would a Charity be interested
in the DLC documents? Ah it is a Clinton Foundation. Yeah yeah, there is no proof of anything
is there. No law was broken. Do I smell something ? Does human nature guide my interpretation
absent a clear statement from the Foundation of this "investment"?? Yes.
We have to start SOMEWHERE. Root causes are the best place to start.
Democrat or Republican, Blacks and Whites at the bottom are thrown in a race for the bottom
and this helps fuel the impoverishment of both. It is fuel to feed racism. My genuine belief.
Why is it wrong for democrats to pick their own party leader? Also Obama beat Hilary last time
so what's Bernies problem now? Also why moan about a system that's been in place for decades now,
surely the onus was on Sanders to attract more middle of the road dem voters? Finally I'm sure
republicans would also love to vote in Sanders, easy to demolish with attack ads before the election
(you'll note they've studiously ignored him so far).
the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr
in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy
is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and
deserves to get it good and hard.
explain to me why the blacks and Hispanics vote for her because it is a mystery to me. She stands
for everything they have had to fight against. So you have a 1%er-Wall St.-invade Iraq-subprime-cheat
the EU-Goldman Sachs-arms dealing-despot cuddling-fuck the environment coalition. And blacks and
Hispanics too? Are they out of their minds?
BERNIE SANDERS - OR ZIG AGAINST ZAG
.
If the American people don't come to their senses and give Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination,
we're going to end up with a choice between Zig and Zag. Zig is Donald Trump, and Zag is Hillary
Clinton. To paraphrase Mort Sahl back in the sixties, the only difference between the two is if
Donald 'Zig' Trump sees a Black child lying in the street, he'd simply order his chauffeur to
run over him. If Hillary 'Zag' Clinton saw the kid, she'd also order her chauffeur to run over
him, but she'd weep, and go apologize to the NAACP, after she felt the bump.
.
WAKE UP, BLACK PEOPLE!!!
IF YOU DON'T, YOU'LL BE SORRY - AGAIN.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1057244620990215&set=a.136305753084111.28278.100001140610873&type=3&theater
Giving aid to the Republicans? If you honestly believe that any criticisms I have is worse than
what I discuss, you need to give up politics and get a hobby. Trump will for example use her FOIA/email
issues like a stick to beat her with. This is not Soviet Russia where we all adopt the party line.
I'm not not ever have been a member of the Democratic Party. I COULD have been this year. Now?
Never. The solution to the nations problems will come from outside this party.
I prefer neither. You love fearmongering about how worse it will be under trump. Hmmm. I don't
buy that tale. Take Black family incomes. In the toilet. Under either party it goes south. Abortion?
Like slavery nothing ...... Nothing is going to change. It's too late to change that one. But
it's a useful tool to make us believe ONLY Clinton can protect us. Economically the Democrats
are essentially the same as the Republicans, more of the same corporate welfare. Would Clinton
cut Social Security? Maybe. I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just
can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to
lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved
she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the
same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching
support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc.
You believe a black family gays and women will sing Kumbaya under Clinton and all will be well.
I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences .
It would be perhaps remotely Marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats,
socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing Marxist about
it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that
we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans.
I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about
fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his
ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn about
laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. Those groups believe in
changing the society through struggle into a model that fits their idea of the world whatever
that may be. He simply states his beliefs and suggests laws to adjust the society to human needs,
to eat, to live, to prosper in an equal footing.
It is a rather sad commentary on how the bar of integrity and honesty has been so lowered
that it doesn't even faze them
One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? Their stance on gun and abortion issues?
Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance.
Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well.
Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic
party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and
Independents is already under way. This
is one of the forms it may take.
Recharging is always a good idea ... and never more so than in an election year as turbulent,
crazy, uplifting, disillusioning, energizing, maddening and fascinating as this one. I'll also
be away (for weeks) toward the end of this month.
Before you go, here's Carl Bernstein's interview with Don Lemon, in case you missed it:
Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath
spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle
of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown
by US assistance.
Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless
of what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like
this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told
me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified
relief by western representatives.
Add to that the continual lies that are being aired in public and this is why the USA has lost
its way.
Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice
for their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing
the savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy
Hilary is to these people.
And since when does the USA have the ethical superiority to attack countries like Russia for
cronyism etc? This is unbelievable - a presidential nominee candidate is being investigated by
the FBI and she doesn't stand down?
Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose
name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged
and non powerful in todays' America.
I recall David Bowie's beautiful song This Is Not America. The Bernie supporters understand
that, all power to him, those who think like him, and his supporters.
Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro,
called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively. You
can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a Dem. Up
until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never heard of Obama.
Things changed real fast.
Like its not obvious? There is now no paper trail to enable ensuring computer votes are true.
A man on the moon can now ensure who is going to be President, that was said by a premier computer
security expert.
Along with extensive disenfranchisement, numerous ways its pretty clear these outcomes are
preordained. Guess I am not going to be voting for either of the two appointed runners, its pointless.
I will vote for Bernie when its time in California.
And to branch out a bit, there are so many empty stock phrases to choose from in her 2016 campaign
alone, including "I'm with her" and "Breaking down barriers" courtesy of her 2008 campaign manager,
Mark Penn. Speaking of Penn, there's a hilarious little passage in "Clinton, Inc" (p. 65) which
describes Penn running through possible campaign slogans for 2008. "Penn began to walk through
all the iterations of Hillary slogans: Solutions for America, Ready for a change, Ready to lead,
Big challenges, Real Solutions; Time to pick a President... but then he seem to get a little lost...Working
for change, Working for you. There was silence, then snickers as Penn tried to remember all the
bumper stickers which run together sounded absurd and indistinguishable. The Hillary I know."....
In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York
Times, Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support
So I guess the former speaker of the NY assembly is just gonna have to vote for Hillary from
behind bars, instead of at the DNC? How "super-inconvenient."
If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably
more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only
is a distraction from their lack of policy. Both their economic/domestic policies do little or
worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable
(although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either
is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton
seems to want to expand it).
If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone
not Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters.
You are obviously misinformed about Bernie Sanders:
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VypxWXopDqA
Most effective senator for the last 35 years and as Mayor or Burlington stopped corporate real
estate developers from turning Burlington into Aspen east coast version.
She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi,
turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected
president in Honduras and said nothing, takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to
disclose the transcripts because she KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted
manufacturing in the USA....should I go on?
So please please explain how Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to wave a wand and fix racism? I
already know she will not fix poverty, she will slap a few ersatz bandaids onto bills that won't
pass and like the spoiled child will seek praise every time mommy gets him to shit on the potty.
You might recall a guy called Martin Luther King. he had some words about economic fairness and
poverty.
"" In the treatment of poverty nationally, one fact stands out: there are twice as many
white poor as Negro poor in the United States. Therefore I will not dwell on the experiences
of poverty that derive from racial discrimination, but will discuss the poverty that affects white
and Negro alike . "
nihilism: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life
is meaningless. The belief that nothing in the world has a real existence.
You love that word but rejection of the dysfunctional state of DNC politics is NOT nihilism.
Moral corruption around campaign finance is real. Moral corruption around money and lobbyists
is real. The desire to fix this, this is real. Seeking real change is not nihilism. But yes, if
it pleases you to continue in every other post with this word, do so. It's misuse says more about
you than Sanders.
Please tell me exactly how much HRC has done for the U.S.? I'm from NYC and when she brought her
carpet bagging ass here and as a 2 term senator she pushed 3 pieces of legislation thru. If you
look at Bernie Sanders voting record:
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VypxWXopDqA
He's been one of the most effective senators in Congress and has been able to get things done
with cooperation from both sides of the aisle.
So tell me again, what's she done that's so notable?
Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi,
gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth
super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more
money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank
lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt....
Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes
a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures.
But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless
they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like
the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They
didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila
it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive.
"... Wasserman is a great replacement for him as a stunningly inept strategist. "In the summer of 1994, Coelho was the principal Democratic political strategist during the run-up to the mid-term Congressional elections. Officially, he was Senior Advisor to the Democratic National Committee. ..."
"... The Republican Party won a landslide victory in the fall congressional elections, capturing both the House and Senate by commanding margins." ..."
"... I was trying to be "polite" to temper the rage I feel at these dishonest people who pretend they even comprehend the word progressive and neatly sidestep the role the Koch Brothers played. ..."
Bill and Obama seem to follow the strategy to lose the house and senate. But the smug Clinton
acolytes blame the voters. Always deflect blame eh?
Wasserman is a great replacement for him as a stunningly inept strategist. "In the summer
of 1994, Coelho was the principal Democratic political strategist during the run-up to the mid-term
Congressional elections. Officially, he was Senior Advisor to the Democratic National Committee.
The Republican Party won a landslide victory in the fall congressional elections, capturing
both the House and Senate by commanding margins."
I was trying to be "polite" to temper the rage I feel at these dishonest people who pretend
they even comprehend the word progressive and neatly sidestep the role the Koch Brothers played.
Now we get more of the same. I am part of the 1% financially but I was raised to understand
it was all going to get better for the poor.
But yeah must have been Fox news who MADE Bill get into bed with these creeps. I can't sit
back smugly and proclaim I am alright jack I have 4 kids and I am horrified the world they will
inherit.
"... There is a constant whining from the Clinton side about Fox news smears etc. One would believe that with all her supposed experience, she lacked the imagination to see the consequences of her actions with the email. Myself, this is just one indicator among many that she has learned nothing, her experience is flawed as her judgement is time and time again flawed. ..."
"... The Kochs helped finance the Democratic Leadership Committee with Bill, Hill, McAuliffe, Tony Coelho (remember him?) and the rest of the "Third Way" Democrats who whored themselves to the first wave of christian-jihadist-wacko GOP congressmen swept into power in 1994, and it was all downhill from there, with the Republicans writing draconian legislation, the Dems rolling over, and Dirty Little Billy claiming it as a Great Leap Forward. ..."
"... Much as I despise Drumpf it worked for him, he openly railed against the GOP establishment which fought him to the bitter end with their last champions pulling out of the race. The people had spoken (most of it crazy talk), but the Democrats can't ignore the anti-Clinton sentiment. Bernie was a nobody at the beginning because all the focus was on Clinton, but more coverage was given to Bernie and people got to know what he stood for things have changed. ..."
"... For example, what about the deregulation of Wall Street by President Clinton and the economic crisis eight years later, that after the next eight years Hillary Clinton took over half a million dollars from Goldman Sachs for three speeches? - Unintended consequence! ..."
"... What about voting for the Iraq war at a time when Hillary Clinton was the leader of the Democrats in the US Congress and the loss of people and money that followed after that, not to mention the rise of terrorism as a consequence? - Unintended consequences, too! ..."
"... What about turning Libya into a failed state, and exclamation, "We came, we saw, he [Gaddafi] died!", after which four US embassy staff, including Ambassador Stevens died, and after which Clinton lied to the American public about events that led to their deaths? - Unintended consequences! ..."
"... And, last but not least, what about NAFTA and other international trade agreements, all of them supported by Clinton to this day, although deprived and still depriving millions of American workers from their jobs? - Unintended consequence! ..."
"... I agree, Hillary is worse, and scarier than Trump. Hillary will justify her interventionist wars and terrible trade deals with slick, plastic, professional language which will fool some people into thinking she knows what she is doing. ..."
"... A Shillary in denial... Do you need the NYT or Guardian to report it to make it true? Many of the biggest companies in the US-the biggest polluters, the biggest pharmaceutical companies, the biggest insurance companies, the biggest financial companies-gave to the Clinton foundation while she was Secretary of State and then they lobbied Secretary Clinton and the state department for "favors." Even foreign governments have given to the foundation, including that stalwart of democratic principles Saudi Arabia, who gave at least $10 million… Then magically they had a $26 billion plane deal with Boeing. ..."
"... Alleged pragmatist, but more likely Hillary will actually be a pushover on social and economic issues and a hawk on foreign policy. She is more of a Republican than Trump. ..."
"... The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it. ..."
Ammunition : considerations that can be used to support one's
case in debate
There is a constant whining from the Clinton side about Fox news
smears etc. One would believe that with all her supposed experience, she
lacked the imagination to see the consequences of her actions with the email.
Myself, this is just one indicator among many that she has learned nothing,
her experience is flawed as her judgement is time and time again flawed.
She has handed the FBI and Trump AMMUNITION. Not me, not you. She created
this mess. Her supporters have 100% certainty that this particular issue
is not an issue. They hand wave away the FBI. They shut down any discussion
as just another smear manufactured out of thin air.
Probity : the quality of having strong moral principles; honesty
and decency
We all get to decide each candidates probity. That I find her lacking
is based on her actions alone, not on some lens provided by Fox news. If
she were honest, she would admit that there is a risk. She states there
is no risk. If her chickens come home to roost, we get Trump. Can I get
odds from a bookie on the outcome of the FBI investigation? A genuine question
as so many here revel in quoting the odds quoted by bookies.
So lets gamble. Let's get to the race track and study form and history
and see if the bookies have fully transparent info on all the factors leading
to a win or loss. How have we come to be here? That we are is a sign of
the dysfunction we live in politically. Clinton is now immune to all present
and future critical thinking because ...... because she was smeared in the
pass. Free pass. Sometimes ..... sometimes the King is actually naked and
no one cares to call attention to that reality.
The Kochs helped finance the Democratic Leadership Committee with
Bill, Hill, McAuliffe, Tony Coelho (remember him?) and the rest of the "Third
Way" Democrats who whored themselves to the first wave of christian-jihadist-wacko
GOP congressmen swept into power in 1994, and it was all downhill from there,
with the Republicans writing draconian legislation, the Dems rolling over,
and Dirty Little Billy claiming it as a Great Leap Forward.
"Shock victory" is another example of lazy, factually incorrect mass media
journalism. Bernie ran an on the ground campaign in Indiana for 2 moths
prior to yesterday's primary win. I should know, as our family did volunteer
door-to-door canvasing for the first time over a couple weekends. We also
attended the rally on Monday and it was great!
Don't give up Bernie supporters, as we have momentum! Bernie's an honest
man with fair and just principles. Our country needs such a leader and not
another paid-off crony or deranged man-child.
Again as always a deflection from the real point, documented over and
over as to the long tanking DLC led strategy of leading with Southern States.
Nothing to do with blacks, everything to do with Southern Conservatives.
But yes, as always intellectually "honest". Innuendo. You choose to ignore
the systems and structures put in place for reasons. I choose to see them.
People like you choose to ignore the DLC history and the entanglement
with the Koch Brothers who were so so happy Bill Clinton pushed the DNC
into Republican territory, while we are all supposed to pretend that because
the GOP is so bad bad bad, it gives a free pass to the DNC for the right
wards ever rightwards shifting and the bandying of progressiveness on social
issues that cost nothing, and the true position of the modern DLC as a money
machine, with a purpose of existing to garner power.
All you "progressives" love to talk about angry white man yet have zero
answer to :
""In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900,
compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000. Blacks are nearly twice
as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared
to 18.6 percent."
The fact that the above enrages me matters not to you, as you have your
BernieBro Angry White man meme to deflect from real discussion about solutions.
The real solution starts with getting the politicians beholden to the voters
alone, not to corporate interests. That is Job One. Once that blockade is
removed, then we can move on to poverty and violence as immutable links
and solving them. 85% ...... 85% of the American people agree with this
action. is it difficult? Yes. Wont happen however if we demand on smug entitled
people throwing deflections and memes all over the place. "I am all right
Jack, fuck you" should be the bumper-sticker of the Clinton supporters.
Much as I despise Drumpf it worked for him, he openly railed against
the GOP establishment which fought him to the bitter end with their last
champions pulling out of the race. The people had spoken (most of it crazy
talk), but the Democrats can't ignore the anti-Clinton sentiment. Bernie
was a nobody at the beginning because all the focus was on Clinton, but
more coverage was given to Bernie and people got to know what he stood for
things have changed.
The question for the Democrats is who is more likely to win the General
against Drumpf? Who is more likely to win over the swing votes of those
not affiliated to a party?
The message is load and clear there is a lot of anti-establishment sentiment
out there and Clinton is firmly seen as part of it.
Drumpf having won his first leg of the race will no doubt moderate his rhetoric
to appeal to a broader audience and look to grab a larger portion of the
swing votes.
In the bigger picture, Sanders is more likely to succeed against Drumof
than the institutional Clinton.
If you ask, what is the purpose of the election, the answer is, elections
should be used for two things:
First, that some politicians will be rewarded by the voters, who
will entrust the government to them.
And second, but no less important, that some politicians will be
punished by the voters for their past mistakes, in a way that will refuse
to give them their votes. So, this second function of the elections
is perhaps even more important because it ensures that politicians are
held accountable for their previous actions.
Now, if you look at these elections, you will notice that this is totally
turned upside down in the case of Hillary Clinton.
Her husband has created mass incarceration, and she, as the first lady,
was the main promoter of it. And now she says, "Oops, that was an 'unintended
consequence'! That is to say, over two million people in prison, many of
which serve a sentence for minor offenses is an 'unintended consequence'''
OK, fine, but what about the fact that she has got the money from the
prison lobby?
If the first was an 'unintended consequence', the latter is certainly
not. So these are the things for which in every country on earth some politician
would lose any chance to enter the next government. Provided that the politicians
are held accountable for their previous actions, which is obviously not
the case in the US.
And, this is just one of the things for which Clinton can be held accountable.
For example, what about the deregulation of Wall Street by President
Clinton and the economic crisis eight years later, that after the next
eight years Hillary Clinton took over half a million dollars from Goldman
Sachs for three speeches? - Unintended consequence!
What about voting for the Iraq war at a time when Hillary Clinton
was the leader of the Democrats in the US Congress and the loss of people
and money that followed after that, not to mention the rise of terrorism
as a consequence? - Unintended consequences, too!
What about turning Libya into a failed state, and exclamation,
"We came, we saw, he [Gaddafi] died!", after which four US embassy staff,
including Ambassador Stevens died, and after which Clinton lied to the
American public about events that led to their deaths? - Unintended
consequences!
And, last but not least, what about NAFTA and other international
trade agreements, all of them supported by Clinton to this day, although
deprived and still depriving millions of American workers from their
jobs? - Unintended consequence!
So, as you can see, this is quite a long list, but probably there's more
of it that is not listed here, yet. And it will be even more of such "unintended
consequences" if Hillary Clinton will be elected for the US president.
Hence why I said 'some form of revolt' instead of 'burn the party down rawr'.
The party establishment firmly put themselves behind Clinton early on. This
is indisputable. 40+ percent of primary voters went against this in some
form. Some will still welcome Clinton, some will tolerate her, some will
walk, but the act of voting against establishment preference is already
some form of revolt.
You:"his acolytes will just come up with another dumb ass
reason "
You: "Why didn't you just give it directly to Trump? "
You: "Bernie, when all's said and done, is a fraud."
You: "I never did trust politicians who hold mass rallies." ( Nice Nazi
smear)
You: " are already starting to misquote Bernie, and talk about how it's
all the fault of "Jewish bankers" Smearing Sanders for your relatives jewish
Smears
You: "She doesn't pretend she's a damn rock star" Smear
You: " I take it you are a Trump supporter now" Personal smear to me.
You: "nihilistic" over and over again
You: deleted reference ot Pope as child molester
You: "His trip to kiss the Pope's ass was disgusting pandering" So their
shared stance on global warming is irrelevant?
You: "the ass of the world's most powerful homophobe"
You: "But Bernie has always been a fraud" ( multiple repetitions of this)
On and on....How self righteous are you?
"personal insults from you"
Really? What insults? Intellectually lazy? That is my assessment of you.
Not intended as an insult but an assessment of who you are and how you think.
Based on reading all of your posts. I pay attention. I find it interesting
to figure out motivations.
I agree, Hillary is worse, and scarier than Trump. Hillary will justify
her interventionist wars and terrible trade deals with slick, plastic, professional
language which will fool some people into thinking she knows what she is
doing.
Hillary would be 8 more years of the Corporate Oligarchy cementing its
hold on our process. Trump might last 4 years... then we can elect a real
progressive.
SoS is more extrapolation, based off the weakness of her credentials heading
into the position. It should be remembered that her lack of experience in
foreign policy was one of Obama's attack points in 2008, so to have him
suddenly turn around and name her SoS is a bit odd. Specifically:
The choice of Mrs. Clinton pleased many in the Democratic establishment
who admire her strength and skills, and they praised Mr. Obama for putting
the rancor of the campaign behind him. "Senator Clinton is a naturally gifted
diplomat and would be an inspired choice if she is chosen by President-elect
Obama as secretary of state," said Warren Christopher, who held that job
under her husband.
But it could also disappoint many of Mr. Obama's supporters, who worked
hard to have him elected instead of Mrs. Clinton and saw him as a vehicle
for changing Washington. Mr. Obama argued during the primaries that it was
time to move beyond the Clinton era and in particular belittled her claims
to foreign policy experience as a first lady who circled the globe."
What -is- clear is that she got $17.5 million in personal cash out of
the deal (Obama agreed to cover campaign debts, she lent her campaign 17.5
million).
Don't be lulled into a false "horse race" depiction of an especially HISTORICALLY
IMPORTANT, planetary-civilization-survival moment. A predominantly, establishment,
bankster-owned media, are pushing this epic election of "Main Street vrs
wall street", as just another election. Wrong! A fictiion! Lies!
Over 60% of us didn't vote last election, BECAUSE, only liars and apologists
for "empire" oligarchs were running. Today, we see Bernie and perhaps Dr.
Stein of the Greens. Only "The Bern" gets media minimal coverage, because
he is running as an "Democrat". Indiana and other "open" primaries show,
time and time again, the rigged nature of a duopoly electoral fraud. The
establishment, wall street banksters and their allies DO NOT, WILL NOT let
Bernie win. Do the math and ONLY BERNIE CAN BEAT TRUMP! SO QUIT THE HORSE
RACE BS and see the BERN! And jut maybe we will have an inhabitable planet
for our grandchildren that is fun to live upon.
Putting it another way... Bernie has made them all look like chumps. They
say they cannot get elected without big corporate dollars. Bernie did not
sell out, and he raised money easily. He makes the rest of the lousy corrupt
bunch look like fools.
Hillary did not concede in 2008 until after ALL the states had voted. Even
then, she waited 4 days. What happened between the last primary and 4 days
later, when she finally conceded? NEGOTIATIONS. She laid down the terms
under which she would support Obama -- all goodies for Hillary, because
Hillary Is For Hillary, period.
Bernie will use the clout we give him to negotiate on behalf of THE PEOPLE
at the Democratic Convention. That's the difference between him and self-serving
Hillary.
Looking forward to voting for Bernie in California on June 7. Meanwhile,
praying for the FBI to indict Hillary.
Yet for all her long name recognition, her second national presidential
campaign, the superdelegates lined up before Sanders announced, with the
cunning long term strategy of the DNC "southern firewall" designed to favour
conservative candidates, despite all the power players endorsements, despite
all the Superpac's, she still is not going to arrive at the convention with
the required delegate count for victory. What does that tell us? I know
what it tells me. It tells me that there are a lot of people who want more
of a continuation of Obama Change. They want real change.
So sure, she is "winning" a battle in a longer running war of ideas.
Let's see how this plays out over the next 8 years.
Kicking his ass by the way would have been if she reached the required
pledged delegates months ago. She could not. Complacency is not a great
stance in these times.
Like Hillary has done since 2008? Helping the same old hack politicians,
using her cash and her name and yet the people refused to come out and reverse
the largest loss of Democratic seats in modern history? Yeah, blame the
voters, you have them all pegged. it's never the fault of the politicians
is it, it is the lazy voters. Well there is another theory that explains
Trump and Sanders: They are sick of the same bullshit put out by the DNC
and the GOP. Taking Ted Kennedys seat as an example the safest DNC seat
in the nation, decades it sat with the DNC and as soon as he dies, the DNC
selects one of your hack ersatz progressives, throws Bill Clinton and Hillary
and bags of cash and STILL loses the seat. Was there a message there worth
listening to? Not to you, you blame the voters. No no no never blame the
DNC. Blame the voters.
The voters perhaps is tired of what is presented to them as a voting
solution. So in the end, your way of doing things has led to voter frustration
and here we have Trump. There is a lesson there. Listen or dot listen, but
the people are venting there frustration. Trump is a populist disaster,
but he is a symptom of a dysfunctional system that needs revision and revision
now. But nah! Lets just throw cash into a cesspit of dysfunction.
Also you sit smugly ignoring the FACTS of Clinton laundering State contributions
back into her campaign, leaving little or nothing for State DNC budgets.
Ah, you say, this is a smear from Fox news. Um. No. Do you think we are
idiots? You must. I assure you we are not idiots. Good luck in November.
You will need it.
Bernie hasn't attacked Hillary directly since New York, and he had every
right to go after her then, because she was on full offense against Bernie
at that time, too, so enough with the innocent victim garbage.
Bernie always does better in open primaries because of the Independent voters.
They are more likely to vote Trump in the general election in my opinion.
He is going to start hammering Clinton now he is the nominee.
Bernie should stay in right 'til the end in case anything ever happens with
one of the two Clinton investigations. I don't see anything happening now
though as the private server investigation appears to have stalled.
Regarding the second (the Clinton Foundation) the Supreme Court is about
to legalise political corruption with the McDonnell case. If that happens
democracy is effectively suspended anyway and this is a pointless reality
show farce. Policies will be decided by the highest bidder. How can she
have broken any laws if there aren't any?
Good news for women's rights under Clinton though - whilst her Syria
no-fly-zone might start WW3, women will probably get to be drafted as well
as men...
'Lawyer Hillary who is trained in well being a lawyer she even was a
defense lawyer helping someone she believed was guilty of rapeing a 13 year
old girl who has said Hillary "put her thru hell"."
"someone she believed was guilty of rapeing a 13 year old girl"
Interesting. Clinton discussed what she was thinking at the time with
you?
Or are you suggesting that some accused people should not get legal representation?
I'm intrigued by the "put her through hell" portion of it. Especially
as the case was plea bargained out and never went to trial.
It is effortless to identify the ardent obtuse "Hillary Clinton and Donald
Trump Supporters". Their verbiage and responses are always predicated on
emotion and fiction versus an intellectual discourse based on factual information
– Quite Like the Superficial Candidates that they blindly support. The 1%
Billionaire Oligarchy Ruling Classes Owned Mass Media Outlets is intentionally
protecting the Outed Racists Donald Trump and his female Clone Hillary Clinton
from Public Scrutiny. They are salivating Like Pavlov's Dog for their "Ultimate
Political Reality Show – The Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Presidential
Race" waiting to cash-in and profit as they stage and promote their "False
Democracy".
Knowledge = Power = Real Freedom..!
1. This is why "Anonymous" Noble, Righteous, True American Heroes and Freedom
Fighters are stepping in to fill the Fourth Estate void abdicated by America's
Billionaire Owned Media to provide the 99% the Truth.
Anonymous – Message to Hillary Clinton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTMaIX_JPE4
Anonymous – Message to Donald Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ciavyc6bE7A
2. CBS CEO and Chief Leslie Moonves: Comments he made at an investor conference
last month when he said, "The money is rolling in, and this is fun." Added
Moonves: "They're not even talking about issues; they're throwing bombs
at each other, and I think the advertising (revenue $) reflects that. This
is going to be a very good year for us (CBS). Sorry, it's a terrible thing
to say, but bring it on, Donald."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/daily-show-host-trevor-noah-877273
3. Why isn't the Media asking Hillary Clinton about the Podesta group in
the Panama papers working with the corrupt, Kremlin-run Sberbank, and the
two shell companies setup by Bill Clinton (WJC, LLC) and Hillary Clinton
(ZFS Holdings, LLC) at a Delaware address (1209 North Orange Street Wilmington,
Delaware) that are the same address as 285,000 other companies, many of
which were in the Panama papers and linked to laundering and tax avoidance
schemes?.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/25/delaware-tax-loophole-1209-north-orange-trump-clinton?CMP=share_btn_fb
4. Why isn't the Media asking Hillary Clinton to Release the Transcripts
from her numerous $275,000.00 Speeches to Goldman Sachs and the Other Wall
Street Banks? https://youtu.be/3UkfsEeHUcg
5. Why don't they ask Hillary Clinton if she would Prosecute her and her
husband Bill Clinton's former "Trusted Deputy" Rahm Emanuel the current
Mayor of Chicago for establishing a "Gulag" on American soil which allowed
the Chicago police to covertly detain and torture more than 7000 people
at the Secret Interrogation Center that completely ignored the American
"Constitution" and the Bill of Rights at Homan Square?
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/02/behind-the-disappeared-of-chicagos-homan-square/385964
/
6. Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight- Hillary, the inevitable
liar: https://youtu.be/-dY77j6uBHI
7. Hillary Clinton: A Career Criminal: https://youtu.be/kypl1MYuKDY
8. Secretary Clinton Comments on the Passing of Robert Byrd her friend and
mentor who is a documented Racist and KKK member: https://youtu.be/ryweuBVJMEA
9. Bill Clinton ATTEMPTS to Justify Robert Byrd's KKK Membership: https://youtu.be/8Fg3XNTMzNo
10. Hillary Clinton & NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio Make Awkward RACIST Joke
About CP TIME Colored People Time https://youtu.be/pP3syBu4ZDM
11. Black Lives Matter protesters repeatedly interrupt Bill Clinton in Philadelphia:
https://youtu.be/xRrVI5gHVyo
Can You Say Hypocrisy?
The only Authentic and Honest Candidate is Bernie Sanders who wants to return
America back into a Transparent Citizen Accountable Democracy for the 100%.
This is why the Bernie Sanders Army of Noble and Righteous Citizens-the
99% will never Vote or Support either of the Illegitimate 1% Billionaire
Anointed Candidates Like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, Who Represent
the Retention of a False Oligarchy Democracy and Everything That the Decent
Noble and Righteous Citizens Despise, Compulsive Pathological Lying, Narcissism,
and Insatiable Greed.
"So your plan is for Bernie's opponent to get arrested? "
Not my plan. Each citizen in this country has a set of was that rule
what they can and cannot do. Even Clinton. I have spent a long time explaining
my logic of why I believe she has broken various laws. I as a citizen appreciate
the FOIA. If you cannot handle the facts of her actions, then what can I
say? To me it does not bode well how Clinton comports herself. To you it
is not an issue. You choose to ignore the reality of a real and extended
FBI investigation. Obama rules the DoJ and the FBI. If it were indeed only
a political smear, then he has the power to force Comey to resign. It is
not a function of me, it is a function of laws. The investigation not some
fevered Fox News plot as much as you with it to be. I understand completely
what she has done. I understand why she did what she did.
Regarding the bolstering the party, it seems it does not bother you the
games her suprpac has done with bending the rules just up to the breaking
point.
Frankly, sanders on the back of this, and his supporters need to build
an organisation that can put up true progressives. Your opinion is team
based, you accept year after year the shift of the DNC orphaning in to centrist
republicans. Your choice. I choose not to support this. So that he refused
to fund more the same old hack politicians is fine by me. He has over his
career supported the DNC with vote after vote after vote. He had the courage
to offer "democrats" a real choice in the primaries.
You again ignore with your blather about mid term motivations the fact
that the people would not support the DNC in 2010, 2012, and 2014. People
are not stupid, and they see that the change Obama promised is never coming.
We can distill into a simple slogan then rich are getting richer even as
the American worker gets more and more productive, yet their share of the
capitalist pie shrinks and shrinks. The common man sees that Obama care
still is not the solution for him and his family when the average deductions
are over 5000 a year on top of his premiums and the average coverage is
60% of costs when he gets sat the deductible. He is told about Gold Standard
trade agreement negotiated in absolute secrecy, and that cause him discomfort.
Some black families see : ""In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for
black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000.
Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net
worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."" and understand for all of
Clinton's triangulation there is nothing palpable to change that. He sees
she is great at trotting up mothers of dead people and Black people as props
to gain votes, and he see that perhaps Sanders Class based solutions will
help him more, as maybe he is tired of racial divides and knows intuitively
Clinton has no real solution to gun crime, spurred on by poverty, nor solutions
to poverty itself.
So get all huffy about the FBI investigation. I lived though the turmoil
of Nixon and before his reelection I predicted that he would suffer, as
my gut feeling led me to believe he was involved, that he had dirty hands.
Continue to believe that genuine logical conclusions and issues are only
a rehash of Fix news when they are not. Cheap and nasty way to deflect any
and all valid criticism. Is Sanders perfect? far from it, but I believe
I know what he stands for and how he thinks.
"Bernie, when all's said and done, is a fraud."
Funny but I have concluded that Clinton is a fraud. But you are welcome
to vote as you wish. In the end, your fear of Trump? The risk is real and
palpable that she will cause disarray to the party if the FBI fins what
I believe is obvious, and the risk is her handing the election to Trump.
To you? You don't care. You cannot and will not see the risk, preferring
to hide like a gormless child behind tortured smear theories rather than
standing up as an adult and properly assessing the real risks to the Democratic.
All the pieces of what she did are there if you care to look. But nah!
You are lazy intellectually and it is easier to blame Fox news than to actually
look and ponder and conclude the evidence. As are most of the vociferous
Clinton fans here. Intellectually lazy.
Hillary wins closed primaries, where only the tribalized party faithful
participate (and voter suppression and other shenanigans run rampant). Bernie
wins open primaries and brings in millions of new voters. Democrats like
me, Independents, even Republicans vote for Bernie.
She loses on the Big 3 Issues, war, Trade & "corruption" to Trumps words
and Bernie's life walk. Dems are falling into dreamlala math- Hillary will
get women (50%), Blacks (10%) & Hispanics "another 10%). How can she lose.
Start with GOP women at the end will not vote her way. That BLack and
Hispanic percentages are already baked in, and Trump will cater to men,
not just white, on the basis avg men have been getting shafted for 40 years
now.
If there is a terror attack, Trump wins big. If the economy goes down
he wins too.
The tea leaves and tarot readers have been all wrong this election.
& Hill is likely to lose most of the last primaries. Embarassing
"Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected, and nothing will change."
Barack Obama, 2008
Is that HRC new slogan, "Hillary is shit, but at least she's not as shitty
as Trump"
Actually I think she's worse. The DNC turns a blind eye every time she breaks
the law, and tries to change the rules for her, but both the RNC and DNC
will keep Trump on a short lease.
The Guardian's anti-Bernie agenda is really quite off-putting. Even the
article summary is patronising :
"Despite trailing behind Hillary Clinton in polls, Sanders once again
proved his appeal to disaffected midwest voters by pulling off his 18th
victory of 2016"
The translation is that the Bernie Sanders constituency is backwards
and centred around white males who have lost blue collar jobs to globalisation;
in other words he appeals to people who want to turn back time. The inference
is that Clinton's group is far broader, more cultured and more progressive.
This is patently false. Sanders is popular with young people and with people
who are passionate about politics. Clinton's constituency tends to be older
and more conservative. Clinton is the establishment candidate Sanders is
the beacon of hope.
No surprise there. As is it no surprise that ABC is a "subsidiary" of The
Walt Disney Company, which has been to the right of Attila-the-Hun since
"sweet grandfatherly Walt" himself, who was practically a neo-Nazi politically.
Need proof? Walt's cheerful cooperation with McCarthy's House Un American
Activities persecution of anyone not sharing Adolph Hitler's political persuasion).
Disney's movies have always exhibited that nauseating, fake, treacle
"sweetness" which all fascists use as "cover" for their actual addiction
to fear, hatred, tribalism and Orwellian manipulation.
So we can hardly be "shocked, shocked, shocked" by ABC's gross "news"
bias.
How about NBC? It's been a corporate "investment football," recently
boosted by Comcast from former owner General Electric. You KNOW they're
both dedicated to impartial news reporting, right? HA HA HA
How about CBS? Oh it's owned by Viacom, an "entertainment conglomerate,"
of course dedicated never to sensationalism or deliberate distraction of
the public, but rather, to honest news reporting. Right.
MSNBC? GE + Microsoft. That of course equals total devotion to unbiased
and complete news reporting, even if the news WERE "bad for the Shareholders."
Uh huh. (See the pigs flying by).
CNN? Oh its "daddy" is Time Warner, another paragon of public-spirited
democracy.
Even PBS has fallen. Think that's a "radical statement?" The super right
did a twofer on PBS: (1) cut its government funding so as to make it terrified
and desperate and then (2) gradually brainwashed PBS into actually being
another Corporate PR outlet.
Non-commercial? PBS? IT LIVES ON CORPORATE ADS. And under those deliberately
created survival pressures, even PBS news has collapsed into reporting all
news like it's a trivial sports event - Never Delving Deeper, because its
Corporate Overlords wouldn't like that.
So, welcome to the reality of well-entrenched corporate fascism. For
that, in part, we can thank Ronnie Puppet Reagan's reversal of a former
50-year policy which did not allow non-media corporations to "buy" the news.
May that SOB continue to roast, whereever.
Bernie Sanders would be all of these Corporate Overlord's worst nightmare.
They would have to work "even harder" (yawn, pass the caviar), to blacklist,
cover up, lie about the truth he would tell through his bully pulpit. Thus
all of THEIR media outlets have worked like little beavers to Cancel the
Cancer of Bernie, before he could cause real damage to The Entitled Domain.
Ugh.
The Democrats, just as blind and foolish in their own way as the GOP, will
make a tremendous mistake in nominating HRC. Anyone with an ounce of political
insight can see the coming election is going to be about the revolt of the
middle class against the Establishment and megacorporations that have been
exploiting that class for at least two score years. The politically dimwitted
and somnolent American middle class has finally come to realize how they
have been used and abused and they aren't taking it anymore. They don't
give a damn about foreign policy, single payer or anything else. They are
furious at having been used and hoodwinked and they are in full revolt.
The stupidity of the Democrats, in not seeing this and running an Avatar
of the Establishment, HRC, will make the election very close with a good
chance she will lose. Sanders can out Trump Trump on the anti-Establishment
issue as polls clearly show, but the Dems are going to shoot themselves
in the foot by coronating HRC. With Sanders they could probably sweep Congress
also, but with HRC they will at best keep the White House and possibly a
very narrow majority in the Senate. HRC is a poor campaigner with an unlikable
personality, unlike Elizabeth Warren, and Trump will really mangle Hillary.
With Sanders he will not be able to do that because Sanders easily can out
anti-establishment Trump for, obviously, Trump too is of the 1% like HRC.
There is the slim hope, forlorn as it may be, that the Democrat super-delegates,
most of whom are political pros and thus focused on winning, will see the
light and nominate Sanders. But the Democrats are usually reliably stupid
so look forward to a cliff-hanger in November and very possibly a President
Trump.
Hillary did not concede in 2008 until after the last state finished voting.
The counting was done, and Obama had more delegates. Even then, she waited
4 days before conceding. What went on during those 4 days? Negotiations.
No way a super-predator politician like Hillary Clinton was just
going to give in, without getting something for herself.
Here's what Hillary got out of the deal: a cabinet post,
Obama's promise of support for her next bid in 2016, and Obama's help paying
off her 2008 campaign debt.
The difference with Bernie is that he is not in this for himself. Bernie
stepped up to the plate because America deserves better than another Corporate
Tool Politician. When Bernie goes to the convention, he will not be negotiating
for himself. He will be fighting for ALL OF US. Bernie fights for The People.
This is why we need to give him as many delegates as possible. I look
forward to voting for Bernie in California on June 7. Furthermore, speaking
as a middle aged feminist who has been a registered Dem for 35 years --
I will NEVER vote for Hillary.
A Shillary in denial... Do you need the NYT or Guardian to report it
to make it true? Many of the biggest companies in the US-the biggest polluters,
the biggest pharmaceutical companies, the biggest insurance companies, the
biggest financial companies-gave to the Clinton foundation while she was
Secretary of State and then they lobbied Secretary Clinton and the state
department for "favors." Even foreign governments have given to the foundation,
including that stalwart of democratic principles Saudi Arabia, who gave
at least $10 million… Then magically they had a $26 billion plane deal with
Boeing.
Is that what you're voting for? Does that sound like someone with integrity?
hate to break it to you that this information isn't found only on right
wing websites. Inform yourself. Can't you see why she'd play games with
email? It's all right there, in your face.
Alleged pragmatist, but more likely Hillary will actually be a pushover
on social and economic issues and a hawk on foreign policy. She is more
of a Republican than Trump.
Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!!
The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump.
She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her,
thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting
why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents.
It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of
support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless,
we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about
it.
Looks like neoliberal Guardian presstitutes love neocons and religious nuts Cruz. Who would guess
? Interesting...
Notable quotes:
"... He also has a certain kind of roguish charm and can be quite amusing, which Hillary Clinton rarely is; he'd easily win the "who'd I prefer to have a beer with" competition. ..."
"... How can anyone say that yet? What we DO know is that the Bush-Obama administration has been an unqualified disaster on many fronts. Change, even with the possibility - NOT 'certainty' - of "bad things happening" is much more desirable... ..."
"... The more this election plays out the more I totally understand why Trump has made it this far. I've lived a long time and been politically active my entire adult life, and I've never seen voters send such a resounding and well deserved fuck you to the political elite. ..."
"... Indeed, the failure and dysfunction of the present political system in the US can be traced to one thing: the failure of the fourth estate. It is worse than failure, it is a betrayal of the nation for those thirty pieces of silver. ..."
"... What his campaign ultimately proves, is that only appealing to ideologically conservative Republicans is not enough to win the nom. The bulk of the party is traditionalist and reactionary rather than puritanical. They'll pretty reliably vote for any grumpy old white guy with a sense of humour (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Romney, McCain, now Trump). Secondly Cruz misread the issues of the year. People are frustrated because they believe that they are struggling while others are milking them. Trump gets this, so does Bernie. Hillary, not so much. This will be a big problem for her in the general. ..."
"... I'm getting just a bit tired of the feigned "I can't understand it" air of these articles about Donald Trump. The Trump gave the voters in his party the red meat of bigotry and hate that they require. The others dog-whistled a merry tune. Why talk about 'strange political jujitsu'? Why not admit that a large portion of the Republican Party is unloved by their own candidates. Why not look at the fact that Republicans accept the votes of 'poor white trash' but do nothing for them. ..."
No, I did not think that....however, I do think that there is enough awareness of this issue
that it does not get dangerously into the main stream in Europe. In the US there much less awareness.
Decades of the indoctrination that all bad things are either "communist" or "socialist" has left
the door wide open for a return of the populist nationalist. Trump is just that.
bluet00ns 5 May 2016 13:18
"happy campaign"?...review the tapes, "happy" is nowhere in the oily, twisted, display of sly
that was cruz's campaign, the numb, if not painful, looks on the faces of family as he trotted
them out like props, is exhibit A.
bcarey -> sour_mash 5 May 2016 13:08
My point is that it's common for candidates to suspend their campaigns and continue to
collect money.
Definitely true.
However, we must also take into account the fact that the Cruz delegates are still active and
maybe able to deliver Cruz.... or Romney if necessary. It is likely that Trump will get way more
delegates than needed to stop a contested/open convention, however.
The Cruz suspension is about 2 things. It accomplishes potentially 2 things. Money is just
one of them. The other part is Romney, if he can.
fallentower 5 May 2016 13:02
I actually think the Republican Party made a good choice once it was down to "Cruz or Trump"
by sitting on its hands and thereby letting Trump win. Of course, Trump is far more likely to
do and say unorthodox (from a post-Reagan Republican Party standpoint) things, and will probably
increase the tension and turmoil within the party. But he actually has a chance of winning the
election; Cruz's smarmy personality and nauseating brand of religious conservatism would have
gone down like a lead balloon outside the Bible belt, and he's too committed ideologically to
change his policy positions.
Trump will turn on a sixpence and happily disavow things he may have said in the primary if
he considers them unhelpful baggage for the general, and because he's seen as a showman rather
than a professional politician he'll have much more leeway to do so than your average flip-flopper.
He also has a certain kind of roguish charm and can be quite amusing, which Hillary Clinton
rarely is; he'd easily win the "who'd I prefer to have a beer with" competition. Admittedly
he is going to have to cut down on the clownishness and ill-disciplined outbursts, but if he gets
the right campaign team together and they manage to keep him vaguely on-message I think he'll
have good chances. Better than Cruz, anyway, who had zero chance.
sour_mash bcarey 5 May 2016 12:58
I take your point regarding Secret Agent Mormon and I was aware that he had filed with the
FEC. My point is that it's common for candidates to suspend their campaigns and continue to collect
money.
The exploratory PAC is the new retirement vehicle but that's a different issue.
taxhaven wjousts 5 May 2016 12:58
Trump most certainly is not change for the better.
How can anyone say that yet? What we DO know is that the Bush-Obama administration has
been an unqualified disaster on many fronts. Change, even with the possibility - NOT 'certainty'
- of "bad things happening" is much more desirable...
Harry Dresdon 5 May 2016 12:42
Good riddance to Cruz. Boehner called him "the devil in the flesh". Cruz would have been way
worse for the country than Trump will ever be. Sad but true.
DillyDit2 5 May 2016 12:34
Hey Stephanie Cutter: You think Bernie is responsible for what his supporters think, whether
we'll support Hillary, and how we will decide to vote in the fall? Pappa Bernie should tell us
what to do, and we should fall in line and salute?
Could Cutter and Hillary's minions be any more clueless?! And could they reveal their top down
authoritarian mindset any more clearer?
The more this election plays out the more I totally understand why Trump has made it this
far. I've lived a long time and been politically active my entire adult life, and I've never seen
voters send such a resounding and well deserved fuck you to the political elite.
I wish I could support Trump, because I second that fuck you. For now, along with what is likely
the majority of American voters, all I can do is say- pox on BOTH your houses and may 2020 be
the year an Independent runs and wins.
danubemonster 5 May 2016 12:32
I think it is worth comparing Cruz with Nixon. Both men are/were not particularly likable,
yet Nixon was able to be a two-term president. Nixon was a conservative, but he was not an ideologue
- and he lived in an age where the Republican Party was a relatively broad church. Nixon also
have political instincts which were way beyond those of Cruz. He knew how to play high politics,
and he knew what was required to get to the White House.
PATROKLUS00 -> Tommy Cooper 5 May 2016 12:14
Trump will beat her to death with being the Queen of the Establishment... the Dems will be
idiots to nominate her.
PATROKLUS00 -> voxusa 5 May 2016 12:12
Indeed, the failure and dysfunction of the present political system in the US can be traced
to one thing: the failure of the fourth estate. It is worse than failure, it is a betrayal of
the nation for those thirty pieces of silver.
PATROKLUS00 -> 8MilesHigh 5 May 2016 12:09
Yup, and the Democrat establishment is too stupid and out of touch to recognize that HRC is
just the grist that Trump needs for his anti-establishment mill.
PATROKLUS00 5 May 2016 12:07
Cruz a master strategist???? BWWWWWwwwwwaaaaahhhhhhhaaaaaaaa! Ludicrous ... beyond ludicrous.
Vintage59 David Perry 5 May 2016 12:07
His religious beliefs and the political dogma that goes with them have been well documented.
Have you not been paying attention? Do you insist your wife get you a beer from the fridge when
you can get off your ass and get it yourself?
8MilesHigh 5 May 2016 12:06
What his campaign ultimately proves, is that only appealing to ideologically conservative
Republicans is not enough to win the nom. The bulk of the party is traditionalist and reactionary
rather than puritanical. They'll pretty reliably vote for any grumpy old white guy with a sense
of humour (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Romney, McCain, now Trump). Secondly Cruz misread the issues
of the year. People are frustrated because they believe that they are struggling while others
are milking them. Trump gets this, so does Bernie. Hillary, not so much. This will be a big problem
for her in the general.
MalleusSacerdotum 5 May 2016 12:05
I'm getting just a bit tired of the feigned "I can't understand it" air of these articles
about Donald Trump. The Trump gave the voters in his party the red meat of bigotry and hate that
they require. The others dog-whistled a merry tune. Why talk about 'strange political jujitsu'?
Why not admit that a large portion of the Republican Party is unloved by their own candidates.
Why not look at the fact that Republicans accept the votes of 'poor white trash' but do nothing
for them.
The Donald has understood the dynamic better than the rest and has given the voters a coherent,
albeit repugnant, analysis of their problems. An article like this that can shed no light on the
phenomenon that is Trump is hardly worth publishing.
Muammar al-Qaddafi was an easy target. Oil was the goal. Everything else is describable attempt
to white wash the crime.
Notable quotes:
"... At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD ..."
"... She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail. ..."
"... Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as Obama put it) was slight ..."
"... As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody) and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding, the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's barely begun ..."
"... on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 . ..."
"... Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own. ..."
"... For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists American companies are needed on a "big scale". ..."
"... But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to be tortured in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from the NTC. ..."
"... This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring, when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on." ..."
"... the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability. ..."
"... What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable. Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected. The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia, and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them. ..."
"... Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene. ..."
Most politicians these days don't care about the people and this ridiculous cycle is repeating
every 4 years! Candidates who actually want to make progress get dumped by the corrupt system
and the parties that are being controlled by their corporate masters and their money to do as
they want to return the more money to them later when they have the office!
At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead
of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just
repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has
been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections!
xD
Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all that
this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen! Starts
with the USA and the world will follow over time. I personally am done with following these corrupt
political systems and their media and do as they tell me to (same goes for the financial system
but there's no escaping this one in the near future with corps and banks being in total control
of the society).
"As Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas and Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune
have now shown, the claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar
al-Qaddafi from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand
up to even casual scrutiny.
Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct
deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats
to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not
at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive
qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as
Obama put it) was slight. "
"If humanitarian intervention is to remain a live possibility, there must be much more public
scrutiny, debate and discussion of what triggers that intervention and what level of evidence
we can reasonably require. Did administration officials have communications intercepts suggesting
plans for large-scale killings of civilians? How exactly did they reach their conclusion that
these reprisals were likely? It should be no more acceptable to simply accept government claims
on this score than it was for previous administrations.
As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and
the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody)
and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding,
the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's
barely begun."
"David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from
the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a
Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without
Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns
Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out
such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 .
What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was
perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than
ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders
vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional
Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.
Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing
and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other
most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it
has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.
For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost
in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically
sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state
whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary
is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists
American companies are needed on a "big scale".
But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective
imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence
assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military
leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to
be tortured in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from
the NTC.
"Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted
as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15
February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support
and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that
the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi
was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies,
who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no
less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later
years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him.
This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring,
when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides
in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about
government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted,
while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these
stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on."
And then in another note, why do people like you condemn the Taliban but give a free pass to the
Saudi's who have a lot to do with the state of fundamentalism in Afghanistan, and essentially
operate the same as the Taliban? Why are we not intervening in Saudi Arabia to free the people?
Nah. Do people die from either side in Afghanistan? Yes. Excusively the Taliban? no. The western
press prefers the narrative of Taliban extremism. The western press ignores and fails to report
killings by US troops, one incident I know of personally in Kabul. Never reported in the press.
So I suggest you educate yourself on the complexities of Afghanistan before you sound off with
smugness. It is obvious you have no idea of what really goes on there.
Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia? Want a litany of the horrors there? No, you don't. You
have a narrative which I suspect is ill informed.
the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that
a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and
Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in
like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability.
"was if ending Taliban rule had made things better"
You try to simplify a very complex situation. In fact there was never absolute rule by the
Taliban. You seem to forget there was a civil war in the country before 9/11. There was the Taliban
and the Northern Alliance. There was Pakistan and the ISI ( Pakistan of course if often supported
by the US, then we had Saudi Arabia, again supported by us). Before 9/11 The northern alliance
was about to be defeated. On both sides was indiscriminate killings. You also had a complex mix
if Pashtun Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. You had multiple political alliances which I will not bother
to list. Kabul was destroyed by the fighting. Atrocities on both sides.
You had Dostum with the Northern Alliance and Massod as well. Massod was reasonable, Dostum
was an animal worse than the Taliban.
What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable.
Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected.
The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in
essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia,
and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them.
So, you want to simplify the Taliban atrocities and ignore the rest. Afghans did not have the
luxury of this. They had to choose the lesser evil. Had Massood not been entangled with Dostum,
perhaps things would have been different.
We came in and supported the Northern Alliance, which did NOT sit well with a lot of people.
The majority? I don't have statistics exactly pointing this out. The Pashtun felt pushed out of
affairs by the minority remnants of the Northern Alliance. Every ..... and I mean every government
office had photos of Massood on the wall. Not Karzai. Karzai was seen as irrelevant by all sides,
he was seen as the American imposed choice. ( I will not even discuss the "election" but I was
on the ground dealing with Identity cards before the UN arrived, had meetings with the UN team
about approaches to getting ID cards out to all voters, and there is a stink over aspects of the
participation in the elections).
"And seeing a self-described leftist explaining that life under the Taliban wasn't all that
bad if you just grew a beard [!] and fell in line is really sort of pathetic."
Your smug simplistic statement indicates you have no idea of the horrors enacted on both sides.
I was told this time and time again as how people decided to survive by picking a side where there
were rules and they could survive the rules.
But lets put aside my anecdotal evidence and look at the people of Afghanistan:
"Looking at Afghans' views on reconciling with the Taliban does not appear to bear out the
concerns over ethnic divisions shared by Jones and Kilcullen. When asked whether the Afghan central
government should negotiate a settlement with the Taliban or continue fighting the Taliban and
not negotiate, a recent national survey of Afghanistan found that roughly three- quarters (74%)
of Afghans favor negotiating with the Taliban .74 This is in line with previous studies, such
as a series of polls sponsored by ABC News which found that the number of Afghans favoring reconciliation
had risen from 60% in 2007 to 73% in 2009."
""Do you think the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban
in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they stop fighting, or do you think the
government in Kabul should continue to fight the Taliban and not negotiate a settlement?""
77% of men and 70% of women agree with this.
Here is the ultimate point. We intervened and we had no fucking idea what we were doing. The
Afghans saw the money flowing to Beltway Bandits rather than flowing to real aid and needs. They
saw this! They were not stupid. They saw that the Pashtuns were pushed out of Government, ( hence
the Massod images in ALL government offices [My project of reform dealt with EVERY government
offices and I visited a fair few personally and finally had to ask abut why each office had Masood
an not Karzai)
My opinion? I see indications that the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden. We refused.
Is this disputed? Yes. Were we right to favour the Northern Alliance? No. They were as bad as
the Taliban, but more ..... unpredictable.
Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were
stupid to intervene.
"... One problem with reporters is that they aren't a separate profession with a standard code of ethics or standard form of credentials. And journalists should not be like lawyers, organized before the bar into a self-perpetuating and self-serving organization. That written, Frank Bruni is the great mysterious counterexample (what credentials? what qualifications? why?). ..."
"... Yet the lack of an organization with "teeth" keeps reporters on the defensive against the accommodationist editors, the advertisers, and the board of directors larded with the usual knuckleheads. Would that the Newspaper Guild had more power. ..."
"... The development of the M.B.A. and M.F.A. in the last thirty or so years attests to a degree as time served to get a better job. So the M.B.A. has given us endless talent-free bean counters trained in bad business practices and shoddy economics. The M.F.A. gives us endless first novels of a uniform middling quality and careers in burgeoning writing programs producing more of such snooze-filled novels. Among journalists, the masters in journalism has not proved to be protection or a stamp of quality, either. ..."
Readers liked
our last post on life under neoliberalism and the
salaried (or
professional (or "
20%") ) classes, and the question we posed: "How do these people live with themselves?" So here's
another one! This time, I'm going to compare and contrast life in the newsroom at the Las Vegas
Review-Journa and The New York Times .
Looking at these classes, credentials matter. (Again, I should caveat that these are my people;
I was raised the child of professors in America's Golden Age of higher education and shaped for that
sort of career myself; back in the day, when tenure was a realistic possibility for many, and academics
didn't have to hold outside fundraisers for their projects. And when there were careers.) For example,
attaining an M.D. is different from learning a skill; as a doctor, one takes the Hippocratic Oath.
CPAs have a required ethics exam. Even lawyers!
If economists ask themselves "What good is a degree?" the answer is "to
signal
a requirement for a higher salary!" (because it's not easy to rank the professions by the quality
of what they deliver). We as citizens might answer that professionals are in some ways amphibians:
They serve both private ends and preserve public goods, and the education for which they
are granted their credentials forms them for this service. For example, a doctor who prescribes medications
for his patients because Big Pharma takes him golfing is no doctor but corrupt; he's mixed up public
and private. He didn't follow his oath. Similarly, a reporter (see Terry Pratchett's wonderful
The Truth ) who only serves the interests of his publication's owner is no reporter but
corrupt; a public relations specialist, say. Or a servant.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal
First, let's look at an episode at the Las Vegas Review-Journal. As readers may remember, the
LVJR was purchased by Sheldon Adelson, international
gambling squillionaire,
publisher
, and campaign contributor (
Israel ). I won't use the word
"corrupt," but feel free to think it . Hilariously, Adelson did not disclose his purchase
- no problems with optics there! - and it was left to the LVJR reporting staff to treat the matter
as a story, and reveal their new owner.
Here's the story the LVJR broke:
After six days of uncertainty surrounding News + Media Capital Group LLC - a newly formed Delaware-domiciled
company backed by "undisclosed financial backers with expertise in the media industry" - the Review-Journal
on Wednesday confirmed that Adelson's son-in-law, Patrick Dumont, arranged the company's $140
million purchase of the newspaper on behalf of the chairman and CEO of Las Vegas Sands. …
Last week's sale saw News + Media pay around $38 million more than New Media Investment Group
paid in March for all of Stephens Media LLC, a national chain of eight daily newspapers that included
the Review-Journal.
It remains unclear if that inflated purchase price came with strings attached to the Adelsons.
"The way the Adelson family began its ownership of the Review-Journal - with secrecy, deception,
and one opaque announcement after another - does not inspire confidence," said media critic and
New York University professor Jay Rosen. "Possibly this rocky start could be overcome, but the
place to begin would have been with the public announcement of the purchase. In that announcement
there is nothing about preserving the independence of the Review-Journal newsroom from undue influence
by Sheldon Adelson, who as everyone knows is one of the most powerful people in the state and
in Republican politics nationwide.
"What creative measures were announced to insulate news coverage from the enormous wealth and
power of the Adelson family? None that I can see. And that does not inspire confidence," Rosen
said.
Whether Mr. Adelson will ultimately try to shape the paper's coverage remains to be seen. But
in the weeks since he has owned the paper, reporters said, several articles about the paper have
been heavily reviewed and edited to remove quotes that could be viewed as unfavorable to the new
owners.
An article about Mr. Hengel's resignation was trimmed before it was published from about 20
paragraphs to three and stripped of nearly all of Mr. Hengel's comments, according to people familiar
with the article. The article ran on Wednesday inside the paper. Similarly, an initial article
on the paper's website about the sale was edited after it was published to remove references to
the buyer's unknown identity.
Within five hours, the immediate inherent conflicts of Adelson ownership made themselves highly
apparent. The Review-Journal reported that Adelson had met with the ownership of Oakland Raiders
football team, hoping to lure them to Las Vegas and into a new "public/private"-funded $1 billion
domed stadium.
The new publisher has reviewed each stadium story since, and the stories have seen numerous
Moon-directed edits, several sources confirm. Those edits include removing key points of fact
on what may turn out to become a $600 million-plus public investment in a football stadium. At
least one stadium story was killed, as well, my sources confirm.
It is near impossible to overestimate the depth of the conflict involved in the Adelson
ownership. As a major player in the gaming industry in Las Vegas, Macau and Singapore, top
donor to Republican Party candidates and now the booster of a "public-private" funded football
stadium, Adelson-related stories have appeared in the R-J for years. For years, the paper has
"lawyered" each Adelson-related story, given the magnate's history of litigiousness. Now that
review is being done in house, with very different results.
Las Vegas Columnist Quits After Ban On Writing About Adelson
"If I can't do my job, if I can't hold the heavyweights in the community to account, then I'm
just treading water," the columnist, John L. Smith, told NPR in an interview. "It wasn't an easy
decision to make, but there was no other decision to make - at least in my mind."
Smith had written columns for the Review-Journal for nearly three decades, with a frequent
focus on Adelson, one of the most powerful figures in Nevada gambling and national Republican
politics. The billionaire sued Smith for libel over a passage in a 2005 book about power players
of Las Vegas.
Smith prevailed in court, but paying the fees helped bankrupt him. (NPR told that remarkable
story, including a rabbi's offer of a secret $200,000 payoff from Adelson for Smith to admit libel,
earlier this year.) Years later, the case has helped trigger the end of Smith's career at the
Review-Journal, as his new bosses cited it as a conflict of interest [!!!].
Now, all of the above is prelude to John L. Smith's resignation letter, of which he left a copy
on every desk in the LVJR news-room:
Clearly, John L. Smith is somebody who can live with himself.[1] And now we turn to the New York
Times.
Were Changes to Sanders Article 'Stealth Editing'?
An
article by Jennifer Steinhauer, published online, carried the headline "Bernie Sanders Scored
Victories for Years via Legislative Side Doors." It described the way the Vermont senator had
managed a significant number of legislative victories in Congress despite the political independence
that might have hindered him.
The article stayed in essentially that form for several hours online – with some very minor
tweaks - but in the late afternoon, Times editors made significant changes to its tone and content,
turning it from almost glowing to somewhat disparaging. The later headline
read : "Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories."
And these two paragraphs were added:
But in his presidential campaign Mr. Sanders is trying to scale up those kinds of proposals
as a national agenda, and there is little to draw from his small-ball legislative approach
to suggest that he could succeed.
Mr. Sanders is suddenly promising not just a few stars here and there, but the moon and
a good part of the sun, from free college tuition paid for with giant tax hikes to a huge increase
in government health care, which has made even liberal Democrats skeptical.
(Readers will recognize that both paragraphs are heavily larded with Clinton campaign talking
points.) Here I'll skip Sullivan's summary of the obvious problems with these changes; in addition
to several readers, she links to
Medium ,
Matt Taibbi , and
Robert Reich , too. So, to the institutional issues:
I asked top editors at The Times, along with Ms. Steinhauer and her immediate editor, for response.
(The executive editor, Dean Baquet, also
responded to Erik Wemple of The Washington Post on Tuesday night, and Ms. Steinhauer responded
to the Rolling Stone piece. Both said, in essence, that the changes were routine efforts to add
context to an evolving story.)
[The reporter, Jennifer] Steinhauer, in a response to my email, suggested that I speak to editors
because "it was an editing decision."…
So, what happened here? Matt Purdy, a deputy executive editor, said that when senior editors
read the piece after it was published online, they thought it needed more perspective about whether
Mr. Sanders would be able to carry out his campaign agenda if he was elected president.
"I thought it should say more about his realistic chances" of doing that, Mr. Purdy told me.
As first published, he said, editors believed that the article "didn't approach that question."
"There was a feeling that the story wasn't written into this moment," Mr. Purdy said. After
the editing changes, he said, "it got to be a deeper story," with greater context.
Three editors told me in no uncertain terms that the editing changes had not been made in response
to complaints from the Clinton camp. Did the Clinton people even reach out?
"Not that I know of," Mr. Baquet told me in an email. The article's immediate editor, Michael
Tackett, agreed: "There's zero evidence of that."
("Not that I know of" and "There's zero evidence of that" are both what somebody with a sufficiently
cynical cast of mind might call non-denial denials.)
My take: The changes to this story were so substantive that a reader who saw the piece when
it first went up might come away with a very different sense of Mr. Sanders's legislative accomplishments
than one who saw it hours later. (The Sanders campaign shared the initial story on social media;
it's hard to imagine it would have done that if the edited version had appeared first.)
(Note that the Sanders campaign had distributed the URL to original Times article. So, when the
Times editors made their unannounced changes at the same URL , they pulled the rug out from
the Sanders campaign, who would hardly have distributed a link to an article that supported major
Clinton campaign talking points.
Comparing and Contrasting
From the reader's perspective, is there any substantive difference between what the Adelson-owned
LVJR did to its stories on Adelson, and what the Times did to its story on Sanders? Is there a substantive
difference between removing material unfavorable to the owner or suppressing stories unfavorable
to his business interests, and gratuitously inserting material egregiously favorable to a newspaper's
endorsed candidate? Especially when, in each case, the paper makes no mention of the change? I don't
think so.
However, from the newsroom's perspective, there's a very great difference indeed. The LVJR is
a small paper; John L. Smith is two or three degrees of separation at most from Adelson himself,
so its very clear who's giving direction and why. The New York Times is a very large paper; the reporter,
Jennifer] Steinhauer, was able to say "Talk to the editors," and Sullivan, the Public Editor, talked
to three of them. In other words, the social relations - we might even say the realities - at the
Journal-Review and the Times are very different; the Journal-Review's are so simple and clean that
"How can you live with yourself?" questions come to the fore under stress. Not so at the Times; the
institutional complexities make it possible for such questions to be masked or muffled. Corruption
is clear at the LVJR; but corruption scuttles away into the masthead at the Times.
However, if we ask ourselves what the future of the average newsroom - modulo algos - is likely
to be, I would imagine life will be a lot more like the LVJR than the NYT. I mean, who wants a masthead
cluttered with supernumeraries? It's going to be interesting to see what John L. Smith will do. Maybe
he'll start a blog?
NOTES
[1] Let me add my standard disclaimer: I don't want to come off as priggish. I don't have dependents,
and so my choices are simpler. If I had to support a family, especially in today's new normal, I
might put my head down and save ethics for the home. "Person must not do what person cannot do."
- Marge Piercy, Woman on the Edge of Time .
[2] Sullivan actually reads the Comments, and sometimes integrated them into her column.
Subscribed for years, then just on line, but becoming so slanted, cut the cord last year.
Worth exploring the various links between times and Clintons…
Probably web like Corp structure. Must be a new culture there, Think op K etc.
Wonder why circulation in decline… Maybe they'll turn into a blog… Or frog… Frogs are kind of
slimy…
One problem with reporters is that they aren't a separate profession with a standard code of
ethics or standard form of credentials. And journalists should not be like lawyers, organized
before the bar into a self-perpetuating and self-serving organization. That written, Frank Bruni
is the great mysterious counterexample (what credentials? what qualifications? why?).
Yet the lack of an organization with "teeth" keeps reporters on the defensive against the accommodationist
editors, the advertisers, and the board of directors larded with the usual knuckleheads. Would
that the Newspaper Guild had more power.
Further, the credentials in the U S of A are now distinctly murky. Your quote:
If economists ask themselves "What good is a degree?" the answer is "to signal a requirement for
a higher salary!"
The development of the M.B.A. and M.F.A. in the last thirty or so years attests to a degree
as time served to get a better job. So the M.B.A. has given us endless talent-free bean counters
trained in bad business practices and shoddy economics. The M.F.A. gives us endless first novels
of a uniform middling quality and careers in burgeoning writing programs producing more of such
snooze-filled novels. Among journalists, the masters in journalism has not proved to be protection
or a stamp of quality, either.
Yea lawyers so self-serving at protecting their own profession that the laws are deliberately
undecipherable.
I suppose what the journalists need is just what anyone who works for a living needs: a good
union to protect them and fight for them. Every worker should have one.
I have my doubts anyone gets an M.F.A. to signal a higher salary though. Are they like "I wanted
a higher salary so I figured I'd get the most economically worthless degree conceivable …" (even
a bachelors in liberal arts indicates you at least got a bachelors which is seen to one's credit
– but an M.F.A. – really does anyone care you have an advance degree in something with no economic
value?). I think people do the M.F.A. for love (or else pretentiousness). But love may be no guarantee
of talent.
The story, as originally written, was based exclusively on verifiable facts. This is a great
weakness in a modern news story and so we decided to add in some speculation and thinly veiled
insults in order to bring it into line with contemporary journalistic standards. The job of
a modern journalist is not simply to report the facts, but also to help people decide what
to think about those facts…also we predict the future. Our critics have an outdated view of
what a responsible journalism looks like in today's hyper-competitive media environment.
How are the people without a family to support supposed to be courageous and do the right thing,
if most of the people around them don't because "they have a family to support". Or are they not
supposed to pick up anything at all from their social context? I don't think it usually works
this way. I'm all for heroes, I just don't think expecting ethical heroes to be the norm, if most
people are selling their souls to survive, and we even make excuses for them, is likely to produce
all that many.
And by the way from whom besides their coworkers etc., did they learn to compromise their principles
even if they don't have a family to support? Why maybe from their parents! Who afterall had to
do it "because they had family to support"! And round and round it goes. Yes I do believe we need
a social solution (ie don't let people and their families fall into poverty and/or unemployment
so easily and they won't be so eager to do anything to keep a job. Although some people seem attached
to their jobs for irrational reasons like prestige rather than just the nuts and bolts of needing
a means to pay their bills).
Guaranteed survival is a radical proposal though when the ENTIRE economic system is premised
on relying on the threat of starvation and homelessness to get people to do what it wants (and
that includes ethically indifferent as well as entirely unethical things). I just don't think
the "get out of ethics free" cards (because you have a family etc.) help anything though.
What was added to the Sander's story is mostly notable for it's complete absence of ANY actual
content. And that really makes one wonder why they added it. The added part is like: but but ..
Sanders success doesn't guarantee he will be good at achieving things as President. Yes and it
doesn't guarantee he won't either! But either Hillary or Sanders will face congress and anyone
who took high school civics knows that. That additions are like: NEWSFLASH: FUTURE IS UNPREDICTABLE!!!
Uh that's not adding any news to the world at all. Might as well just add a tiny disclaimer: past
performance is no guarantee of future results like the investments have.
The mere suggestion of voting for the dumbercrats under any circumstances is the epitome of insanity.
Voting for serial criminal Billary and her stunning record of incompetence would be a failure
and an indictment of the theory of democracy. Since when does a smooth sound bite suffice for
substance? Who cares how nicely she recites the lines of her masters and special interest groups.
Just ask yourself, what she has ever done for the minority groups on whose fears she preys and
relies on for support? Even under Obama things have got worse for everyone and now we want to
make things even worse?!
Herein we see the final stage of decadence in a collapsing civilisation ... where the plutocrats
work actively against democracy and representative politics. For a long time they have pretended
to be a democracy but at long last we see the United States for what it has really been since
they shot John F. Kennedy. An oligarchy which permits people to elect puppets they control and
fund and offers no alternatives ... going so far as to support the opposition party to thwart
the majority will. You are looking at country going into its death throes and Australia won't
be far behind it.
3.8million manufacturing jobs lost since 2002, 50,000 factories closed in the same time period.
30 million blue collar jobs exported abroad, Trump has a very broad and angry voting base.
Was it a premonition ? In a post made a month ago I clearly stated that Trump wasn't a true blue
republican " You can't be from NY and be a real republican" I wrote. In the same post I also said
that the Clinton Lady was in fact a republican.
In a strange twist of fate my mental perception of reality was right on. Many Sanders democrats
will be voting for Trump rather than the Clinton lady and many republicans will be voting for
the Clinton lady .
The US establishment ( Busch, Clinton) is now viewed as " crime families" by independent medias,
I still think Trump will win the presidency.
"... I really don't buy into this anti Trump hysteria, he is far better an option than slime bag Rubio or nut case Cruz. Hes a conservative nationalist who actually says some sensible things that resonate with a lot of working Americans. ..."
Clinton has recently endorsed, Nancy Reagan on HIV/Aides, and Kissinger and Albright on
foreign policy. The Huffington Post has recently endorsed, Rubio, and is preparing to endorse
Ted Cruz. Their political pundits have written new favorable histories on Mitt Romney, Newt
Gingrich, and Ronald Reagan.
Washington DC both politicians and pundits are a sea of whores,
and despised by a majority of the population.
Let's not forget that Reagan ruined the American financial system with "voodoo economics,"
cutting taxes for the rich and impoverishing our nation's ability to balance its budget and
meet its obligations, let alone do anything good for its people. He was also responsible for
the substitution of the 401k for what had been the almost universal provision of
employer-financed pensions for American workers. Plus, he brought in HMOs, which resulted in
the vastly expensive and ineffective system of health care that has been causing Americans to
pay the most for the least of any advanced nation.
Not the greatest President, imho, despite his popularity.
Guardian can't stand that Trump is actually not racist, and that a black candidate (whom the
Guardian liked a few months ago) now endorses Trump. Oooo the lefties are in a spin
The Guardian bias is getting toi much. When Carson and Christie endorse Trump its because they
are failed has beens. But you were gushing when the failed has been Romney and Lindsay Graham
attacked Trump...am sure if Jeb endorsed Rubio or Kasich you wud be falling over yourselves to
praise that! Why dont u just throw ur hat in the ring and declare urselves to be a liberal
party political mouth piece rather than try to disguise ur partisan attacks as journalism.
He actually said he wants to end the H1B abuse multiple times. I have no idea what Trump is
going to do in office, but the current Republican party is basically just pushing the
disgusting Koch Brother agenda, I trust them even less than I trust Donald Trump. I'm not sure
if you can post links on here but look up "What The Koch Brothers Want." by Bernie Sanders,
then listen to what every Republican running says & then tell me that you could actually vote
for one of them. I truly love this country, I cannot vote for someone I know will push this
agenda by a bunch of people who have no trouble poisoning an entire city, want to screw over
the elderly, & want to let people die on the streets. One of the reasons the Kochs don't like
Trump is because he DOESN'T want to kick people off SS & allow Americans who can't afford
healthcare to just be left to die. Unfortunately, what many people don't seem to understand is
that our other choices besides Bernie Sanders are just as vile even if they are "politically
correct."
Further, we're becoming a third world country because 35+ years of rhetoric that taxes are bad
and government is evil means we have failed to invest in, let alone maintain, those public
goods that keeps a country vibrant and economically competitive - you know, things like
transportation infrastructure, basic pre-K-16 education (public support for higher education
was gutted in the '80's leading to the high debt load you rightly identify as an issue),
cutting edge research, affordable housing, food security, healthcare and the like that helps
to release the productive potential of all citizens.
As an immigrant yourself (and my spouse
is a naturalized citizen so I am well familiar with immigration processes), you well know that
we're not letting in folks willy nilly as you state in your post. Further, as you also know,
Obama has deported more folks than any other president, including Eisenhower's efforts , while
at the same time immigration from Mexico is decreasing.
Trump is merely paying lip service to the issues... He had put forward no realistic plans
to address such.
I have yet to understand what exactly Donald Trump has said that is "bigoted" or "racist". Our
politicians have decided unilaterally to allow EVERYONE into this country despite the fact
that people literally cannot afford it. People's incomes have been stagnant, taxes have gone
up, student loans are out of control & more people than ever are homeless. I live in NYC &
despite the insane taxes that we pay here our government has cut a bunch of federally funded
programs like mental health hospitals, so now these people with mental health issues are
homeless and they mostly hang out in the subway, where they sometimes attack & try to kill
people. Thanks to our PC politicians, the police can barely do their jobs anymore. America has
been a very welcoming country, I myself am first generation American, and I've grown up here
but Donald Trump is not exaggerating when he says this country is turning into a third world
country. I barely recognize it anymore & the changes haven't been for the better. American
taxpayers CANNOT be responsible for everyone in this world.
right and wrong is subjective - most people (and most religions) think that the golden rule is
an accurate measuring device, but beyond that, its pretty difficult for one to impose one's
morals on another. The golden rule implies that if you don't want people trying to kill you
and yours, it is a good idea not to kill them and theirs. Fighting terrorism sounds like a
good thing to do, but killing innocent people in the process thereof causes otherwise neutral
people to become combative. Therefore, what some would call fighting terrorism, others would
call causing terrorism... subjective
"Trump starting a trade war would be disastrous, and he is not going to be able to
bring back corporations that have moved their jobs out of the country"
A trade war would devastate China and Asian economies, US would be just fine. Corporations
make 90% of their profits in US and EU, they are completely dependent on those markets, they
would cease to exist if barred from US. So they will bring the jobs back if that is required.
The party of Reagan? The worst postwar president whose achievements include the creation of
Islam militancy, the Iran-contra affair, and the appointment of Scalia to the Supreme Court.
This title is misleading. It implies that the party has just lost its soul when in fact it was
lost years ago. And I would submit that things haven*t devolved quickly. To me it seems to
have started during the Reagan years, (yes I did vote for him), and accelerated quickly to
becoming the party on ONLY the wealthy. Look at the policy changes that occurred under Reagan
that still affect us today. The Saving & Loan debacle started the current financial crap that
we still have by siphoning off money from the middle to the top and has only gotten worse. I
will say, in my defense, he was the last Republican I voted for and while I don't think he
foresaw what he was unleashing, he will most likely be the last ever.
I really don't buy into this anti Trump hysteria, he is far better an option than slime
bag Rubio or nut case Cruz. Hes a conservative nationalist who actually says some sensible
things that resonate with a lot of working Americans.
The Republican Party did not give us Trump. He is not a Republican. He is exposing the
hypocrisy of the last 40 years of conservatism. He is horrible. But he is not one of them.
That's why the GOP is scared.
And can we quit calling the GOP the party of Lincoln please. Lincoln won the Civil War, saved
the Union, and freed the slaves. Modern Republicans used to be Democrats and switched in the
late 50's early 60's during the civil rights era. Have them read THAT history and stop
erroneously attaching themselves to Lincoln. The GOP is an odorous lot.
Ben Carson never met a rich white man's ass he wouldn't kiss. "Bad at so MANY levels."
I imagine if a non Guardianista had made a remark anything like this, he or she would have
been screamed down and permanently banned for racism. But the left is given a free pass in the
Guardian.
The lack of good jobs means that the masses no longer have the 'American Dream'. Education is
irrelevant the poorer classes never had phd's but they had jobs and that gave them purpose.
Notice Trump's message it's about work being undermined by globalisation and immigration.
A manipulative, win-at-all costs organization that targets people's basest instincts in the
interest of mere commerce has no soul. The Republican Party lost its soul long ago if it ever
had one. The Democratic Party is not far behind. (The devil does not wear Prada; she wears
pant suits.) Come to think of it, in what sense can ANY organization be said to have a soul?
This article is simply incredible. The journalist attacks Trump for probably never having read
a book since college - this is a claim with no basis in fact. This article has multiple
suppositions, such as Trump paying people to endorse him, that are pure speculation. It is
really a scandal. Trump's views on the media gain credibility thanks to such articles thus I
conclude the author is pro Trump!
Most of your list are things that are either too vague or too common to take too seriously
("working for the benefit", are you kidding? have you met Bushes and Clintons?).
But these
two deserve a response:
"He promised to round up and deport US Citizens"
"He suggested suppressing religious liberty"
People in US illegally are not citizens and asking them to leave is not wrong. All
countries do it. If you come illegally or over-stay a visa, you can be deported. Period. If
you object to that, your criticism is bordering on saying that law should not be enforced.
I am assuming the religious liberty refers to Trump saying that "until we figure out what
is going on", US shouldn't issue new visas to people from Moslem countries. This is perfectly
legal - visa is a privilege and not a right and there are large categories of people banned
from getting visas to US today and in all countries in the world. The religious test might be
trickier, but it is all in implementation - what qualifies as religion, what would be asked,
for how long, what would be the appeal process.
My point is that
Trump is really, really good on trade and immigration control.
That
would result in a significantly higher incomes and a better economy. The other stuff is more
vague and often border-line unimplementable. But you list has nothing on it. The real question
about Trump is his sincerity, and we simply don't know. We do know 100% that Clinton is
dishonest and will never carry out any of her promises. After 30 years of the same lying how
could anyone fall for it again?
When the Dem.s dropped the Segregationists at the curb with the trash, they likely imagined,
not only the glory of a righteous deed well done, unique in my lifetime, but foresaw the
considerable cost and turmoil that would follow. And sure they did accept losses to Rep.s,
with their Southern strategy.
But who forecast that the Rep.s, who picked up, embraced, and
swallowed, whole, that trash, would be so poisoned by it, would become it, through and
through, an evil parody reflecting, in photo negative, the virtue Dem.s bore that day?
RINO's, save your soul; today is the last. No one who goes this way now deserves sound
sleep, ascension.
Carson and Trump combine to form a powerful synergy, Trump's gusto and zeal complimented and
tempered by Carson's mellower, more cerebral person. This is a winning foundation going
forward. My condolences to the masses of uber trendy, 'liberal', ultra-'enlightened'
intelligentsia out there who can only spout cynical, ironic musings in observation of Trump's
developing preeminence.
"... Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture. ..."
"... There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint... ..."
"... After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence. ..."
"... To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen. ..."
"... Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion .. ..."
"... Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control.. ..."
"... "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there? ..."
"... "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it." ..."
"... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
"... The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar? ..."
"... The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq. ..."
"... The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history. ..."
"... No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well. ..."
"... You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2 ..."
"... Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East. ..."
"... It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart. ..."
"... Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria. ..."
"... However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change. ..."
"... No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West. ..."
"... Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS. ..."
"... Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. ..."
"... There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. ..."
"... The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism. ..."
"... The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers. ..."
"... Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. ..."
"... I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it. ..."
"... The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest. ..."
"... Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government. ..."
"... Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined. ..."
"... Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe. ..."
"... The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction? ..."
"... The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.' ..."
"... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
"... We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils. ..."
"... We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population. ..."
"... Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. ..."
"... NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine. ..."
"... Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order. ..."
"... Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below. http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf ..."
"... In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya. ..."
"... Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies. ..."
"... Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate ..."
"... Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS ..."
"... Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers. ..."
"... The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it ..."
"... The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists. ..."
So
Barack Obama thinks Britain in 2011 left Libya in chaos – and besides it does not pull its weight
in the world. Britain thinks that a bit rich, given the shambles America left in Iraq. Then both
sides say sorry. They did not mean to be rude.
Thus do we wander across the ethical wasteland of the west's wars of intervention. We blame and
we name-call. We turn deaf ears to the cries of those whose lives we have destroyed. Then we kiss
and make up – to each other.
Obama was right first time round about Libya's civil war. He wanted to keep out. As
he recalls to the Atlantic magazine , Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes
sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime". He cooperated with Britain and France,
but on the assumption that David Cameron would clear up the resulting mess. That did not happen because
Cameron had won his Falklands war and could go home crowing.
Obama is here describing all the recent "wars of choice".
America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq, any more than Britain had in
Libya . When a state attacks
another state and destroys its law and order, morally it owns the mess. There is no such thing as
imperialism-lite. Remove one fount of authority and you must replace and sustain another, as Europe
has done at vast expense in Bosnia and Kosovo.
America and Britain both attacked countries in the Middle East largely to satisfy the machismo
and domestic standing of two men, George Bush and Tony Blair. The result has been mass killing, destruction
and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war. In this despicable
saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north
Africa and may yet turn it
into another Islamic State caliphate. It is his Iraq.
As for Obama's charge that Britain and other countries are not pulling their weight and are "free
riders" on American defence spending, that too deserves short shrift.
British and French military expenditure is proportionately among the highest in the world, mostly
blown on archaic weapons and archaic forms of war. Western warmongering over the past two decades
has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping
alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.
Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against
all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing
to do with politicians.
I'm stunned that Obama has been able to get away with his absolutely abysmal record with foreign
policy. Libya was a complete disaster and there is evidence to suggest that Libya was a much better
place under Gaddafi. And the fact that once they were in Iraq (something started by his predecessor)
he wasn't committed to bringing about serious change, thus leaving a giant vacuum which, coincided
with the Syrian Civil War, has now been filled by ISIS.
That's not even talking about the Iran deal, Benghazi and the disastrous "Bring Back our Girls"
campaign.
"People find it very hard," said Iman Fannoush, with her two children in tow and a husband
she knows not where. "They are up all night shooting because of good news. We hear the UN is
coming to help us or our fighters have taken Brega or the air strikes have destroyed Gaddafi's
tanks. Then everyone is afraid again when they hear Gaddafi's army is coming and they all want
to know where is France, where are the air strikes, why is the west abandoning us?
We are grateful for the role played by the international community in protecting the Libyan
people; Libyans will never forget those who were our friends at this critical stage and will
endeavour to build closer relations with those states on the basis of our mutual respect and
common interests. However, the future of Libya is for the Libyans alone to decide. We cannot
compromise on sovereignty or allow others to interfere in our internal affairs, position themselves
as guardians of our revolution or impose leaders who do not represent a national consensus.
Hilsum gives a riveting account of the battle for Tripoli, with activists risking their lives
to pass intelligence to Nato, whose targeting – contrary to regime propaganda – was largely
accurate, and too cautious for many Libyans.
The UN security council authorised action to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi regime
but Russia, China and other critics believe that the western alliance exceeded that mandate
and moved to implement regime change.
Libya's Arab spring was a bloody affair, ending with the killing of Gaddafi, one of the world's
most ruthless dictators. His death saw the rebel militias turn on each other in a mosaic of
turf wars. Full-scale civil war came last summer, when Islamist parties saw sharp defeats in
elections the United Nations had supervised, in the hope of bringing peace to the country.
Islamists and their allies rebelled against the elected parliament and formed the Libya Dawn
coalition, which seized Tripoli. The new government fled to the eastern city of Tobruk and
fighting has since raged across the country.
With thousands dead, towns smashed and 400,000 homeless, the big winner is Isis, which has
expanded fast amid the chaos. Egypt, already the chief backer of government forces, has now
joined a three-way war between government, Libya Dawn and Isis.
It is all a long way from the hopes of the original revolutionaries. With Africa's largest
oil reserves and just six million people to share the bounty, Libya in 2011 appeared set for
a bright future. "We thought we would be the new Dubai, we had everything," says a young activist
who, like the student, prefers not to give her name. "Now we are more realistic."
Perpetually engineered destabilization is highly lucrative and has been for 200 years, but I don't
know what's Central or Intelligent about it......except for a tiny handful at the top globally.
On balance, is Libya worse off now than it would have been, had Gaddaffi been allowed free
rein in Benghazi?
No-one can possibly know the answer to that, certainly not Mr Jenkins.
Clearly it was a dictatorship like say Burma is today.....but....from an economic point of
view, it was like the Switzerland of Africa. And actually tons of European companies had flocked
over there to set up shop. In contrast to now where its like the Iraquistan of Africa. No contest
in the comparison there...
Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both
parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture.
There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among
them as a narrative of sinner vs saint...
After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy
and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and
joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence.
To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you
want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their
hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law,
all you need to see is the war in Yemen.
Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no
problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now
they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their
toes and Israel's on occasion ..
Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular
and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already
being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious
fanatics are in complete control..
Yep, many pictures, as there always are with media confections. Remember the footage of Saddam's
statue being torn down in front of a huge crowd? It was only months later we saw the wide angle
shot that showed just how few people there really were there.
These US and UK involvement in the ME are matters of official record; are you really denying the
CIA trained the Mujahideen, or that both the UK and US propped up Saddam? Even Robert Fisk acknowledges
that! And please, don't patronise me. You have no idea what I've read or haven't.
......c'mon, the powers behind the powers intentionally engineer mid-East destabilization to keep
the perpetual war pumping billions to the ATM's in their living rooms; then, on top of it, they
send the bill to average joe's globally; when is this farce going to be called out ?
It is completely illogical, can't stand even eye tests, yet continues like an emperor with
new clothes in our face.
"keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about
oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France)
still trying to get its share there?
"Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has
had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping
alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."
"The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least
outside Africa, since the second world war."
The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was
in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along
with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar?
The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of
the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western
civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy.
Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being
invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit
the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt,
Syria, Iraq.
Get your facts right. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan were all states that crumbled after
the demise of the USSR.
Bullshit. The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians,
just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East
since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history.
No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab
Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi
and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well.
this might answer your question. Syria has suffered for its geography since it was artificially
created by the Sykes Picot agreement at the end of the Ottoman Empire.
"Libyan rebels are secularists, want unified country
Gardels: If the French aim is successful and Qaddafi falls, who are the rebels the West is
allying with? Secularists? Islamists? And what do they want?
Levy: Secularists. They want a unified Libya whose capital will remain Tripoli and whose government
will be elected as a result of free and transparent elections. I am not saying that this will
happen from one day to the next, and starting on the first day. But I have seen these men enough,
I have spoken with them enough, to know that this is undeniably the dream, the goal, the principle
of legitimacy.
It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife
refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up
and deny responsibility when everything falls apart.
Britain started the mess in the Middle-East with the Balfour declaration and the theft of Palestinian
land to create an illegal Jewish state. Europe should pay massive reparations of money and equivalent
land in Europe for the Palestinian refugees living in squalid camps. Neo-con Jews who lobbied
for the Iraq, Syria and Libyan wars should have their wealth confiscated to pay for the mess they
created. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along
with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria.
Presumably he's going down the Blair/Clinton route of cosying up to Middle Eastern Supremacist
Cults in the hope that he can increase his income by tens of millions within the next 10 years.
There can be no other explanation for his actions, that have never had anything whatsoever to
do with the interests of either Britain or the wider European community.
For me, the bottom line is that, however much might like to believe it, military intervention
does not create nice, liberal, secular democracies. These can only be fostered from within.
However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators
and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions
and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change.
The military, under the instruction of politicians, of the West should be pro-defence but anti-regime
change or "nation building".
I'm not suggesting a completely isolationist position, but offensive military action should
be seen as a last resort.
Mr Jenkins is a knowledgeable man but should've thought through this a bit more before so casually
associating death and destruction and misery with Africa.
China's cultural revolution and the Great Leap Forward alone killed and displaced more people
after the second world war than all the conflicts in Africa put together. How about the break
up of India in 1947? Korean War?
But no when he thought about misery Africa popped into his mind..
Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so,
against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully
has nothing to do with politicians.
One culture?
One outlook?
Sounds all very Soviet.
So, all Enlightened souls are reduced to a monoculture, within the Anglo American Empire.
Obama is a bill of goods. The Voters that choose him thought that they were getting a progressive,
Obama used the reverend
Wright to make himself seem like a man committed to radical change, but behind Obama was Chicago
investment banker Louis Susman (appointed ambassador to Britain).
Obama, a Harvard law professor, is the choice of the bankers, he does not play a straight bat,
all the wars and killing are someone else's fault. Banking wanted rid of Gaddafi since he threatened
the dollar as the reserve currency (as did Dominique Strauss-Kahn) as does the Euro, Obama let
Cameron think he was calling the shots but he was just Obama's beard. Obama is nothing if not
cunning, when he says stay in Europe but the Elites of the Tory party are pushing for out guess
what, they got the nod from Obama and the Banks.
So? All the numbers in the world can't undo Jenkins' thesis: there is no imperialism-lite. Imperialist
wars are imperialist wars no matter how many die, and whether chaos, or neo-colonial rule follow.
In his interview, Obama claims a more deliberate, opaque, and efficient war machine. To him, and
his conscience, John Brennan, these metrics add up to significant moral milestones. To us innumerates,
it's just more imperialist b.s.
Gadaffy had since long planned to free his country and other African states from the yoke of being
forced to trade within the American dollar sphere. He was about to lance his thoroughy well prepared
alternative welcomed not the least by the Chinese when Libya was attacked. Obama is not truthful
when suggesting the attack was not a "core" interest to the US. It was of supreme interest for
the US to appear with its allies, Gadaffy´s independence of mind being no small challenge.
Gadafy may have been particularly nasty with dissidents, but the UK has plenty of allies in the
Muslim world that are far worse: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain... The Gulf States work their imported
slaves to death and the UK kowtows to them. The UK has supplied billions of pounds worth of weapons
to Saudi Arabia and sent military advisors to advise them how to use them to bomb Yemeni schools
and hospitals.
No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things
such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing
into the pockets of the West.
Kosovo is also mentioned. There was a relatively low-level conflict (much like the Northern
Ireland 'troubles') there until NATO started bombing and then oversaw the massive ethnic cleansing
of Kosovo Serbs from their homeland (Serbs are the most ethnically-cleansed group in the former
Yugoslavia: around 500,000 refugees).
Yugoslavia's real crime? It was the last country in Europe to refuse the market economy and
the hegemony of Western banks and corporates.
The message is, 'Accept capitalism red in tooth or claw, or we'll bomb the crap out of you.'
Did the attack on Afghanistan improve the situation? Perhaps temporarily in the cities, some things
got a little better as long as you weren't shot or blown up. Over the country as a whole, it made
the situation much worse.
I remember John Simpson crowing that the Western invaders had freed Afghanistan when they entered
Kabul. My reaction at the time was, 'Well, the Soviets had no problem holding the cities. Wait
until you step outside them.' There followed many years of war achieving pretty much nothing except
to kill a lot of people and get recruits flocking to the Taliban.
It seemed we had learned absolutely nothing from the British and Soviet experiences.
And you seem to have forgotten the multitude of US terror attacks on Muslims before the Afghan
invasion, repackaged for our media as 'targeted attacks with collateral damage'. Bombing aspirin
factories and such. And the First Gulf War. And US bases occupying the region. And the fact that
the situation in Afghanistan was due to the Americans and Saudis having showered weapons and cash
on anyone who was fighting the Soviets, not giving a damn about their aims. Bin Laden, for instance.
And one aspect of law and order under the Taliban was that they virtually stopped opium production.
After the invasion, it rose again to dizzying heights.
The only way to deal with countries such as Afghanistan as it returns to its default system,
along with other, more aggressive rogue states such as Saudi Arabia, is to starve them of all
weapons and then let their peoples sort it out. It may take a long time but it's the sole possibility.
As long as we keep pouring weapons into the Middle East for our own shameful purposes, the
apocalypse will continue.
Reading this excellent article one wonders how the war criminal Blair can be offered any peace-keeping
role in the world or continue to get any air or press time.
Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official
ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror
in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS.
Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run
by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo
today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. Tear gas in Parliament for the third time
in as many months. While the squares full of unemployed young and old are adorned with statues
of those that gave them this opportunity Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were popular but I think
their halos are tarnished somewhat. The situation is so serious that the US is beefing up its
presence in camp Bondsteel but you won't read about it in the Guardian.
when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance
examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute
of limitations
So true . "Oh, oh, but the Spanish/Mongols/Romans etc etc", "Oh, like they were all
so peaceful before Empire came along", "Oh, but but" (ad infinitum).
The bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen? Here's hoping. The neo-con
cum neo-ultra liberal dream keeps on giving. Even after Brexit, Britain remains America's poodle
at its peril. The rest of the article is right, but by now accepted wisdom amongst those capable
of independent and rational thought.
Here we go again, off course next phase is the "enlightment" in Al-Andalus...
1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion
of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion
of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg
the Saudis).
Wahabism grew because of the oil export from Saudi Arabia which started way before World war II.
Bollocks, there was a short period of calm while Europe defeated the Ottoman empire , but the
Mughal empire took great pleasure in slaughtering shiites, and the Ottoman empire had huge conflicts
with the Safavid empire.
2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating
Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in
Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?
He-he, the fabulous golden age which is always mentioned, no doubt they were golden at that
time compared to Europe, but to compare it today, it would be like living in Nazi Germany as a
Jew before the Nürnberg laws were implemented.
Would you like to pay a special non-muslim tax, step aside when a Muslim passed the street,
be unable to claim any high positions in society to due to your heritage?
3. Didnt forget. the USSR didnt hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West.
And it wasnt Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.
The Iran-Iraq war made the millions of dead possible primarily due to Soviet equipment, Halabja
killed 5000. No, Russia prefered Chechnya and directly killed 300.000 civilians with the Grad
bombings of cities and villages, whereas the casualties in Iraq primarily can be contributed to
sectional violence.
4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab
group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and
well thanks to our lust for control over the region.
None of the mentioned were prime examples of democracy, Nasser for example had no problems in
eliminating the Muslim brotherhood or killing 10s of thousands of rebels and civilians in Yemen
with mustard gas.
Obama's remark that the Europeans and Gulf States "detested" Gaddafi and wanted to get rid of
him while others had "humanitarian concerns" is of interest. It's unlikely the Arabs had humanitarian
concerns in all the circumstances; they just wanted Regime Change. It is the lethal combination
of Gulf Arabs and Neo-colonial France and Britain that has driven the Syrian war too- and continues
to do so. No wonder America claims these countries enthuse about war until it comes and then expect
them to fight it. France currently demands the surrender of Assad and for Russia to "leave the
country immediately". Britain says there can be no peace while he remains and that Russia's "interference"
is helping IS.
It's your prerogative whether or not you believe that the US and NATO intervene in countries based
on moral grounds. But if you do want to delude yourself, remember that they only intervene in
countries where they can make money off resources, like Libya and Iraq's oil revenues. If it were
about morality, don't you think NATO and the West would have rushed to help Rwanda during the
genocide?
There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that
western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. You do not win when your situation
is worse than it was before Saddam. You can't be a winner when you life in generally worse off
than it was before. basically there is no rule of law now in these nations. Saddam was no monster
like you want to portray him.
Actually, some of those Latin American governments we overthrew were indeed liberal democracies.
As for Canada, there are several reasons we haven't invaded. Too big, too sparse too white...and
economically already a client state. Of course, we did try once: the War of 1812.
"When the same leaders did initially stand aside (as in Syria) "
They didn't stand aside though, they helped create the trouble in the first place, as too with
Libya; gather intelligence to find out who will take up arms, fund, train and give them promises,
get them to organize and attack, then when the dictator strikes back the press swing into action
to tell us all how much of a horrible bastard he is(even though we've been supporting and trading
with him for eons), ergo, we have to bomb him! It's HUMANITARIAN! Not. It would be conquest though.
Frightening.
Obama has done everything in his power to morph into Bush including hiring a flaming chicken hawk
in Ash Carter to play the role of Dick Cheyney. Bush left us with Iraq and Afghanistan, to which
Obama added Egypt with the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood, Libya, Syria and Yemen. He also
restarted the Cold War with Russia. He is now going after China for building islands in the South
China Sea, a disputed area, something he as well as other Presidents before him has allowed Israel
to build settlements on disputed land for the past fifty years and throughthrough $ 3.5 billion
in gifts annually, has provided for enough concrete to cover all the land the Palestinians live
on.
The 3.5 billion annually will increase by $40 billion over ten years, unless Netanyahu gets
the increase he wants to 15 billion per year. So Obama must settle on a legacy which makes him
both a warmonger and one of the very best arms dealer in the world. His family must be so proud.
To be a humanitarian intervention, a military intervention has to avoid causing regime collapse,
because people will die because of regime collapse. This is an elementary point that the political
class appears not to want to learn.
I agree with your analysis except the last paragraph. Pretty much in all interventions that
we have witnessed, the political class deliberately caused the regimes to collapse. That was always
the primary goal. Humanitarian intervention were never the primary, secondary or even tertiary
objective.
If the political class want to do some humanitarian interventions, they can always start with
Boko Haram in Nigeria.
America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq
The USA was enforcing the UN blockade of Iraq, and had massive forces in place to do it. It was
costing a fortune and there were regular border skirmishes taking place. It has been suggested
that Bush and his advisors thought that they could take out Saddam and then pull all their forces
back to the US. They won't admit it now because of the disaster that unfolded afterwards.
Another good piece. What about all the weapons we sold Israel after they started their recent
slaughter in Gaza and the selling of weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen (one of the poorest
country's in the world) says everything you need to know about the tory party. They are sub humans
and as such should be treated like dirt. I don't believe in the concept of evil...all a bit religious
for me but if I did, it's what they are.
It astonishes me that these great men and women-I include Sec'y Clinton here-give no indication
that their calculations were made without the slightest knowledge of the countries they were preparing
to attack in one way or another. From what one read in the long NYTimes report on preparations
for the Libyan intervention, the participants in the planning knew a great deal about military
matters and less about Libya than they could have found out in a few minutes with Wikipedia. Tribal
societies are different from western societies, dear people, and you damn well should have known
that.
Honduras. The USA backed the coup there. Honduras is now run by generals and is the world's murder
capital. I could go on, jezzam. Please read William Blum's books on US foreign policy. They provide
evidence that the US record is not good.
Without the US the UK and France couldn't have overthrown Gaddafi. The jihadis would have been
killed or fled Libya. I don't believe any post-Gaddafi plan existed. Why would there have been
one? Killing Gaddafi was the war's aim. A western puppet strong man leader grabbing power would
have been icing on the cake of course but why would the US care about Libya once Gaddafi was gone?
Well, Cameron just followed Obama's 'regime change' bad ideas.
Obama is a failed leader of the World who made our lives so much worse.
Obama likes to entertain recently, so after his presidency the best job for him is a clown in
a circus.
We will never know why Stevens and the others were killed.
Absent reliable information, everyone is free to blame whomever they dislike most.
Based on zero non-partisan information, Hillary is the media's top choice for Big Villain.
She may in fact be more responsible than most for this horror, but she may not be too.
Who ya gonna ask: the CIA, the Pentagon, Ted Cruz?
It seems everyone who's ever even visited Washington,D.C., has some anonymous inside
source that proves Hillary did it.
To hear the GOP tell it, she flew to Libya secretly and shot Stevens herself
just because she damn well felt it, o kay -- (female troubles)
My question is: Where has US/Euro invasion resulted in a better government for all those
Middle Eastern people we blasted to bits of blood and bone? How's Yemen doin' these days?
Hope Europe enjoys assimilating a few million people who share none of Europe's customs,
values or languages.
I'm sure euro-businesses would never hire the new immigrants instead of union-backed
locals.
Why, that would almost be taking advantage of a vast reservoir of ultra-cheap labor!
Nor will the sudden ocean of euro-a-day workers undercut unions or wages in the EU. No siree,
not possible.
Just like unions have not been decimated, and wages have not stagnated in the US since 1980
or so. No siree. Not in Europe .
jezzam writes, "the dictator starts massacring hundreds of thousands of his own civilians." But
he didn't. Cameron lied.
The rebellion against Gaddafi began in February 2011. The British, French and US governments
intervened on their usual pretext of protecting civilians. The UN said that 1,000-2,000 people
had been killed before the NATO powers attacked.
Eight months later, after the NATO attack, 30,000 people had been killed and 50,000 wounded
(National Transitional Council figures).
Cameron made the mess; Cameron caused the vast refugee crisis. The NATO powers are getting
what they want – the destruction of any states and societies that oppose their rule, control over
Africa's rich resources. Libya is now plagued by "relentless warfare where competing militias
compete for power while external accumulators of capital such as oil companies can extract resources
under the protection of private military contractors."
any state that wishes to be taken seriously as a player on the world stage
The classic phrase of imperialism - an attitude that seems to believe any nation has the right
to interfere in, or invade, other countries'.
Usually done under some pretence of moral superiority - it used to be to 'bring the pagans to
God', these days more 'they're not part of our belief system'. In fact, it only really happens
when the imperial nations see the economic interests of their ruling class come under threat.
The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments
and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under
real threat from emerging economic powers.
The two that they are most scared of are Russia and China, who combined can offer the capital
and expertise to replace the old US / European axis across Africa, for instance. The war is already
being fought on many fronts, as
this article makes clear.
Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. Clinton had it right when the
going gets tough Obama gives a speech (see Cairo).
I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals
is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama
with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton
the warmonger to get on with it.
The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human
life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination"
don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed
- the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest.
The odd thing is, Obama didn't seem to think getting rid of Gaddafi a bad thing at all at the
time. Clinton was all, "We came, we saw, he died." And this bit about "no core interest" in Afghanistan
and Iraq is just bizarre. Given the mess both countries are in, and the resurgence of the Taliban
and zero clue about Iraq it was clearly a master stroke for Obama to decide the US exit both with
no effective governments in place, ones that could deal with the Taliban et al. Never mind, he
can tootle off and play golf.
Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder
why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed
their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD,
ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but
the he is a captive mess of the shadow government.
America has a historic crisis of leadership and being the sole model left in that field, the
world has followed, the UK and all of Europe included.
Libya is all Hilarys work so expect to return with boots on the ground once Wall Sts finest is
parked in the Oval office. She has the midas touch in reverse and Libya has turned (and will continue)
to turn out worse than Iraq and Syria (believe me its possible) There is absolutely no one on
the ground that the west can work with so the old chestnut of arming and training al qaeda or
'moderate' opposition is not an option. ISIL are solidifying a base there and other than drones
there is zip we can do.
Critising Cameron just shows how insecure Obama is, lets be honest the middle east and afghanistan
are in the state they are because Obama had zero interest in foreign policy when his first term
started, thus allowing the neocons to move into the vacuum and create the utter disaster that
is Syraq and Ukraine. We in europe are now dealing with the aftermath of this via the refugee
crisis which will top 2 million people this year. Obamas a failure and he knows it, hence the
criticism of other leaders. Cameron is no different, foreign policy being almost totally abandoned
to the US, there is no such thing as independent defence policy in the UK, everything is carried
out at the behest of the US. Don't kid yourself we have any autonomy, we don't and there are plenty
of high level armed forces personnel who feel the same way. Europe is leaderless in general and
with the economy flatlining they too have abandoned defence and foreign affairs to the pentagon.
Right now we're in the quiet before the storm, once HRC gets elected expect the situation to
deteriorate rapidly, our only hope is that someone has got the dirt to throw her out of the race.
ISIS established itself in Iraq before moving into Syria. Would ISIS exist is Britain had not
totally destabilized Iraq? Going back even further, it is the 100th anniversary of the Sykes-Picot
agreement, that great exercise in British Imperialism that created the artificial nations in the
Middle East that are collapsing today.
Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every
excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there
is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America
and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going
back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined.
Transparent hypocrisy. Accept responsibility and stop offloading it to Calais.
Ambassador Stevens was killed in a cover up over the arms dealing from Libya to Syria, (weapons
and fighters to ISIS). It seems more likely that he was killed because he was investigating the
covert operation given that he was left to fend for himself by all US military forces but in a
classic defamation strategy he has been accused of being behind the operation. Had he been he
would have been well defended.
"Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering
military establishments that depend on it.
Couldn't put it better myself. Yes, America is a full blown Empire now. Evil to it's very core.
Bent on world domination and any cost. All we lack is a military dictatorship. Of course, with
the nation populated by brainwashed sheep, a "Dear Leader" is inevitable,
President Obama was correct in keeping US boots off the ground in Syria. An active US troop presence
would have resulted in an even greater level of confusion and destruction on all sides. However,
it was precisely the US' meddling in Libya that helped pave the way for its current dysfunctional,
failed state status, riven by sectarian conflicts and home to a very active Al Quaida presence.
US interference in Libya saw Gadaffi backstabbed by the US before literally being stabbed to
death although he had been given assurances that the US would respect his rule particularly as
he had sought to become part of the alliance against the likes of Al Quaida.
Obama was behind the disgraceful lie that the mob that attacked the US' Benghazi Embassy and
murdered Ambassador Smith y was 'inflamed' by an obscure video on youtube that attacked extremist
elements of the Islamic faith. Smith deserved better than this blatant lie and the grovelling,
snivelling faux apologies Obama and then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made to the Muslim
world for something that had nothing to do with 99.9 percent of non Muslims.
Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi
left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way
to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary
Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the
victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun
by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe.
Disappointingly, President Obama forgets the Biblical saying about pointing out a speck in
somebody's eye while ignoring the plank in his own.
Mr President doesn't privately refer to the Libyan upheaval as the "shit show" for no good reason.
The chaos and anarchy that have ensued since, including the migrant crisis in Europe and the rise
of Islamic State, is directly attributable to the shoddy interventionist approach used by both
Britain and France.
Good article, with justified moral indignation. Only thing I would have changed, is "imperialism-lite"
to 'lesser and greater imperialism.
Would it not have been a great contribution towards peace and justice, had the US decided not
to invade Iraq and Libya, on account that other western countries were "free-riders" and would
not have pulled their weight?
So, what does the world needs now? More 'free-riding countries' to dissuade so-called responsible
countries - Britain, France, America, Italy - from conspiring to invade other countries, after
consulting in the equivalent of a 'diplomatic toilet and drawing up their war plans on the back
of the proverbial cigarette packet.'
For all Obama's niceties, it would now appear that he has been seething and mad as hell about
his perception of Britain and France 'abandoning' Libya and watching it perceptible destabilizing
the region and the flames fanning farther afield.
The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected
or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the
Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns'
to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson
of planning what should follow after the destruction?
The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the
euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about
not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.'
Is the Americans now telling the world that they went into Libya without planning for the aftermath,
because it was 'an emergency to save lives' and they had to go in immediately?
Well, if so, that is now how nations behave responsibly, and it is now clear that more lives
have probably been lost and continue to be sacrificed, than those which might have been saved
as a result of the West invading and attacking Libya.
the Europeans expected America to pick up the tab for reconstruction
I don't think there would be many complaints from Halliburton or other American companies to
help with the reconstruction, if the place wasn't such a shit-storm right now.
"The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least
outside Africa, since the second world war."
Judging from the sentiments expressed in the overwhelming majority of comments posted on multiple
threads on this forum, the British people don't want to accept responsibility for "migration on
a scale not seen... since the second world war". The almost universal resistance to accepting
refugees and migrants that fled their homes due to unprovoked British aggression is disgusting
and pathetic. It highlights the hypocrisy of those who see themselves morally fit to judge almost
everyone else.
Mitchell says that we had a plan to stabilise Libya but that it could not be implement the plan
because there was no peace?#*^..... Der
We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our
well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the
Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils.
Well there you have it- its the fault of the Libyans.
Hilary Clinton recently blamed Sarkozy for Libya describing him as so "very excited" about the
need to start bombing that he persuaded her and she, Nuland and Power persuaded a reluctant Obama.
Three civilian females argued down the military opinion that it was unnecessary and likely to
cause more trouble than it was worth.
As this was clearly to support French interests the Americans insisted the Europeans do it
themselves if they were that keen. Old Anglo-French rivalry has never been far from the surface
in the ME and it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France would take all the glory.
Neither of them appear to have given any thought about reconstruction. The blame is mostly Cameron's
as Sorkozy was chucked out of office just months later. Did Cameron have a plan at all? If so
it was his biggest mistake and one we'll be paying for over the coming years.
Without Putin's mischief making though, this would have been sorted out long ago.
Putin intervened in September 2015. What have the West been doing since 2011 to stop the conflict,
one wonders.
Russia vetoes any UN attempt to sort out the mess
Looking bad you'd realize that it at least prompted Obama to retract in 2013. Since then though
support to Saudi and proxies destabilizing Syria has only increased.
Russia is clearing the mess of the West, and they should be grateful. Obama might be from what
I read today from his "confessions".
Yes. I don't think that is a pro-imperialist stance. He's arguing that there is no middle ground;
getting rid of dictators you don't like is imperialism, and whether you follow through or not,
there are serious consequences, but to not follow through is an abnegation of moral responsibility
to the people you are at attemting to "free". It seems to me he is arguing against any foreign
intervention, hence his castigation of Obama and Cameron for the "ethical wasteland of their wars
of intervention."
Please do me a favour and study 20th century history a little more. The US overthrow countless
democracies in Latin America and the Middle East and installed fascist dictatorships.
Liberal Democracy haha come on now. They dont care about Democracy. They care about money.
They will install and support any dictatorship (look at Saudi Arabia for example) as long as they
do as they are told economically.
I love western values, dont get me wrong. It is the best place to live freely. However, if
you werent lucky enough to be born in the west and the west wants something your country has (eg.
oil).....you are in for a lot of bad times.
I just wish western leaders/governments actually followed the western values that we all love
and hold dear.
We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from
Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat"
from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population.
The solution as Corbyn pointed out is to stop funding the Terrorists.
By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar;
the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals
into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian
entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them,
were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the
CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.
Peter Oborne investigates claims that Britain and the West embarked on an unspoken alliance
of convenience with militant jihadi groups in an attempt to bring down the Assad regime.
He hears how equipment supplied by the West to so called Syrian moderates has ended up in
the hands of jihadis, and that Western sponsored rebels have fought alongside Al Qaeda. But
what does this really tell us about the conflict in Syria?
This edition of The Report also examines the astonishing attempt to re brand Al Nusra, Al
Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, as an organisation with which we can do business.
What is good that this is finally coming out ,the denial by both Obama and a very left wing media
has failed to confront this issue in what is an incredibly low point for Obama and Hilary Clinton
and their naive ideas about the Arab Spring.
As it is equally so for David Cameron and William Hague. Sarkozy is different he was not naive
he knew exactly what he was doing thais was about saving french influence in North Africa,he was
thinking about Tunisa, Algeria which he was keen to drag others into -- He was the most savvy of
all those politicians at least he was not a fool,but France priorities are not the same as the
UK --
Obama's comments once again as usual do not really confront the real problems of Libya and
gloss over the key issues and ending up passing the buck, he can do no wrong ? It was not the
aftermath of Libya but the whole idea of changing the controlling demographics of the country
which he played a major part in destabilising through the UN AND Nato which was the problem --
It was thought the lessons of Iraq was all about not putting boots on the ground ,or getting
your feet dirty ,as this antagonises the locals and that a nice clinical arms length bombardment
creating havoc ,is the best way to go .
This was not the lesson of Iraq , which was actually not to destabilise the controlling demographics
of the country which will never recover if you do ..It is one thing to depose a leader or ask
a leader to step down but do not disturb 100 of years controlling demographics, sectarian or not
in these countries is not wise . To do so is a misstep or misjudgement --
Demographics are like sand dunes they have taken many years to evolve and rest uneasy, in the
highly religious and sectarian landscape but can be unsettled over night, grain by grain even
by a small shift in the evening night breeze , a small beetle can zig zag across and the whole
dune will crumble
Once again the US pushed the UK who vied with France at how high they could jump, using the
UN blank cheque as cover ,for melting down the country and has left UN credibilty in taters has
now no credibility and Nato is now not trusted .
They took disgracefully no less the UN 1973 Peace Resolution , point one, Cease fire and point
two No Fly Zone .They bent it , twisted it , contorted it into blatant out right support of the
eastern shiite sympathisers sectarian group, against the more secular Sunni Tripoli groups .
(Gaddafi was not one man Mr apologist Rifkind he was the tribal leaders of a quite a large
tribe !)
Which has been part of a historic rivalry going back hundreds of years . They killed more civilians
that Gaddafi ever had or could have done . They even attacked in a no fly zone government troops
retreating and fired on government planes on the ground in a non fly zone .
Then they refused to negotiate with the government or allow the Organisation of African states
to mediate who had agreed general elections .They went on bombing until there was no infrastructure
no institutions or sand dunes ,or beetles left --
It was done after Iraq and that is why it is so shameful and why Obama , Cameron, Sarkozy ,
the UN , Nato must face up to what they have done , and after the Chilcot enquiry there needs
to be a Cameron enquiry . Presumably it will have the backing of Obama --
What is worse is the knock on effect on this massive arm caches and fighters from Libya then
went on to Syria, reek havoc and destabilised the country . Because Russia and China could never
trust again the UN , the UN has been ineffective in Syria for that very reason .The deaths of
British tourist in next door Tunisia has to laid firmly at David Cameron's and the foreign office
door --
No wonder Libya is keeping Obama awake at night , no wonder he is indulging in damage limitation
, no wonder he is trying to re write history ? How can I get this out of my legacy . If only I
had not met Mr Cameron a yes man -- If only I had been told by some with an once of common sense
, not to touch this country with a barge pole ?
The poor Libyan people will agree with him --
The lesson for the UK is do want you think is right not what the US thinks as right , a lesson
that David Cameron has failed to learn , and has shown he is not a safe pari of hands and lacks
judgement --
1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of
Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion
of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the
Saudis).
2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating
Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain.
Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?
3. Didnt forget. the USSR didn't hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West.
And it wasn't Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.
4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab
group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well
thanks to our lust for control over the region.
Obama? Censored? You forgot Hillary. she even said the other day at the townhall before Miss/MI
to the effect 'if Assad had been taken out early like Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad
as Libya'. laughable really. i presume you aren't criticising Hillary Clinton?
Kosovo is now basket case that we are paying for but it is small. Now we have also backed NeoCon
regime change in Ukraine which we are going to be paying for. Libya will soon have enough Jihadist
training camps to be a direct threat.
What we see is a Strategy of Chaos from the US NeoCons but what we have failed to notice is
that the NeoCons see us as the target, as the enemy.
Totally agree that there is no such thing as Imperialism Lite, just as there is no such thing
as Wahabi Lite or Zionism Lite. So I wonder why Hilary Benn thinks Britain has anything to feel
proud about our foreign policy. It seems to me Britain's Foreign Policy is a combination of incompetence,
jingoism and pure evil.
What is the point of employing the brightest brains in the land at the Foreign Office when we
get it wrong almost all the time ?
"Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence
of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering
military establishments that depend on it."
Attacking Al qaeda in Afghanistan had nothing to do with defending territory?
Libyan 'rebels' were armed and trained by 'the West' in a first place. The plan was the same for
Syria but Russians stopped it with not allowing 'no fly zone' or to call it properly 'bomb them
into the stone age'.
You probably don't know how 'bloody' Gaddafi was to the Libyans.
* GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
* For each family member the state pays $ 1000 grants per year.
* Unemployment - $ 730.
* Salary Nurse - $ 1000.
* For every newborn is paid $ 7000.
* The bride and groom given away $ 64,000 to buy an apartment.
* At the opening of a one-time personal business financial assistance - $ 20,000.
* Large taxes and extortions are prohibited.
* Education and medicine are free.
* Education and training abroad - at the expense of the state.
* Store chain for large families with symbolic prices of basic foodstuffs.
* For the sale of products past their expiry date - large fines and detention.
* Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
* For counterfeiting - the death penalty.
* Rents - no.
* No Fees for electricity for households!
* Loans to buy a car and an apartment - interest free.
* Real estate services are prohibited.
* Buying a car up to 50% paid by the state, for militia fighters - 65%.
* Gasoline is cheaper than water. 1 liter - 0,14 $.
* If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary
of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
* Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River
project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country
The Gadaffi regime had upset the USA because Gadaffi was setting up an oil currency system based
on gold rather than US dollars. While this was not the sole reason the West turned against him
it was an important factor. The largest factor for the wars so far, and the planned war against
Iran was to cut out the growing Russian domination of the oil supply to Europe, China and India.
A decent article as we could expect from the author.
However personally I doubt there was no ulterior motive in the case of Lybia. Lybia was one
of the countries who tried the change the status quo on the oil market and it has huge reserves
too (as we know Europe is running out of oil, at least Great Britain is).
It is very likely that the European countries retreated because Libya started to look like
another Iraq.
When you are talking about "democratic forces of the revolution.." i imagine you being an enthusiastic
teenager girl who hardly knows anything about the world but goes somewhere far for a gap year
as a volunteer to make locals aware of something that will help them forever. It is instead of
demanding responsible policies and accountability from her own government.
Sorry!!!
What planet have you been living on. What do you read apart from lifestyle magazines full of shots
of celebrity boobs and bums.
The United states is the most interventionist country in history. Of its 237 years of existence
it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine.
If the West stopped intervening there would be very few wars and if the West used its influence
for peace rather than control there would rarely be any was at all.
Well put. People forget the importance of oil in maintaining the standard of living in our western
democracies. Controlling it's supply trumps all other issues.
Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the
thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted.
Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world
excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along
with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when
Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as
an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack
police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order.
Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that
the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate
Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of
our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy
outlined in the US Special Forces document below.
http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf
If you get your facts right it ruins your argument doesn't it.
In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French
valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner
got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent
objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan,
Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya.
These Middle East countries should have been left alone by the West. Due to their nature, these
countries have strong divisions and battle for their beliefs and a strong man, a dictator is what
prevented them to fall into the chaos they are today. Without the Western meddling, arming and
financing various rebel groups, Isis would not exist today.
Neither is putting political opponents in acid baths and burning tyres, as Tony Blair's friends
in the central Asian Republics have been doing, neither is beheading gays, raped women and civil
rights protesters, as Cameron's Saudi friends have been enjoying, the latter whilst we sell them
shit loads of munitions to obliterate Yemeni villagers. I wonder how the Egyptian president is
getting on with all that tear gas and bullets we sold him? And are the Bahrani's, fresh from killing
their own people for daring to ask for civil rights, enjoying the cash we gave them for that new
Royal Navy base? Our foreign policy is complacent and inconsistent, we talk about morality but
the bottom line is that that doesn't come into it when BAE systems and G4S have contracts to win.
Don't get me wrong, Britain has played a positive role internationally in many different areas,
but there is always a neo-liberal arsehole waiting to pop up and ruin the lives of millions, a
turd with a school tie that just wont be flushed away.
Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world
to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend
the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian,
as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and
American Nato toadies.
It is high time that Europe reviewed and evaluated its relationship with the United States, with
NATO, Russia and China. The world needs to be a peaceable place and there needs to be more legislation
imposed upon the Financial Markets to stop them being a place where economic destabilisation and
warfare can and do take place. The United States would not contemplate these reviews taking place
as they are integral to their continuing position in the world but also integral to the problems
we are all experiencing? It will take a brave Europe to do this but it is a step that has to be
taken if the world is to move forward! Britain should be a huge part of this, outside a weakend
EU this would benefit the United States from Britains lack of input, another reason we should
vote to stay and be positive to our European position. The most vulnerable herring is the one
that breaks out of the shoal?
Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The
so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and
neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their
looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army,
used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate
Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned
a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across
North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS
Cameron's Libya policy from start to finish is a foreign policy catastrophe and in a just world
would have seen him thrown out of office on his ear
Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext
of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within
Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al
were the war mongers.
Then there is this gem: "Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has called for a United Nations
resolution allowing international forces to intervene in Libya.
There was no other choice, he told French radio. "We will not allow them to cut off the heads
of our children."
"We abandoned the Libyan people as prisoners to extremist militias," Mr Sisi told Europe 1
radio. He was referring to the aftermath of the 2011 war in which Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi
was toppled with the help of an international coalition.
That intervention was "an unfinished mission", he said."
The US, France and the UK own this ongoing mess but do not have the moral fortitude to clean
it up. As with the "Arab Spring", this will not end well.
The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from
all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself
adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now
running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude
and no effort should be spared to address it
The west who propped up the Saudis, who's crazy wahhabi brand of Islam helped radicalise the Islamic
world with 100 billion dollars spent on promoting it.
The west who created israel and then has done nothing to stop israels ever growing land theft
and occupation over decades (not even a single sanction)...leading the Muslim world to hate us
more for our hypocrisy and double standards.
The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular
leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships
who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated
and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists.
The west who arms brutal dictators to wage proxy wars and then invades and bombs these same
dictators countries over claims they have WMDs (that we sold to them).
The west has been intervening in the middle east alot longer than post 9/11. We are very very
culpable for the disasters engulfing the region.
Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike
against the Gaddafi regime"
Let's examine what Obama is saying here: when it is perceived to be at the core of US
interests, the USA reserves the right to attack any country, at any time.
The world inhabits a moral vacuum, and in that state, any country can justifiably choose to
do anything, against anyone, for any reason. And this guy got the Nobel Peace Prize.
In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised
north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate.
You forgot to mention Cameron was only following Sarkozy .
Don't forget the French role .
25 February 2011: Sarkozy said Gaddafi "must go."
28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone
11 March 2011: Cameron joined forces with Sarkozy after Sarkozy demanded immediate action
from international community for a no-fly zone against air attacks by Gaddafi.
14 March 2011: In Paris at the Élysée Palace, before the summit with the G8 Minister for
Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy, who is also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister
Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention
in Libya
.
19 March 2011: French[72] forces began the military intervention in Libya, later joined
by coalition forces
Well said in the headline. Imperialism-lite/heavy, colonialism, and neo-colonialism don't work,
should be a thing of the past. Intervening in the politics of another country is a mug's game.
Don't understand why Obama is blaming Cameron for it, perhaps playing to his domestic gallery.
Blair's love fest with the deluded Gaddafi family, followed by the volte-face of pushing for his
violent overthrow by the next government, were both severely misguided policies. Need to diplomatically
encourage change, in foreign policy, and the desired type of political movements to take hold.
Military interventions have the opposite effect, so does propping up dictators, religiously fanatical
regimes, proven time and time again.
So the choices are to do nothing, or invade and create a colony?
Pretty much. As Jenkins rightly says, if you want to launch an aggressive war you either do
it or you don't. If you do it then it is your responsibility to clear up the mess, however many
of your own lives are lost and however much it costs. Trashing a country and then buggering off
is not an option.
Of course, using force for defensive reasons is fine. That's why modern warmongering politicians
always call it "defence" when they drop bombs on innocent people in faraway countries. It is no
such thing.
There was no massacre, not even a hint of one. Total obfuscation to give Hillary Clinton a foreign
policy "success" so that she could use it as a springboard to the presidency. "Hillary Clinton
was so proud of her major role in instigating the war against Libya that she and her advisors
initially planned to use it as basis of a "Clinton doctrine", meaning a "smart power" regime change
strategy, as a presidential campaign slogan.
War creates chaos, and Hillary Clinton has been an eager advocate of every U.S. aggressive
war in the last quarter of a century. These wars have devastated whole countries and caused an
unmanageable refugee crisis. Chaos is all there is to show for Hillary's vaunted "foreign policy
experience".
"... Yeah. Painting the Syria/Libya crisis as Hillary vs the Repubs however is dishonest. not lacking insight or clarity. dishonest. On the Repubs: all the candidates except Trump said at the debate a few days ago that peace was not in the interests of Israel and therefore a US President would betray Israel by SEEKING peace. ..."
"... Hillary said at the townhall before Miss/MI that 'if we'd taken out Assad earlier like we did Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'. Your Hillary vs the Repubs routine is dishonest. This is the neocon oligrachy fighting for its life election. do not fake it in the name of Hillary. ..."
"... The Obama administration has redefined the word "militant " to be a "male of military age within the strike zone" and here's the killer ..."unless POSTHUMOUSLY proven to be innocent" ..."
"... Ramos ought to have asked Hilary exactly why Gadaffi was deposed, and came back at her fiercely with statistics and independent reports if she dared to even muse the suggestion that it was another "humanitarian intervention". ..."
"... If Hillary's two decade history of war mongering was exposed for what it really represents by "journalists" in the corporate media, she would no longer be insulated from the scrutiny her deeply flawed decision making warrants. ..."
"... Unfortunately, the American public have only independent news sites like the Intercept, Truthdig, the Jacobin, Harpers Magazine, Mondoweiss, and a few others from which to evaluate the real damage Hillary has caused. ..."
"... What gives Amerika the right to intervene in the affairs of other nations in the first place? Are they unaware that the rest of the world fears American terrorism more that anything else, or more likely, do they care? No wonder Hillary and the Republican hawks are worrying the planet. ..."
You are absolutely right as far as these five questions are concerned. Yet you forgot an important
one: TTIP as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. These so-called free trade agreements are
a fatal threat to democracy as they invest more power in corporations than in parliaments and
additionally they are detrimental to labour and the environment in the concerned countries.
It's a good article and reflects some of the questions I've been having.
My curiosity was aroused when the first CIA-directed drone killed its first victims, a terrorist
leader and some comrades in Yemen years ago. I'd thought that the CIA's assassination of anyone
in a foreign country was illegal. Evidently the rules have changed but I don't recall hearing
about it.
The media are always an easy target but lately I think their responsibility for our collective
ignorance has increased. The moderators in the TV debates seem deliberately provocative. I can
remember the first televised debate -- Kennedy vs. Nixon -- when both men soberly addressed the
camera when answering questions of substance.
The first interaction BETWEEN debators was a brief remark in 1980 by Reagan aimed at Jimmy
Carter. "There you go again." Before then, the debates were sober and dignified, as in a courtroom.
After that, the debates slowly slid into the cage fights they've become.
I'm afraid I see the media as not setting the proper ground rules. Fox News is the absolute
worst. The result is a continuous positive feedback loop in which we are gradually and unwittingly
turned into those people who buy gossip tabloids at the supermarket checkout counter.
BREAKING NEWS! HILLARY WETS BED UNTIL TWELVE YEARS OLD!
If we wind up with one of these egomaniacal clowns in the White House, we'll deserve what we
get.
here it is again Cruz: right now in Fox: Iran wants to kill us; 'Donald' wants to negotiate deals
with Iran and Cuba. We don't negotiate with terrorists. By failing to note what Trump actually
says and by pretending that Hillary is not a neocon - a subtle one to be sure - you are revising
the facts. actually as the facts appear. think about it and be clear. the moderate Islam routine
BY Cruz Rubio Kasich is not about islam. its about the supposed sunni supposed allies. like please.
add some insight. at least a bit.
Yeah. Painting the Syria/Libya crisis as Hillary vs the Repubs however is dishonest. not lacking
insight or clarity. dishonest. On the Repubs: all the candidates except Trump said at the debate
a few days ago that peace was not in the interests of Israel and therefore a US President would
betray Israel by SEEKING peace.
Trump said he'd be even-handed for the purpose of negotitating
a peace deal. the other candidates say - reading from a script, certainly not thinking - that
the trick was to get Saudi Arabia and Turkey to fight ISIS. sure, except they wont. Their agenda
is anti-Assad in the name of conservative sunni-ism. the moderate arab sheikdom theocracy routines
IS part of the problem. frankly the other Repub candidates would flirt with nuking Iran. Iran
must be part of the solution like it or not. Hillary said at the townhall before Miss/MI that
'if we'd taken out Assad earlier like we did Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'.
Your Hillary vs the Repubs routine is dishonest. This is the neocon oligrachy fighting for its
life election. do not fake it in the name of Hillary.
Isn't the reason for most foreign policy decisions that they will make money for the Military
Industrial Complex?
"Modernizing" nuclear weapons? Helping Saudi Arabia slaughter citizens of Yemen? Destabilizing
multiple countries so that MORE weapons become "necessary" to deal with the instability?
All the question should be framed on that basis: "Is there any reason to 'modernize' our nuclear
weapons other than to enhance the bottom line of the companies involved, especially when we are
supposed to be working against nuclear proliferation?"
Fantastic article, absolutely spot on. Its been a long wait , thank you.
The Obama administration has redefined the word "militant " to be a "male of military age within
the strike zone" and here's the killer ..."unless POSTHUMOUSLY proven to be innocent"
Democrats or Republicans alike, foreign policy is predicated on the American drive to maintain
global dominance, whatever illegal murderous callous action it takes.
Ramos ought to have asked Hilary exactly why Gadaffi was deposed, and came back at her fiercely
with statistics and independent reports if she dared to even muse the suggestion that it was another
"humanitarian intervention".
Sanders should be pressed on Israel, and whether he can formally condemn the state for repeatedly
breaking promises re: settlement on the West Bank and for committing war crimes during the Gaza
strip conflict.
If Hillary's two decade history of war mongering was exposed for what it really represents by
"journalists" in the corporate media, she would no longer be insulated from the scrutiny her deeply
flawed decision making warrants. If democracy and transparency actually functioned in the media,
Hillary would be exposed as a neocon, whose terrible policy decisions have led to one global disaster
after another, fomenting terrorism. (Even the New York Times-which endorsed Hillary-detailed her
disastrous decisions in Libya).
Unfortunately, the American public have only independent news sites like the Intercept, Truthdig,
the Jacobin, Harpers Magazine, Mondoweiss, and a few others from which to evaluate the real damage
Hillary has caused.
But, like her domestic policies-historically: from Clintonomics to mass incarceration; welfare
reform; the war on drugs; education (especially in Arkansas); disastrous "free" trade agreements;
rampant fascism in the form of corporatism; plus, the millions donated to her campaign from dark
money super pacs; and her sham "foundation; Hillary continues to represent the worst that politics
offers, both globally and domestically.
And the list above also includes the devolution of the Democratic Party from FDR-like socialism
to Clinton dominated corporate hacks, since Bill's election in 1992.
Until Clinton, Inc is stopped from commanding allegiance from "democratic" politicians on everything
from the macro to micro levels of Democratic Party matters, voters will continue to be denied
a true forum for change.
What gives Amerika the right to intervene in the affairs of other nations in the first place?
Are they unaware that the rest of the world fears American terrorism more that anything else,
or more likely, do they care? No wonder Hillary and the Republican hawks are worrying the planet.
"Currently Saudi Arabia is engaged in an indiscriminate bombing campaign in one of the world's
poorest.."
Saudi Arabia is bombing with logistical help from US and UK, we're not only silent on the crimes
of KSA, we help them
"Currently Saudi Arabia is engaged in an indiscriminate bombing campaign in one of the world's
poorest.."
Saudi Arabia is bombing with logistical help from US and UK, we're not only silent on the crimes
of KSA, we help them
Hillary was the push behind the U.S. Participation in Ukraine, Syria and Libya. Just a pathological
warlord. She appointed VIc Nuland as undersecretary of state for Gods sake. A neo-con. The people
that brought us the Iraq war. If she's elected you will get more of the same in a big way as she
will increase the force structure and the involvement.
It is futile to expect reason from people whose foreign policy education comes primarily from
Hollywood. It used to be that 96 % of people in congress had never left the country, even less
lived abroad with other people and learned a foreign language. The ignorance is truly amazing
and it would be funny if these people were not those that decide what happens in the world.
If the US keeps meddling in world affairs then the whole world should vote in their elections.
Don't exactly celebrate the US 'wag my tail' relationship with Wahhabi Arabia but on Syria, the
only good option is to ally with President Assad and bomb out the Wahhabi infestation.
Libya is the dog that doesn't bark in the night in UK politics too.
During the debate on bombing Syria, speaker after speaker alluded to the disastrous intervention
in Iraq, for which the guilty parties are no longer in the house.
But not one brought up the disastrous intervention in Libya, for which the guilty party was
currently urging us into another intervention.
Having an amateurish, inward-looking Labour party doesn't help, of course.
The only people who have called Cameron out on Libya in the past year are Nigel Farage and
Barack Obama. Ye gods.
"According to the 24 February 2010 policy analysis "The Year of the Drone", released by the New
America Foundation, the civilian fatality rate since 2004 is approximately 32%. The study reports
that 114 reported UAV-based missile strikes in northwest Pakistan from 2004 to present killed
between 830 and 1,210 individuals, around 550 to 850 of whom were militants."
You can quibble about the exact number of civilians killed, but the moment you approve of your
local police bagging bad guys even if your family gets killed then you can maybe make a comment.
Many human rights organizations have called them illegal, and retired military leaders have
said they backfire, creating more terrorists than they kill.
After reading " The Dron Papers
" Edward Snowden came to the conclusion that drones do not really chase the terrorists, but
they chase their mobile phones. Hence so many innocent victims, because who can guarantee that
the mobile phone which was earlier in the possessions of some terrorist, is not now in the hands
of entirely innocent people.
So, in addition to many ethical questions about the use of drones, this raised another question
on how much "high-tech killing" is indeed reliable.
Excellent article.
Informative and quite rightly challenging.
America is really running away with itself on who, where, how and why they attack.
Britains 'special' relations with the US, should be curtailed, forthwith, because they have the
audacity to now start pressuring us about the EU refferendum, too.
Obama had the nerve to say that we were free loading on the back of "US might" and their attempts
at "global order", his words. While neatly avoiding the questions you ask here, about their role
in Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, drones etc., etc, etc.
Britain should fight back with these facts and distance ourselves from this aggression.
While an enormous amount of time during this campaign has focused around the Iran nuclear
deal, almost no attention has been given to any country that actually has nuclear weapons and
what they plan to do with them over the coming years and decades.
This is also a proof of the "schizophrenic" Obama-Clinton foreign policy. US administration is
doing everything to solve the problem of the Iranian nuclear program, and at the same time doing
everything to spoil relations with the other nuclear power in the world, Russia.
The curiosity of its kind is that Russia, which is also affected by the US sanctions, helps US
to resolve its dispute with Iran and suspend sanctions against this country. And not only that,
but Russia agrees to relocate enriched uranium from Iran to its territory and thus provide a practical
implementation of the agreement on the Iranian nuclear program.
yet the presidential candidates are almost never asked about why congress has not authorized
the military action like the constitution requires.
Yes, Trevor Timm also criticized this in some of his previous articles, as well as Ron Paul, who
also often criticized Obama for this fact. It's completely unclear why Obama continues to rely
on the two authorizations that George W. Bush has got from Congress "to punish the perpetrators
of the 9/11 attacks", and for "the destruction of Saddam Hussein's [non-existent] WMD". This is
particularly unclear given that Obama himself came to power mainly due to his criticism of Bush's
war adventures.
It is possible that Obama does not have enough confidence that he can get authorization from the
GOP dominant Congress to combat Isis in Syria and Iraq. However, by using authorizations for the
old wars for something that has nothing to do with the new wars, Obama is not only acting illegally,
but also provides an opportunity for the conclusion that he now supports Bush for the same thing
for which he criticized him earlier, that is, for the Afghan and Iraq war.
'course I wouldn't approve. And I doubt most countries approve of being invaded (except for the
folks who DO approve anyways).
"The US must stop acting as the world police.' Great phrase. You hear it a lot. Totally insupportable.
Here's the fundamental problem: the globe is a small place these days. Countries really are no
longer isolated entities than can act with little to no impact on anybody else. What one does,
others feel. And leadership is a thing - somebody will always lead. Right now, there are very
few candidates for that. With the fall of imperial England, the US became the only real superpower
left (other than Russia, which has since collapsed, and is busy trying to come back). Thus, whether
it likes it or not, the US has a leadership role to play. If it abdicates that position, and does
as you and so many other less-than-brilliant folks demand? Power abhors a vacuum. Most likely
is that either Russia or China will take over the role currently played by the US. And if you
think either of THOSE countries will do a better job than the US, well... enjoy your personal
delusion.
As for 'scratching heads and bleating' about intervention... we did not have to intervene.
Said that before, saying it again, get it through your skull - we did not have to intervene. We
could, in fact, totally disarm and just sit back and do nothing, anywhere. But. THIS WOULD HAVE
CONSEQUENCES TOO. Seriously. Understand that. Doing nothing is doing something. Sitting out is
still an action one can take. And it is INCREDIBLY likely that things would be WORSE in Libya
right now had we not intervened. Not guaranteed, but likely.
The situation sucks. It would have been great if it had all turned out better. It didn't. But
it probably would have been worse had we made a substantially different choice. Yeah, sure, you
could then pat yourself on the back, and pretend that at least the US wasn't responsible, but,
well, as a certain red-and-blue clad superhero says, with great power comes great responsibility.
The US has great power - if we didn't intervene, and horrible things happened, it'd be just as
much our fault as it is now that we DID intervene, and bad things happened. Because it would have
been in our power to stop it, and we didn't.
"... Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture. ..."
"... There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint... ..."
"... After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence. ..."
"... To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen. ..."
"... Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion .. ..."
"... Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control.. ..."
"... "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there? ..."
"... "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it." ..."
"... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
"... The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar? ..."
"... The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq. ..."
"... The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history. ..."
"... No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well. ..."
"... You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2 ..."
"... Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East. ..."
"... It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart. ..."
"... Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria. ..."
"... However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change. ..."
"... No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West. ..."
"... Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS. ..."
"... Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. ..."
"... There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. ..."
"... The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism. ..."
"... The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers. ..."
"... Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. ..."
"... I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it. ..."
"... The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest. ..."
"... Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government. ..."
"... Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined. ..."
"... Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe. ..."
"... The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction? ..."
"... The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.' ..."
"... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
"... We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils. ..."
"... We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population. ..."
"... Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. ..."
"... NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine. ..."
"... Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order. ..."
"... Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below. http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf ..."
"... In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya. ..."
"... Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies. ..."
"... Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate ..."
"... Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS ..."
"... Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers. ..."
"... The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it ..."
"... The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists. ..."
So
Barack Obama thinks Britain in 2011 left Libya in chaos – and besides it does not pull its weight
in the world. Britain thinks that a bit rich, given the shambles America left in Iraq. Then both
sides say sorry. They did not mean to be rude.
Thus do we wander across the ethical wasteland of the west's wars of intervention. We blame and
we name-call. We turn deaf ears to the cries of those whose lives we have destroyed. Then we kiss
and make up – to each other.
Obama was right first time round about Libya's civil war. He wanted to keep out. As
he recalls to the Atlantic magazine , Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes
sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime". He cooperated with Britain and France,
but on the assumption that David Cameron would clear up the resulting mess. That did not happen because
Cameron had won his Falklands war and could go home crowing.
Obama is here describing all the recent "wars of choice".
America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq, any more than Britain had in
Libya . When a state attacks
another state and destroys its law and order, morally it owns the mess. There is no such thing as
imperialism-lite. Remove one fount of authority and you must replace and sustain another, as Europe
has done at vast expense in Bosnia and Kosovo.
America and Britain both attacked countries in the Middle East largely to satisfy the machismo
and domestic standing of two men, George Bush and Tony Blair. The result has been mass killing, destruction
and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war. In this despicable
saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north
Africa and may yet turn it
into another Islamic State caliphate. It is his Iraq.
As for Obama's charge that Britain and other countries are not pulling their weight and are "free
riders" on American defence spending, that too deserves short shrift.
British and French military expenditure is proportionately among the highest in the world, mostly
blown on archaic weapons and archaic forms of war. Western warmongering over the past two decades
has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping
alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.
Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against
all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing
to do with politicians.
I'm stunned that Obama has been able to get away with his absolutely abysmal record with foreign
policy. Libya was a complete disaster and there is evidence to suggest that Libya was a much better
place under Gaddafi. And the fact that once they were in Iraq (something started by his predecessor)
he wasn't committed to bringing about serious change, thus leaving a giant vacuum which, coincided
with the Syrian Civil War, has now been filled by ISIS.
That's not even talking about the Iran deal, Benghazi and the disastrous "Bring Back our Girls"
campaign.
"People find it very hard," said Iman Fannoush, with her two children in tow and a husband
she knows not where. "They are up all night shooting because of good news. We hear the UN is
coming to help us or our fighters have taken Brega or the air strikes have destroyed Gaddafi's
tanks. Then everyone is afraid again when they hear Gaddafi's army is coming and they all want
to know where is France, where are the air strikes, why is the west abandoning us?
We are grateful for the role played by the international community in protecting the Libyan
people; Libyans will never forget those who were our friends at this critical stage and will
endeavour to build closer relations with those states on the basis of our mutual respect and
common interests. However, the future of Libya is for the Libyans alone to decide. We cannot
compromise on sovereignty or allow others to interfere in our internal affairs, position themselves
as guardians of our revolution or impose leaders who do not represent a national consensus.
Hilsum gives a riveting account of the battle for Tripoli, with activists risking their lives
to pass intelligence to Nato, whose targeting – contrary to regime propaganda – was largely
accurate, and too cautious for many Libyans.
The UN security council authorised action to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi regime
but Russia, China and other critics believe that the western alliance exceeded that mandate
and moved to implement regime change.
Libya's Arab spring was a bloody affair, ending with the killing of Gaddafi, one of the world's
most ruthless dictators. His death saw the rebel militias turn on each other in a mosaic of
turf wars. Full-scale civil war came last summer, when Islamist parties saw sharp defeats in
elections the United Nations had supervised, in the hope of bringing peace to the country.
Islamists and their allies rebelled against the elected parliament and formed the Libya Dawn
coalition, which seized Tripoli. The new government fled to the eastern city of Tobruk and
fighting has since raged across the country.
With thousands dead, towns smashed and 400,000 homeless, the big winner is Isis, which has
expanded fast amid the chaos. Egypt, already the chief backer of government forces, has now
joined a three-way war between government, Libya Dawn and Isis.
It is all a long way from the hopes of the original revolutionaries. With Africa's largest
oil reserves and just six million people to share the bounty, Libya in 2011 appeared set for
a bright future. "We thought we would be the new Dubai, we had everything," says a young activist
who, like the student, prefers not to give her name. "Now we are more realistic."
Perpetually engineered destabilization is highly lucrative and has been for 200 years, but I don't
know what's Central or Intelligent about it......except for a tiny handful at the top globally.
On balance, is Libya worse off now than it would have been, had Gaddaffi been allowed free
rein in Benghazi?
No-one can possibly know the answer to that, certainly not Mr Jenkins.
Clearly it was a dictatorship like say Burma is today.....but....from an economic point of
view, it was like the Switzerland of Africa. And actually tons of European companies had flocked
over there to set up shop. In contrast to now where its like the Iraquistan of Africa. No contest
in the comparison there...
Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both
parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture.
There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among
them as a narrative of sinner vs saint...
After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy
and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and
joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence.
To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want
to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy,
criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you
need to see is the war in Yemen.
Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem
dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they
appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes
and Israel's on occasion ..
Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular
and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already
being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious
fanatics are in complete control..
Yep, many pictures, as there always are with media confections. Remember the footage of Saddam's
statue being torn down in front of a huge crowd? It was only months later we saw the wide angle
shot that showed just how few people there really were there.
These US and UK involvement in the ME are matters of official record; are you really denying the
CIA trained the Mujahideen, or that both the UK and US propped up Saddam? Even Robert Fisk acknowledges
that! And please, don't patronise me. You have no idea what I've read or haven't.
......c'mon, the powers behind the powers intentionally engineer mid-East destabilization to keep
the perpetual war pumping billions to the ATM's in their living rooms; then, on top of it, they
send the bill to average joe's globally; when is this farce going to be called out ?
It is completely
illogical, can't stand even eye tests, yet continues like an emperor with new clothes in our face.
"keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies"
mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country
if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there?
"Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had
nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping
alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."
"The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least
outside Africa, since the second world war."
The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in
the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along
with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar?
The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the
old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization
and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately
democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted
it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos
for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria,
Iraq.
Get your facts right. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan were all states that crumbled after the
demise of the USSR.
Bullshit. The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians,
just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East
since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history.
No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring"
was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and
Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well.
this might answer your question. Syria has suffered for its geography since it was artificially
created by the Sykes Picot agreement at the end of the Ottoman Empire.
"Libyan rebels are secularists, want unified country
Gardels: If the French aim is successful and Qaddafi falls, who are the rebels the West is
allying with? Secularists? Islamists? And what do they want?
Levy: Secularists. They want a unified Libya whose capital will remain Tripoli and whose government
will be elected as a result of free and transparent elections. I am not saying that this will
happen from one day to the next, and starting on the first day. But I have seen these men enough,
I have spoken with them enough, to know that this is undeniably the dream, the goal, the principle
of legitimacy.
It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge
in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny
responsibility when everything falls apart.
Britain started the mess in the Middle-East with the Balfour declaration and the theft of Palestinian
land to create an illegal Jewish state. Europe should pay massive reparations of money and equivalent
land in Europe for the Palestinian refugees living in squalid camps. Neo-con Jews who lobbied
for the Iraq, Syria and Libyan wars should have their wealth confiscated to pay for the mess they
created. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with
the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria.
Presumably he's going down the Blair/Clinton route of cosying up to Middle Eastern Supremacist
Cults in the hope that he can increase his income by tens of millions within the next 10 years.
There can be no other explanation for his actions, that have never had anything whatsoever to
do with the interests of either Britain or the wider European community.
For me, the bottom line is that, however much might like to believe it, military intervention
does not create nice, liberal, secular democracies. These can only be fostered from within.
However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and
governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and
international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change.
The military, under the instruction of politicians, of the West should be pro-defence but anti-regime
change or "nation building".
I'm not suggesting a completely isolationist position, but offensive military action should
be seen as a last resort.
Mr Jenkins is a knowledgeable man but should've thought through this a bit more before so casually
associating death and destruction and misery with Africa.
China's cultural revolution and the Great Leap Forward alone killed and displaced more people
after the second world war than all the conflicts in Africa put together. How about the break
up of India in 1947? Korean War?
But no when he thought about misery Africa popped into his mind..
Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so,
against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully
has nothing to do with politicians.
One culture?
One outlook?
Sounds all very Soviet.
So, all Enlightened souls are reduced to a monoculture, within the Anglo American Empire.
Obama is a bill of goods. The Voters that choose him thought that they were getting a progressive,
Obama used the reverend
Wright to make himself seem like a man committed to radical change, but behind Obama was Chicago
investment banker Louis Susman (appointed ambassador to Britain).
Obama, a Harvard law professor, is the choice of the bankers, he does not play a straight bat,
all the wars and killing are someone else's fault. Banking wanted rid of Gaddafi since he threatened
the dollar as the reserve currency (as did Dominique Strauss-Kahn) as does the Euro, Obama let
Cameron think he was calling the shots but he was just Obama's beard. Obama is nothing if not
cunning, when he says stay in Europe but the Elites of the Tory party are pushing for out guess
what, they got the nod from Obama and the Banks.
So? All the numbers in the world can't undo Jenkins' thesis: there is no imperialism-lite. Imperialist
wars are imperialist wars no matter how many die, and whether chaos, or neo-colonial rule follow.
In his interview, Obama claims a more deliberate, opaque, and efficient war machine. To him, and
his conscience, John Brennan, these metrics add up to significant moral milestones. To us innumerates,
it's just more imperialist b.s.
Gadaffy had since long planned to free his country and other African states from the yoke of being
forced to trade within the American dollar sphere. He was about to lance his thoroughy well prepared
alternative welcomed not the least by the Chinese when Libya was attacked. Obama is not truthful
when suggesting the attack was not a "core" interest to the US. It was of supreme interest for
the US to appear with its allies, Gadaffy´s independence of mind being no small challenge.
Gadafy may have been particularly nasty with dissidents, but the UK has plenty of allies in the
Muslim world that are far worse: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain... The Gulf States work their imported
slaves to death and the UK kowtows to them. The UK has supplied billions of pounds worth of weapons
to Saudi Arabia and sent military advisors to advise them how to use them to bomb Yemeni schools
and hospitals.
No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things
such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing
into the pockets of the West.
Kosovo is also mentioned. There was a relatively low-level conflict (much like the Northern
Ireland 'troubles') there until NATO started bombing and then oversaw the massive ethnic cleansing
of Kosovo Serbs from their homeland (Serbs are the most ethnically-cleansed group in the former
Yugoslavia: around 500,000 refugees).
Yugoslavia's real crime? It was the last country in Europe to refuse the market economy and
the hegemony of Western banks and corporates.
The message is, 'Accept capitalism red in tooth or claw, or we'll bomb the crap out of you.'
Did the attack on Afghanistan improve the situation? Perhaps temporarily in the cities, some things
got a little better as long as you weren't shot or blown up. Over the country as a whole, it made
the situation much worse.
I remember John Simpson crowing that the Western invaders had freed Afghanistan when they entered
Kabul. My reaction at the time was, 'Well, the Soviets had no problem holding the cities. Wait
until you step outside them.' There followed many years of war achieving pretty much nothing except
to kill a lot of people and get recruits flocking to the Taliban.
It seemed we had learned absolutely nothing from the British and Soviet experiences.
And you seem to have forgotten the multitude of US terror attacks on Muslims before the Afghan
invasion, repackaged for our media as 'targeted attacks with collateral damage'. Bombing aspirin
factories and such. And the First Gulf War. And US bases occupying the region. And the fact that
the situation in Afghanistan was due to the Americans and Saudis having showered weapons and cash
on anyone who was fighting the Soviets, not giving a damn about their aims. Bin Laden, for instance.
And one aspect of law and order under the Taliban was that they virtually stopped opium production.
After the invasion, it rose again to dizzying heights.
The only way to deal with countries such as Afghanistan as it returns to its default system,
along with other, more aggressive rogue states such as Saudi Arabia, is to starve them of all
weapons and then let their peoples sort it out. It may take a long time but it's the sole possibility.
As long as we keep pouring weapons into the Middle East for our own shameful purposes, the
apocalypse will continue.
Reading this excellent article one wonders how the war criminal Blair can be offered any peace-keeping
role in the world or continue to get any air or press time.
Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official
ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror
in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS.
Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug
lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today
is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. Tear gas in Parliament for the third time in as many
months. While the squares full of unemployed young and old are adorned with statues of those that
gave them this opportunity Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were popular but I think their halos are
tarnished somewhat. The situation is so serious that the US is beefing up its presence in camp Bondsteel but you won't read about it in the Guardian.
when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every
nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient
statute of limitations
So true . "Oh, oh, but the Spanish/Mongols/Romans etc etc", "Oh, like they were all
so peaceful before Empire came along", "Oh, but but" (ad infinitum).
The bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen? Here's hoping. The neo-con cum
neo-ultra liberal dream keeps on giving. Even after Brexit, Britain remains America's poodle
at its peril. The rest of the article is right, but by now accepted wisdom amongst those capable
of independent and rational thought.
Here we go again, off course next phase is the "enlightment" in Al-Andalus...
1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion
of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion
of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg
the Saudis).
Wahabism grew because of the oil export from Saudi Arabia which started way before World war II.
Bollocks, there was a short period of calm while Europe defeated the Ottoman empire , but the
Mughal empire took great pleasure in slaughtering shiites, and the Ottoman empire had huge conflicts
with the Safavid empire.
2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating
Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in
Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?
He-he, the fabulous golden age which is always mentioned, no doubt they were golden at that
time compared to Europe, but to compare it today, it would be like living in Nazi Germany as a
Jew before the Nürnberg laws were implemented.
Would you like to pay a special non-muslim tax, step aside when a Muslim passed the street,
be unable to claim any high positions in society to due to your heritage?
3. Didnt forget. the USSR didnt hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West.
And it wasnt Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.
The Iran-Iraq war made the millions of dead possible primarily due to Soviet equipment, Halabja
killed 5000.
No, Russia prefered Chechnya and directly killed 300.000 civilians with the Grad bombings of cities
and villages, whereas the casualties in Iraq primarily can be contributed to sectional violence.
4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab
group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and
well thanks to our lust for control over the region.
None of the mentioned were prime examples of democracy, Nasser for example had no problems in
eliminating the Muslim brotherhood or killing 10s of thousands of rebels and civilians in Yemen
with mustard gas.
Obama's remark that the Europeans and Gulf States "detested" Gaddafi and wanted to get rid of
him while others had "humanitarian concerns" is of interest. It's unlikely the Arabs had humanitarian
concerns in all the circumstances; they just wanted Regime Change. It is the lethal combination
of Gulf Arabs and Neo-colonial France and Britain that has driven the Syrian war too- and continues
to do so. No wonder America claims these countries enthuse about war until it comes and then expect
them to fight it. France currently demands the surrender of Assad and for Russia to "leave the
country immediately". Britain says there can be no peace while he remains and that Russia's "interference"
is helping IS.
It's your prerogative whether or not you believe that the US and NATO intervene in countries based
on moral grounds. But if you do want to delude yourself, remember that they only intervene in
countries where they can make money off resources, like Libya and Iraq's oil revenues. If it were
about morality, don't you think NATO and the West would have rushed to help Rwanda during the
genocide?
There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that
western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. You do not win when your situation is worse
than it was before Saddam. You can't be a winner when you life in generally worse off than it
was before. basically there is no rule of law now in these nations. Saddam was no monster like
you want to portray him.
Actually, some of those Latin American governments we overthrew were indeed liberal democracies.
As for Canada, there are several reasons we haven't invaded. Too big, too sparse too white...and
economically already a client state. Of course, we did try once: the War of 1812.
"When the same leaders did initially stand aside (as in Syria) "
They didn't stand aside though, they helped create the trouble in the first place, as too with
Libya; gather intelligence to find out who will take up arms, fund, train and give them promises,
get them to organize and attack, then when the dictator strikes back the press swing into action
to tell us all how much of a horrible bastard he is(even though we've been supporting and trading
with him for eons), ergo, we have to bomb him! It's HUMANITARIAN! Not. It would be conquest though.
Frightening.
Obama has done everything in his power to morph into Bush including hiring a flaming chicken hawk
in Ash Carter to play the role of Dick Cheyney. Bush left us with Iraq and Afghanistan, to which
Obama added Egypt with the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood, Libya, Syria and Yemen. He also
restarted the Cold War with Russia. He is now going after China for building islands in the South
China Sea, a disputed area, something he as well as other Presidents before him has allowed Israel
to build settlements on disputed land for the past fifty years and throughthrough $ 3.5 billion
in gifts annually, has provided for enough concrete to cover all the land the Palestinians live
on.
The 3.5 billion annually will increase by $40 billion over ten years, unless Netanyahu gets
the increase he wants to 15 billion per year. So Obama must settle on a legacy which makes him
both a warmonger and one of the very best arms dealer in the world. His family must be so proud.
To be a humanitarian intervention, a military intervention has to avoid causing regime collapse,
because people will die because of regime collapse. This is an elementary point that the political
class appears not to want to learn.
I agree with your analysis except the last paragraph. Pretty much in all interventions that
we have witnessed, the political class deliberately caused the regimes to collapse. That was always
the primary goal. Humanitarian intervention were never the primary, secondary or even tertiary
objective.
If the political class want to do some humanitarian interventions, they can always start with
Boko Haram in Nigeria.
America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq
The USA was enforcing the UN blockade of Iraq, and had massive forces in place to do it. It was
costing a fortune and there were regular border skirmishes taking place. It has been suggested
that Bush and his advisors thought that they could take out Saddam and then pull all their forces
back to the US. They won't admit it now because of the disaster that unfolded afterwards.
Another good piece. What about all the weapons we sold Israel after they started their recent
slaughter in Gaza and the selling of weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen (one of the poorest
country's in the world) says everything you need to know about the tory party. They are sub humans
and as such should be treated like dirt. I don't believe in the concept of evil...all a bit religious
for me but if I did, it's what they are.
It astonishes me that these great men and women-I include Sec'y Clinton here-give no indication
that their calculations were made without the slightest knowledge of the countries they were preparing
to attack in one way or another. From what one read in the long NYTimes report on preparations
for the Libyan intervention, the participants in the planning knew a great deal about military
matters and less about Libya than they could have found out in a few minutes with Wikipedia. Tribal
societies are different from western societies, dear people, and you damn well should have known
that.
Honduras. The USA backed the coup there. Honduras is now run by generals and is the world's murder
capital. I could go on, jezzam. Please read William Blum's books on US foreign policy. They provide
evidence that the US record is not good.
Without the US the UK and France couldn't have overthrown Gaddafi. The jihadis would have been
killed or fled Libya. I don't believe any post-Gaddafi plan existed. Why would there have been
one? Killing Gaddafi was the war's aim. A western puppet strong man leader grabbing power would
have been icing on the cake of course but why would the US care about Libya once Gaddafi was gone?
Well, Cameron just followed Obama's 'regime change' bad ideas.
Obama is a failed leader of the World who made our lives so much worse.
Obama likes to entertain recently, so after his presidency the best job for him is a clown in
a circus.
We will never know why Stevens and the others were killed.
Absent reliable information, everyone is free to blame whomever they dislike most.
Based on zero non-partisan information, Hillary is the media's top choice for Big Villain.
She may in fact be more responsible than most for this horror, but she may not be too.
Who ya gonna ask: the CIA, the Pentagon, Ted Cruz?
It seems everyone who's ever even visited Washington,D.C., has some anonymous inside
source that proves Hillary did it.
To hear the GOP tell it, she flew to Libya secretly and shot Stevens herself
just because she damn well felt it, o kay -- (female troubles)
My question is: Where has US/Euro invasion resulted in a better government for all those
Middle Eastern people we blasted to bits of blood and bone? How's Yemen doin' these days?
Hope Europe enjoys assimilating a few million people who share none of Europe's customs,
values or languages.
I'm sure euro-businesses would never hire the new immigrants instead of union-backed
locals.
Why, that would almost be taking advantage of a vast reservoir of ultra-cheap labor!
Nor will the sudden ocean of euro-a-day workers undercut unions or wages in the EU. No siree,
not possible.
Just like unions have not been decimated, and wages have not stagnated in the US since 1980
or so. No siree. Not in Europe .
jezzam writes, "the dictator starts massacring hundreds of thousands of his own civilians." But
he didn't. Cameron lied.
The rebellion against Gaddafi began in February 2011. The British, French and US governments intervened
on their usual pretext of protecting civilians. The UN said that 1,000-2,000 people had been killed
before the NATO powers attacked.
Eight months later, after the NATO attack, 30,000 people had been killed and 50,000 wounded (National
Transitional Council figures).
Cameron made the mess; Cameron caused the vast refugee crisis. The NATO powers are getting what
they want – the destruction of any states and societies that oppose their rule, control over Africa's
rich resources. Libya is now plagued by "relentless warfare where competing militias compete for
power while external accumulators of capital such as oil companies can extract resources under
the protection of private military contractors."
any state that wishes to be taken seriously as a player on the world stage
The classic phrase of imperialism - an attitude that seems to believe any nation has the right
to interfere in, or invade, other countries'.
Usually done under some pretence of moral superiority - it used to be to 'bring the pagans to
God', these days more 'they're not part of our belief system'. In fact, it only really happens
when the imperial nations see the economic interests of their ruling class come under threat.
The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments
and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under
real threat from emerging economic powers.
The two that they are most scared of are Russia and China, who combined can offer the capital
and expertise to replace the old US / European axis across Africa, for instance. The war is already
being fought on many fronts, as
this article makes clear.
Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. Clinton had it right when the going gets
tough Obama gives a speech (see Cairo).
I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals
is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama
with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton
the warmonger to get on with it.
The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life
or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination"
don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed
- the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest.
The odd thing is, Obama didn't seem to think getting rid of Gaddafi a bad thing at all at the
time. Clinton was all, "We came, we saw, he died." And this bit about "no core interest" in Afghanistan
and Iraq is just bizarre. Given the mess both countries are in, and the resurgence of the
Taliban
and zero clue about Iraq it was clearly a master stroke for Obama to decide the US exit both with
no effective governments in place, ones that could deal with the Taliban et al. Never mind, he
can tootle off and play golf.
Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why
I voted for him twice.
His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of
right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama
has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive
mess of the shadow government.
America has a historic crisis of leadership and being the sole model left in that field, the
world has followed, the UK and all of Europe included.
Libya is all Hilarys work so expect to return with boots on the ground once Wall Sts finest is
parked in the Oval office. She has the midas touch in reverse and Libya has turned (and will continue)
to turn out worse than Iraq and Syria (believe me its possible) There is absolutely no one on
the ground that the west can work with so the old chestnut of arming and training al qaeda or
'moderate' opposition is not an option. ISIL are solidifying a base there and other than drones
there is zip we can do.
Critising Cameron just shows how insecure Obama is, lets be honest the middle east and afghanistan
are in the state they are because Obama had zero interest in foreign policy when his first term
started, thus allowing the neocons to move into the vacuum and create the utter disaster that
is Syraq and Ukraine. We in europe are now dealing with the aftermath of this via the refugee
crisis which will top 2 million people this year. Obamas a failure and he knows it, hence the
criticism of other leaders. Cameron is no different, foreign policy being almost totally abandoned
to the US, there is no such thing as independent defence policy in the UK, everything is carried
out at the behest of the US. Don't kid yourself we have any autonomy, we don't and there are plenty
of high level armed forces personnel who feel the same way. Europe is leaderless in general and
with the economy flatlining they too have abandoned defence and foreign affairs to the pentagon.
Right now we're in the quiet before the storm, once HRC gets elected expect the situation to
deteriorate rapidly, our only hope is that someone has got the dirt to throw her out of the race.
ISIS established itself in Iraq before moving into Syria. Would ISIS exist is Britain had not
totally destabilized Iraq? Going back even further, it is the 100th anniversary of the Sykes-Picot
agreement, that great exercise in British Imperialism that created the artificial nations in the
Middle East that are collapsing today.
Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every
excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there
is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America
and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going
back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined.
Transparent hypocrisy. Accept responsibility and stop offloading it to Calais.
Ambassador Stevens was killed in a cover up over the arms dealing from Libya to Syria, (weapons
and fighters to ISIS). It seems more likely that he was killed because he was investigating the
covert operation given that he was left to fend for himself by all US military forces but in a
classic defamation strategy he has been accused of being behind the operation. Had he been he
would have been well defended.
"Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering
military establishments that depend on it.
Couldn't put it better myself. Yes, America is a full blown Empire now. Evil to it's very core.
Bent on world domination and any cost. All we lack is a military dictatorship. Of course, with
the nation populated by brainwashed sheep, a "Dear Leader" is inevitable,
President Obama was correct in keeping US boots off the ground in Syria. An active US troop presence
would have resulted in an even greater level of confusion and destruction on all sides. However,
it was precisely the US' meddling in Libya that helped pave the way for its current dysfunctional,
failed state status, riven by sectarian conflicts and home to a very active Al Quaida presence.
US interference in Libya saw Gadaffi backstabbed by the US before literally being stabbed to death
although he had been given assurances that the US would respect his rule particularly as he had
sought to become part of the alliance against the likes of Al Quaida.
Obama was behind the disgraceful lie that the mob that attacked the US' Benghazi Embassy and murdered
Ambassador Smith y was 'inflamed' by an obscure video on youtube that attacked extremist elements
of the Islamic faith. Smith deserved better than this blatant lie and the grovelling, snivelling
faux apologies Obama and then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made to the Muslim world for something
that had nothing to do with 99.9 percent of non Muslims.
Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left
a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to
the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton
who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation
of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists,
and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe.
Disappointingly, President Obama forgets the Biblical saying about pointing out a speck in somebody's
eye while ignoring the plank in his own.
Mr President doesn't privately refer to the Libyan upheaval as the "shit show" for no good reason.
The chaos and anarchy that have ensued since, including the migrant crisis in Europe and the rise
of Islamic State, is directly attributable to the shoddy interventionist approach used by both
Britain and France.
Good article, with justified moral indignation. Only thing I would have changed, is "imperialism-lite"
to 'lesser and greater imperialism.
Would it not have been a great contribution towards peace and justice, had the US decided not
to invade Iraq and Libya, on account that other western countries were "free-riders" and would
not have pulled their weight?
So, what does the world needs now? More 'free-riding countries' to dissuade so-called responsible
countries - Britain, France, America, Italy - from conspiring to invade other countries, after
consulting in the equivalent of a 'diplomatic toilet and drawing up their war plans on the back
of the proverbial cigarette packet.'
For all Obama's niceties, it would now appear that he has been seething and mad as hell about
his perception of Britain and France 'abandoning' Libya and watching it perceptible
destabilizing
the region and the flames fanning farther afield.
The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed
that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans
have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go
in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of
planning what should follow after the destruction?
The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic
mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting
American, British and French 'boots on the ground.'
Is the Americans now telling the world that they went into Libya without planning for the aftermath,
because it was 'an emergency to save lives' and they had to go in immediately?
Well, if so, that is now how nations behave responsibly, and it is now clear that more lives
have probably been lost and continue to be sacrificed, than those which might have been saved
as a result of the West invading and attacking Libya.
the Europeans expected America to pick up the tab for reconstruction
I don't think there would be many complaints from Halliburton or other American companies to
help with the reconstruction, if the place wasn't such a shit-storm right now.
"The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside
Africa, since the second world war."
Judging from the sentiments expressed in the overwhelming majority of comments posted on multiple
threads on this forum, the British people don't want to accept responsibility for "migration on
a scale not seen... since the second world war". The almost universal resistance to accepting
refugees and migrants that fled their homes due to unprovoked British aggression is disgusting
and pathetic. It highlights the hypocrisy of those who see themselves morally fit to judge almost
everyone else.
Mitchell says that we had a plan to stabilise Libya but that it could not be implement the plan
because there was no peace?#*^..... Der
We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well
laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias
we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils.
Well there you have it- its the fault of the Libyans.
Hilary Clinton recently blamed Sarkozy for Libya describing him as so "very excited" about the
need to start bombing that he persuaded her and she, Nuland and Power persuaded a reluctant Obama.
Three civilian females argued down the military opinion that it was unnecessary and likely to
cause more trouble than it was worth.
As this was clearly to support French interests the Americans
insisted the Europeans do it themselves if they were that keen. Old Anglo-French rivalry has never
been far from the surface in the ME and it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France
would take all the glory. Neither of them appear to have given any thought about reconstruction.
The blame is mostly Cameron's as Sorkozy was chucked out of office just months later. Did Cameron
have a plan at all? If so it was his biggest mistake and one we'll be paying for over the coming
years.
Without Putin's mischief making though, this would have been sorted out long ago.
Putin intervened in September 2015. What have the West been doing since 2011 to stop the conflict,
one wonders.
Russia vetoes any UN attempt to sort out the mess
Looking bad you'd realize that it at least prompted Obama to retract in 2013. Since then though
support to Saudi and proxies destabilizing Syria has only increased.
Russia is clearing the mess of the West, and they should be grateful. Obama might be from what
I read today from his "confessions".
Yes. I don't think that is a pro-imperialist stance. He's arguing that there is no middle ground;
getting rid of dictators you don't like is imperialism, and whether you follow through or not,
there are serious consequences, but to not follow through is an abnegation of moral responsibility
to the people you are at attemting to "free". It seems to me he is arguing against any foreign
intervention, hence his castigation of Obama and Cameron for the "ethical wasteland of their wars
of intervention."
Please do me a favour and study 20th century history a little more. The US overthrow countless
democracies in Latin America and the Middle East and installed fascist dictatorships.
Liberal Democracy haha come on now. They dont care about Democracy. They care about money.
They will install and support any dictatorship (look at Saudi Arabia for example) as long as they
do as they are told economically.
I love western values, dont get me wrong. It is the best place to live freely. However, if
you werent lucky enough to be born in the west and the west wants something your country has (eg.
oil).....you are in for a lot of bad times.
I just wish western leaders/governments actually followed the western values that we all love
and hold dear.
We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya
to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from
the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population.
The solution as Corbyn pointed out is to stop funding the Terrorists.
By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar;
the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals
into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian
entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them,
were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the
CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.
Peter Oborne investigates claims that Britain and the West embarked on an unspoken alliance
of convenience with militant jihadi groups in an attempt to bring down the Assad regime.
He hears how equipment supplied by the West to so called Syrian moderates has ended up in
the hands of jihadis, and that Western sponsored rebels have fought alongside Al Qaeda. But
what does this really tell us about the conflict in Syria?
This edition of The Report also examines the astonishing attempt to re brand Al Nusra, Al
Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, as an organisation with which we can do business.
What is good that this is finally coming out ,the denial by both Obama and a very left wing media
has failed to confront this issue in what is an incredibly low point for Obama and Hilary Clinton
and their naive ideas about the Arab Spring.
As it is equally so for David Cameron and William Hague. Sarkozy is different he was not naive
he knew exactly what he was doing thais was about saving french influence in North Africa,he was
thinking about Tunisa, Algeria which he was keen to drag others into -- He was the most savvy of
all those politicians at least he was not a fool,but France priorities are not the same as the
UK --
Obama's comments once again as usual do not really confront the real problems of Libya and
gloss over the key issues and ending up passing the buck, he can do no wrong ? It was not the
aftermath of Libya but the whole idea of changing the controlling demographics of the country
which he played a major part in destabilising through the UN AND Nato which was the problem --
It was thought the lessons of Iraq was all about not putting boots on the ground ,or getting
your feet dirty ,as this antagonises the locals and that a nice clinical arms length bombardment
creating havoc ,is the best way to go .
This was not the lesson of Iraq , which was actually not to destabilise the controlling demographics
of the country which will never recover if you do ..It is one thing to depose a leader or ask
a leader to step down but do not disturb 100 of years controlling demographics, sectarian or not
in these countries is not wise . To do so is a misstep or misjudgement --
Demographics are like sand dunes they have taken many years to evolve and rest uneasy, in the
highly religious and sectarian landscape but can be unsettled over night, grain by grain even
by a small shift in the evening night breeze , a small beetle can zig zag across and the whole
dune will crumble
Once again the US pushed the UK who vied with France at how high they could jump, using the
UN blank cheque as cover ,for melting down the country and has left UN credibilty in taters has
now no credibility and Nato is now not trusted .
They took disgracefully no less the UN 1973 Peace Resolution , point one, Cease fire and point
two No Fly Zone .They bent it , twisted it , contorted it into blatant out right support of the
eastern shiite sympathisers sectarian group, against the more secular Sunni Tripoli groups .
(Gaddafi was not one man Mr apologist Rifkind he was the tribal leaders of a quite a large
tribe !)
Which has been part of a historic rivalry going back hundreds of years . They killed more civilians
that Gaddafi ever had or could have done . They even attacked in a no fly zone government troops
retreating and fired on government planes on the ground in a non fly zone .
Then they refused to negotiate with the government or allow the Organisation of African states
to mediate who had agreed general elections .They went on bombing until there was no infrastructure
no institutions or sand dunes ,or beetles left --
It was done after Iraq and that is why it is so shameful and why Obama , Cameron, Sarkozy ,
the UN , Nato must face up to what they have done , and after the Chilcot enquiry there needs
to be a Cameron enquiry . Presumably it will have the backing of Obama --
What is worse is the knock on effect on this massive arm caches and fighters from Libya then
went on to Syria, reek havoc and destabilised the country . Because Russia and China could never
trust again the UN , the UN has been ineffective in Syria for that very reason .The deaths of
British tourist in next door Tunisia has to laid firmly at David Cameron's and the foreign office
door --
No wonder Libya is keeping Obama awake at night , no wonder he is indulging in damage limitation
, no wonder he is trying to re write history ? How can I get this out of my legacy . If only I
had not met Mr Cameron a yes man -- If only I had been told by some with an once of common sense
, not to touch this country with a barge pole ?
The poor Libyan people will agree with him --
The lesson for the UK is do want you think is right not what the US thinks as right , a lesson
that David Cameron has failed to learn , and has shown he is not a safe pari of hands and lacks
judgement --
1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of
Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion
of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the
Saudis).
2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating
Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain.
Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?
3. Didnt forget. the USSR didn't hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West.
And it wasn't Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.
4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab
group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well
thanks to our lust for control over the region.
Obama? Censored? You forgot Hillary. she even said the other day at the townhall before Miss/MI
to the effect 'if Assad had been taken out early like Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad
as Libya'. laughable really. i presume you aren't criticising Hillary Clinton?
Kosovo is now basket case that we are paying for but it is small. Now we have also backed NeoCon
regime change in Ukraine which we are going to be paying for. Libya will soon have enough Jihadist
training camps to be a direct threat.
What we see is a Strategy of Chaos from the US NeoCons but what we have failed to notice is
that the NeoCons see us as the target, as the enemy.
Totally agree that there is no such thing as Imperialism Lite, just as there is no such thing
as Wahabi Lite or Zionism Lite. So I wonder why Hilary Benn thinks Britain has anything to feel
proud about our foreign policy. It seems to me Britain's Foreign Policy is a combination of incompetence,
jingoism and pure evil.
What is the point of employing the brightest brains in the land at the Foreign Office when we
get it wrong almost all the time ?
"Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence
of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering
military establishments that depend on it."
Attacking Al qaeda in Afghanistan had nothing to do with defending territory?
Libyan 'rebels' were armed and trained by 'the West' in a first place. The plan was the same for
Syria but Russians stopped it with not allowing 'no fly zone' or to call it properly 'bomb them
into the stone age'.
You probably don't know how 'bloody' Gaddafi was to the Libyans.
* GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
* For each family member the state pays $ 1000 grants per year.
* Unemployment - $ 730.
* Salary Nurse - $ 1000.
* For every newborn is paid $ 7000.
* The bride and groom given away $ 64,000 to buy an apartment.
* At the opening of a one-time personal business financial assistance - $ 20,000.
* Large taxes and extortions are prohibited.
* Education and medicine are free.
* Education and training abroad - at the expense of the state.
* Store chain for large families with symbolic prices of basic foodstuffs.
* For the sale of products past their expiry date - large fines and detention.
* Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
* For counterfeiting - the death penalty.
* Rents - no.
* No Fees for electricity for households!
* Loans to buy a car and an apartment - interest free.
* Real estate services are prohibited.
* Buying a car up to 50% paid by the state, for militia fighters - 65%.
* Gasoline is cheaper than water. 1 liter - 0,14 $.
* If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary
of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
* Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River
project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country
The Gadaffi regime had upset the USA because Gadaffi was setting up an oil currency system based
on gold rather than US dollars. While this was not the sole reason the West turned against him
it was an important factor. The largest factor for the wars so far, and the planned war against
Iran was to cut out the growing Russian domination of the oil supply to Europe, China and India.
A decent article as we could expect from the author.
However personally I doubt there was no ulterior motive in the case of Lybia. Lybia was one
of the countries who tried the change the status quo on the oil market and it has huge reserves
too (as we know Europe is running out of oil, at least Great Britain is).
It is very likely that the European countries retreated because Libya started to look like
another Iraq.
When you are talking about "democratic forces of the revolution.." i imagine you being an enthusiastic
teenager girl who hardly knows anything about the world but goes somewhere far for a gap year
as a volunteer to make locals aware of something that will help them forever. It is instead of
demanding responsible policies and accountability from her own government.
Sorry!!!
What planet have you been living on. What do you read apart from lifestyle magazines full of shots
of celebrity boobs and bums.
The United states is the most interventionist country in history. Of its 237 years of existence
it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine.
If the West stopped intervening there would be very few wars and if the West used its influence
for peace rather than control there would rarely be any was at all.
Well put. People forget the importance of oil in maintaining the standard of living in our western
democracies. Controlling it's supply trumps all other issues.
Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb
of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted.
Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world
excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along
with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when
Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as
an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack
police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order.
Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars
in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and
sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western
leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in
the US Special Forces document below.
http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf
If you get your facts right it ruins your argument doesn't it.
In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French
valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them.
The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while
the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan,
Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya.
These Middle East countries should have been left alone by the West. Due to their nature, these
countries have strong divisions and battle for their beliefs and a strong man, a dictator is what
prevented them to fall into the chaos they are today. Without the Western meddling, arming and
financing various rebel groups, Isis would not exist today.
Neither is putting political opponents in acid baths and burning tyres, as Tony Blair's friends
in the central Asian Republics have been doing, neither is beheading gays, raped women and civil
rights protesters, as Cameron's Saudi friends have been enjoying, the latter whilst we sell them
shit loads of munitions to obliterate Yemeni villagers. I wonder how the Egyptian president is
getting on with all that tear gas and bullets we sold him? And are the Bahrani's, fresh from killing
their own people for daring to ask for civil rights, enjoying the cash we gave them for that new
Royal Navy base? Our foreign policy is complacent and inconsistent, we talk about morality but
the bottom line is that that doesn't come into it when BAE systems and G4S have contracts to win.
Don't get me wrong, Britain has played a positive role internationally in many different areas,
but there is always a neo-liberal arsehole waiting to pop up and ruin the lives of millions, a
turd with a school tie that just wont be flushed away.
Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to
overthrow third world dictators.
You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial
economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American
Nato toadies.
It is high time that Europe reviewed and evaluated its relationship with the United States, with
NATO, Russia and China. The world needs to be a peaceable place and there needs to be more legislation
imposed upon the Financial Markets to stop them being a place where economic destabilisation and
warfare can and do take place. The United States would not contemplate these reviews taking place
as they are integral to their continuing position in the world but also integral to the problems
we are all experiencing? It will take a brave Europe to do this but it is a step that has to be
taken if the world is to move forward! Britain should be a huge part of this, outside a weakend
EU this would benefit the United States from Britains lack of input, another reason we should
vote to stay and be positive to our European position. The most vulnerable herring is the one
that breaks out of the shoal?
Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so
called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis
in Ukraine.
After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred
to Syria and renamed ISIS.
ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends.
Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate
Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting
men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for
ISIS
Cameron's Libya policy from start to finish is a foreign policy catastrophe and in a just world
would have seen him thrown out of office on his ear
Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of
"stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within
Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al
were the war mongers.
Then there is this gem: "Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has called for a United Nations
resolution allowing international forces to intervene in Libya.
There was no other choice, he told French radio. "We will not allow them to cut off the heads
of our children."
"We abandoned the Libyan people as prisoners to extremist militias," Mr Sisi told Europe 1
radio. He was referring to the aftermath of the 2011 war in which Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi
was toppled with the help of an international coalition.
That intervention was "an unfinished mission", he said."
The US, France and the UK own this ongoing mess but do not have the moral fortitude to clean
it up. As with the "Arab Spring", this will not end well.
The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from
all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself
adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now
running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude
and no effort should be spared to address it
The west who propped up the Saudis, who's crazy wahhabi brand of Islam helped radicalise the Islamic
world with 100 billion dollars spent on promoting it.
The west who created israel and then has done nothing to stop israels ever growing land theft
and occupation over decades (not even a single sanction)...leading the Muslim world to hate us
more for our hypocrisy and double standards.
The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders
who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships
who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated
and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists.
The west who arms brutal dictators to wage proxy wars and then invades and bombs these same
dictators countries over claims they have WMDs (that we sold to them).
The west has been intervening in the middle east alot longer than post 9/11. We are very very
culpable for the disasters engulfing the region.
Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike
against the Gaddafi regime"
Let's examine what Obama is saying here: when it is perceived to be at the core of US
interests, the USA reserves the right to attack any country, at any time.
The world inhabits a moral vacuum, and in that state, any country can justifiably choose to
do anything, against anyone, for any reason. And this guy got the Nobel Peace Prize.
In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised
north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate.
You forgot to mention Cameron was only following Sarkozy .
Don't forget the French role .
25 February 2011: Sarkozy said Gaddafi "must go."
28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone
11 March 2011: Cameron joined forces with Sarkozy after Sarkozy demanded immediate action
from international community for a no-fly zone against air attacks by Gaddafi.
14 March 2011: In Paris at the Élysée Palace, before the summit with the G8 Minister for
Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy, who is also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister
Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention
in Libya
.
19 March 2011: French[72] forces began the military intervention in Libya, later joined
by coalition forces
Well said in the headline. Imperialism-lite/heavy, colonialism, and neo-colonialism don't work,
should be a thing of the past. Intervening in the politics of another country is a mug's game.
Don't understand why Obama is blaming Cameron for it, perhaps playing to his domestic gallery.
Blair's love fest with the deluded Gaddafi family, followed by the volte-face of pushing for his
violent overthrow by the next government, were both severely misguided policies. Need to diplomatically
encourage change, in foreign policy, and the desired type of political movements to take hold.
Military interventions have the opposite effect, so does propping up dictators, religiously fanatical
regimes, proven time and time again.
So the choices are to do nothing, or invade and create a colony?
Pretty much. As Jenkins rightly says, if you want to launch an aggressive war you either do
it or you don't. If you do it then it is your responsibility to clear up the mess, however many
of your own lives are lost and however much it costs. Trashing a country and then buggering off
is not an option.
Of course, using force for defensive reasons is fine. That's why modern warmongering politicians
always call it "defence" when they drop bombs on innocent people in faraway countries. It is no
such thing.
There was no massacre, not even a hint of one. Total obfuscation to give Hillary Clinton a foreign
policy "success" so that she could use it as a springboard to the presidency. "Hillary Clinton
was so proud of her major role in instigating the war against Libya that she and her advisors
initially planned to use it as basis of a "Clinton doctrine", meaning a "smart power" regime change
strategy, as a presidential campaign slogan.
War creates chaos, and Hillary Clinton has been an eager advocate of every U.S. aggressive
war in the last quarter of a century. These wars have devastated whole countries and caused an
unmanageable refugee crisis. Chaos is all there is to show for Hillary's vaunted "foreign policy
experience".
"... It's on the front page of the Washington Post website today. I happened almost 4 months ago FFS. The Guardian is getting worse and worse. An entire group of comments were just vanished for having some fun speculating about Russian and American agencies and pimps in DC. This paper is getting untrustworthy and PC beyond belief. I suppose some executive decision has been made that the only way to survive is to cater exclusively to their political base. Might as well be Fox News. Just sell it to Murdock. ..."
Some bloggers suggest Mikhail Lesin could be in US witness protection and faked his own
death while others say it could have happened as a result of a fight
RT is the only serious media outlet. BBC, ABC, CNN all report government press releases with
no investigative journalism involved.
RT's coverage of the masscare of a few hundred Kurdish
civilians by Turkey last month is something you would never see reported by Western media,
despite it being a war crime.
Much prefer RT to the to dreary BBC with it's tired predictable spin, not to mention Jimmy
Saville related excesses. RT covers stories and angles you can't find in western mainstream
corporate media.
Russian (small time) oligarch gets beaten to death in nice DC hotel near embassy.
Suspects: Some bigger oligarchs, secretive but clumsy operatives from USA, Russia, Opec, simple
robbery or angry whore he tried to cheat. Neither the US nor Russia wants to actually know the
truth which could be embarrassing, so schtum. Forgeddaboudit.
22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee,
died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Again, tampering with the plane.
Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton's advisory council personally treated Clinton's
mother, stepfather and brother.
23 - Barry Seal - Drug running pilot out of Mena Arkansas, death was no accident.
24 - Johnny Lawhorn Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a
car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.
Apparently he was dead before the car hit the pole.
25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guarantee. His death was a purported suicide and
his report was never released.
26 - Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane
exploded. This happen two days after an argument with Clinton.
27 - Kevin Ives and Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the boys
may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the
initial report of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim
the two boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died
before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.
THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION
ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:
28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle apparently slammed into the back of a truck, July
1988. No one saw the accident and the bike was not damaged.
29 - Keith McMaskle - Died stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988
30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.
31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.
33 - James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to "natural
causes."
34 - Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June
1990.
35 - Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery
July 1989.
THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD:
36 - Major William S. Barkley Jr.
37 - Captain Scott J. Reynolds
38 - Sgt. Brian Hanley
39 - Sgt. Tim Sabel
40 - Major General William Robertson
41 - Col. William Densberger
42 - Col. Robert Kelly
43 - Spec. Gary Rhodes
44 - Steve Willis
45 - Robert Williams
46 - Conway LeBleu
47 - Todd McKeehan
All had said to friends that they had seen too much.
Because everyone knows that American practice is to brutally kill its former favourites with a
blunt instrument to the back of the head. God knows Putin couldn't be associated with
"justice" of this kind.
That's nothing compared to the Clinton associates, do you care to explain?
1 - James McDougal
- Clinton's convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary
confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.
2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee
Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of
sexual harassment in the White House.
3 - Vince Foster - Former white House councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little
Rock's Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.
4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman who had a serious disagreement
with Clinton. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the
investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot
wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his
willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.
5 - C. Victor Raiser II and Montgomery Raiser, Major players in the Clinton fund raising
organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room
in Little Rock, September 1992...after a serious disagreement with Clinton. Described by
Clinton as a "Dear friend and trusted advisor." 7- Ed Willey - Clinton fund raiser, found dead
November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed
Willey died on the same day after his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in
the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising
events.
8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in
his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Park's son said his father was
building a dossier on Clinton. He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he
died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.
9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of
people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and
Arkansas. Although the book was seen by several persons, it disappeared.
10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He had ties
to Whitewater.
11- Kathy Ferguson, ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in
her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were
several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant
along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a corroborating witness
for Paula Jones.
12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancÈe of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the
suicide ruling of his fiancÈe, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a
suicide at the grave site of his fiancee. There were no powder burns.
13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of
a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.
14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal
Mena Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.
15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney
General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the
time of her death.
16 - Paula Grober - Clinton's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death
December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident. She told a friend that Clinton made
advances.
17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas
Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his
investigation. Before his death, he claimed to have found a shattering story involving
Clinton.
18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the
1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington DC
apartment. Had delivered a shocking report to Janet Reno three weeks before his death.
19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his
death from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August 15, 1993. He was investigating the
Morgan Guarantee scandal.
20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang.
Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her
office at the Department of Commerce.
21- Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security
clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash. The plane had been tampered with.
On Friday, Russian officials said they had been asking the Americans for information
about the investigation with no results.
This is very strange indeed, why arent they sharing info with the Russians? Can anyone
imagine the uproar, if a former high ranking american official died like this in Moscow? Im
sure they would already be talking about adding more sanctions to say the least..
So... Lesin died in Sept 2015.. and since then it has escaped the U.S. coroner that the
deceased had blunt force trauma to the head, neck, torso and limbs.. His family were told that
he'd had a heart attack... I've attended a few post mortems myself, and I can say quite safely
that blunt force trauma and heart attacks cannot be confused with one another...
There is
something rotten in the state of Denmark..
and by Denmark I mean DC.
It's on the front page of the Washington Post website today. I happened almost 4 months ago
FFS. The Guardian is getting worse and worse. An entire group of comments were just vanished
for having some fun speculating about Russian and American agencies and pimps in DC. This
paper is getting untrustworthy and PC beyond belief. I suppose some executive decision has
been made that the only way to survive is to cater exclusively to their political base. Might
as well be Fox News. Just sell it to Murdock.
The Russian embassy in Washington confirmed Mikhail Lesin's Last November and State-owned RIA
Novosti reported that he died of a heart attack, citing a spokesman for his family. Russian
officials must have known that he died under suspicious circumstances. This was in DC near all
the embassies not out in the sticks.
Last year the Mississippi senator Roger Wicker called for an investigation into Lesin's wealth
on suspicion of money laundering and corruption. He allegedly amassed millions of dollars in
assets in Europe and the US, including $28m in Los Angeles real estate.
What amazes me most about the thread below is not so much the insane conspiracies stupid
americans and their equally facile englander 'cousins' have posted, it is that absolutely none
of them are provided with a scintilla of evidence implicating the Russian prez in any of it.
Yet the drongos & dipshits continue to spout their total bullshit in the belief that if enough
of these propagandists and their willing jackasses paper the media with fantasy, that fools
will lap it up.
It is looking increasingly like that isn't the case.
Ever since Russia has sorted Syria inside 6 months after 'western' corruption/incompetence
failed to do so after 4 years and many billions of dollars were used up, ordinary humans about
the world and increasingly in 'the west' are realising they have been fed a total crock by
worthless outlets such as this one for far too long.
As for the actual case it appears that
Mr Lesin isn't only a victim of US' violent society he is also a victim of the incompetence of
the US 'justice' system. Once again people are beginning to wake up to the serial incompetence
& corruption of the multi-headed hydra that is US 'law enforcement' thanks to organisations
such as Black Lives Matter & documentaries like "Making a Murderer".
Anyone who hasn't watched that program should- afterwards you will wonder how it is the US
finds the gall to criticise Russian law enforcement when even small town US police and
prosecution entities are riven with bias, perjury, torture and evidence planting.
Not only is US law enforcement totally corrupt, the justice system has been perverted into a
Kafkaesque machine to conceal that corruption and actively prevent injustice from being
corrected.
Sort out your own shit america - once you have done that, then maybe you will earn the right
to push your self righteous exceptionalism onto the rest of us.
Of course if you did sort yourself out, then you wouldn't need to be pointing to other nations
and telling them what to do - you would be secure in the knowledge that you were doing OK.
But that won't happen - what will happen is that US functionaries will get louder and more
hysterical in their critiques of everyone else, meanwhile ordinary decent humans about the
planet will recognise the howls for what they are - the death throes of an empire in terminal
decline.
because he deserved it and back then they kept quite about it until Ukraine and Syria crisis
appeared. The guardian, BBC, the boys in Riga who write here are all part of anti-Russian
propaganda machine. believe or not but it is a fact. Ffs, they even use Sharapova to attack
Russia. the west is so desperate.
This is a common story and a common end to people who fall out with Putin.
And those
hapless souls who earn the mainstream oligarch American disapprobation. Where to Start:
Mossadegh in Iran
Arbenz in Guatelema
Allende in Chile
Lamumba in the Congo
Multiple attempts on Castro
Noriega in Panama
Saddam in Iraq (a public lynching)
Gaddafi in Libya what was it Hilary said, 'we came, we saw, he died,'
All felt the wrath of American justice usually dished out by CIA-trained and funded
proxies.
Then of course were those deaths of leading Americans, the Kennedy bros, and the
assassination of dissidents Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. All very murky. And you have the
temerity to call Russia a mafia state.
the golden rule: kill first and then blame Russians, since there are plenty of idiots in the
western world to believe anything their pig-fucking leaders say.
What kind of medical examiner takes four months to decide whether a man had a heart attack or
was beaten to death?
Or, if they had this information months ago, why is it only now being
released?
With Russia/Assad/Iran completing a very embarrassing destruction of NATO plans for Syria,
as well as establishing just how false the Western media's narrative had become, you can
expect a lot more anti-Putin, anti-Russia gossip and nonsense. Snide, bitter insinuation and
propaganda is all they have left.
the guy died in Washington ffs, and fucking 4 months ago. wasn't it obvious to police he was
killed by beating? is it the Russian coroners and police in charge of his death? no! it is the
job of either CIA or Mossad as he was Jewish.
This story is much delayed, and is apparently being intentionally "back burnered" by our major
U.S. media orgs. The story should be kept on the first page, regardless of what the U.S.
government has asked the media to do and not do. It is potentially instructive to we U.S.
citizens, likely more as to our own government activities than those of Russia.
$28m is peanuts to Erdogan. He's no Putin, but he's more than likely got hundreds of millions
stashed away, if not more.
Estimates of Blair's wealth range from £20m to £60m. Who knows
with that slippery bastard. Osborne's supposedly worth £5m, but I suspect the real figure is
much higher.
What seems to be most apparent in the majority of modern neo-liberal politicians is their
evident desire to use public office as merely a stepping stone to vast wealth.
Western powers will view the reaction to this story as a very encouraging sign that the
propaganda is most definitely working.
- Major Russian figure murdered.
- Happens in the US, home of the CIA
- US coroner rules the what looks like a clearly violent death as inconclusive
- Everyone thinks Putin is responsible
- Slow handclap
"... What wars are you citing? WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Grenada, Cuban Bay of Pigs, Libya, Syria, Yemen,....that is what the Democrats have done. ..."
"... The Reps are no peackeniks but somehow Democrats are better able to initiate and conduct war because people like you build myths that Democrats are more peace loving. Sorry, history does not support your view. ..."
"... Hillary is by far the most dangerous because she has both Administration and Senatorial experience and knows how to muster support for her war mongering ways with the likes of Neo-cons and AIPAC'ers. ..."
"... The RTP doctrine was born with the Balkan war, driven by Clinton and Blair, the latter advocating a ground assault, and Blair's military intervention in Sierra Leone, rebirthing the whole idea of British expeditionary forces ..."
"... The proportion of superdelegates has actually increased from 14% to 20% of the total delegate count over the years since this was introduced (in 1982). So the Democratic Party have been adding more slots for party cronies and making the results less and less democratic. ..."
"... Slick Willy/Obama moderate centrists running Dem establishment, same sleaze bags that did the welfare and justice reforms of 90s and deregulated WS in the first place ..."
What wars are you citing? WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Grenada, Cuban Bay of Pigs, Libya, Syria, Yemen,....that is what
the Democrats have done.
The Reps are no peackeniks but somehow Democrats are better able to initiate and conduct war because people like you build
myths that Democrats are more peace loving. Sorry, history does not support your view.
Trump is impetuous and dangerous but he would be a lame duck president like Jimmy Carter; unable to muster Congressional support
to do much of anything.
Hillary is by far the most dangerous because she has both Administration and Senatorial experience and knows how to muster
support for her war mongering ways with the likes of Neo-cons and AIPAC'ers.
Since the Oligarchy supposedly control the media, the corporations, the money, the congress, the bureaucracy, the states, the
armed forces, etc, why on earth would one alleged Lefty in the White House be 'very dangerous' for them? Even assuming he really
wanted to be a real threat to them (as distinct from merely saying the things that get him votes), he simply wouldn't have the
power to do any more than a few minor things that marginally protect the interests of the 99.9% of us who are not so-called Oligarchs.
Did you watch the debate tonight? He brought up all the coups. He is a Social Democrat, so was Allende and Albeniz.
Cruz is a political whore, I am a simple Dem Socialist Bernie supporter.
Cruz is a phony Jesus freak (was Catholic), I am an Atheist, like all Dem Socialists.
Cruz is a Canadian, I am an American.
Cruz is a transgender, I am straight.
Cruz is a racist teabagger, who made fame by opposing even the most conservative Obama policies. I have Dr. King's portrait in
my office and a fierce enemy of social injustice.
Cruz is a demagogue, I simply pointed some historical facts (bloody Coups) and some of our historical atrocities around the globe.
Super delegates are almost completely with HRC, the WS call girl. Why...do you think it is so?
Again, Bernie is very dangerous for the ruling few that run this Oligarchy. He used the term Oligarchy again in this debate.
And he stated again that this is not a democracy.
Hillary and Bill are murderers, rapists, thieves, fraudsters and drug dealers. A long history of criminal violence. Google "Mena
Airport" and take it from there, you will be busy for days.
The elite don't care about you, they only care about their own access to your tax dollar.
Do not vote for Hillary, the world will be a better place when she and rapist Bill swing from the end of a rope
The RTP doctrine was born with the Balkan war, driven by Clinton and Blair, the latter advocating a ground assault, and
Blair's military intervention in Sierra Leone, rebirthing the whole idea of British expeditionary forces
This is a cause worth fighting for. America is crumbling under our feet, yet the Uniparty continues to point us towards a downward
spiral. But, the People have awakened. They realize the game is rigged. Nothing illustrates this better than Big Media and the
DNC that marginalize Sanders and his message every chance it gets. Why? They obviously support the official Uniparty pick, Clinton.
America is fortunate that Sanders has stepped up to face the Clinton campaign machine. Sanders wants to do what is best for America.
Not the elite. But the People. Sanders has fought for civil rights and equality his entire political career. Name anyone else
who has done this over decades. We can use them on the good ship Reclaim America.
Join the political revolution of the People, for the People, by the People. Vote for Bernie. He is the only candidate running
who is for all of us, because he cares...
If nothing else, America, please stop voting for the same crowd, the Uniparty; they are literally sucking the life out of the
People and have been for decades (going back to Bill Clinton and beyond)...
The proportion of superdelegates has actually increased from 14% to 20% of the total delegate count over the years since this
was introduced (in 1982). So the Democratic Party have been adding more slots for party cronies and making the results less and
less democratic.
Corporate media and Dem establishment campaign against Bernie's chances have completely backlashed. And the more he stays in the
race, the more likely he will get the max number of pledged delegates or nomination.
And the longer the race for nomination is, the more likely that the WS speeches, Sec of State emails, and bribes by foreign
sleazy regimes to the Foundation will be exposed before nomination.
Slick Willy/Obama moderate centrists running Dem establishment, same sleaze bags that did the welfare and justice reforms
of 90s and deregulated WS in the first place, wanted Bernie out by last night;...thanks to Michigan...we will see them all
in Philadelphia!
The WS(Ruben, Summers, Geithner,...)/Clinton/Obama wing of the party will be buried by Uncle Bernie when all this is said and
done, and with it the D-establishment media: msnbc athews, the executive Wolffe and te corporate-feminist Maddows!
The truth is that before Tuesday's elections, Clinton was ahead of Sanders by 673 to 477 pledged delegates, and her lead is now
745 to 540-by no means insurmountable, as a recent NBC-Washington Post poll shows (the numbers don't sum to 100% because 'Other'
and 'No opinion' replies were included): In December Clinton led Sanders 59% to 28%; in January 55% to 36%; in March 49% to 42%.
These figures show that Hillary's lead is slowly but steadily evaporating.
Anyone who believes that superdelegates can hand Clinton the nomination even if she loses the primary fight is betting the
Democratic Party is willing to commit suicide: Sanders supporters already loathe Hillary Clinton, and if she is carried to the
coronation throne on the backs of superdelegates, that loathing will multiply, and many of them will stay home or participate
in a write-in campaign for Bernie, enough to cause Hillary to lose the general election. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her friends
in the DNC will have achieved their goal: a woman will have been nominated, but at the price of making Donald Trump President,
and having to find another name for their party-"Democratic Party" would hardly be fitting after such a betrayal.
free trade is unfair trade it is like these subsidies on food where people pay tax and then farmers get money from govt to grow
what they are told. Then there is free trade deal such as with europe where the american subsidised food too compete with the
european subsidised food but there are differences in regulations so too compete fairly the europeans would have to reduce the
regulations in a race to the bottom with the Americans who are already suffering from obesity. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2015/12/ttip-disaster-left-brexit-would-be-worse
Here's my comment finally allowed to be published in the NYT today 3/8 after Michigan
Bernie is on the Bern across America --- and he hasn't even fired a 'shout heard round the world' yet.
When Bernie fires a non-violent 'shout heard round the world' to further ignite his & our "Political Revolution against Empire"
the Bern will burn through the rest of the primary states.
Understand that Bernie will increase both the enthusiasm and the education of Americans in evolutionary ways of understanding
the essential need for the "Political Revolution against Empire".
Initially, Bernie can point to the flaws and failures of a 'foreign policy' that does not serve the interests of Americans
nor peace in our world, any better than domestic economic tyranny at home, because our country is being pushed by the same corrupted
politics to "act like a global Empire abroad".
Even the most trusted elder anchorman and author of "Greatest Generation", Tom Brokaw, on "Meet the Press" shocked Chuck Toad
and other young pundits at the 'Round Table' when he explained, "When Trump and Cruz are talking about three year old orphans
and refugees [from Syria to Europe], what we're really talking about is three year old orphans and refugees, caused by
American policy".
Such truth telling by older and politically experienced people like Bernie, Tom, and the late Walter Cronkite is what has radically
changed, even Revolutionized the political landscape as it did half a century ago when such truthful shocks caused LBJ not to
run and admit, "If I've lost Cronkite, we've lost the war"
Looks like the corporate media attempts to keep Bernie Sanders coverage down, and making any attention they do give him negative
isn't totally working... what will they try next?
I just don't like the slaughter of half a million Syrians and Libyans and 10 million refugees facing devastation of their lives
just so the USA and NATO can control oil supplies out of the Middle East. Its not a good look Hillary.
I'm not all that happy about the splitting up of Syria just to isolate Iran and destroy the Russian economy while risking a nuclear
war.
illary needs to explain why we can't have world peace because the insecurity and armaments industry makes so much money for the
1%. In fact Hilary needs to prove she cares about the worlds ordinary people like the Palestinians living under the yoke of the
cruel oppresive Israeli Gogernment. And she would need to demonstrate her concern with policies to help the people living on the
streets of America before I would support her.
(RECENT!) Hillary Clinton's Email About Gay Parents Should Seriously Trouble Her LGBT Supporters
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/01/hillary_clinton_on_gay_rights_a_new_email_is_troubling.html
Looks like she hasn't really "evolved" on LGBT acceptance, but is simply taking on positions that she thinks is politically beneficial
to her, as usual. Much of her campaign platform (specifically her sudden focus on social and civil issues) is pretty much copied
over from Sander's after all.
Racism is still alive. Black lives DO matter, and the things BLM activists are doing may look excessive, but I find it necessary
if they are EVER to be heard by the government. Things are desperate now, and the Clintons has a hand in the current sad sate
of things for African Americans due to the policies that they have pushed. Bernie have repeatedly highlighted how Black people
in America is oppressed. Just look at the % of black vs white jobless rate, and % of black vs white people being jailed for weed
possession. Something needs to be done. "Enough is Enough" as Bernie says.
Speaking at a media forum in his home city St Petersburg, Putin noted that his own name did not
figure in the 11.5m files cited earlier this week, and said journalists had sought instead to pin
allegations on his "friends and acquaintances".
He said the articles, produced by dozens of news organisations worldwide, constitute "one more attempt
to destabilise the internal situation [and] make us more accommodating," according to Russian news
agencies Interfax and Tass.
"You journalists all know what an information product is," Putin told the forum. "So they went through
this offshore [material]. Your humble servant was not there, but they don't talk about that. But
there's still a job to be done. So what did they do? They make an information product – they found
acquaintances and friends."
... ... ...
He suggested that the Panama Papers were a plot orchestrated by US government officials and spy
agencies. He alluded to a tweet sent by the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange that mentioned the Organised
Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), one of more than 100 media organisations involved
in the year-long investigation.
"#PanamaPapers Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded
by USAID and [George] Soros," WikiLeaks tweeted.
Putin said: "WikiLeaks has showed us that official people and official organs of the US are behind
this." The "customers" who ordered the Panama Papers' leak were clear, he said.
"... you mean like superpredators? Hillary has gone from working for Goldwater to stop the civil rights movement in its tracks, to working for Goldman sachs. ..."
"... Stop scapegoating blacks. Why don't you blame Hispanics? They voted for her over Sanders 2 to 1 in Texas. ..."
"... To the race issue: Black voters didn't reject Sanders' platform, this is a bunch of nonsense. They rejected, in part, the unknown. Black people in the South are SOUTHERNERS. Yes, they are also Black, a demographic in which there exists substantial diversity that many overlook, but Southerners tend to be conservative, and this has to do with the issue of Southern identity more generally, which isn't irrelevant to black folks. ..."
"... Another point: Blacks in the South may not feel they have the luxury to risk their vote on an idealistic candidate they don't really know, even if they like his ideas. ..."
"... Hispanic voters voted strongly for Bernie in Colorado. Perhaps African-Americans living in the South need to find out Sanders positions prior to voting for Hillary. Some of his positions might have been more in line with their thinking now that it is 2016. ..."
"... the Clintons have vacationed there for many years; they raise a lot of money there and are extremely well-connected with the MA Dem Machine, which is one of the most highly organized in the country. The Boston Globe and the rest of the MSM were for her. There is a long history. In 2008, Hillary beat Obama in MA by 15.4%, and that's with Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama. ..."
"... So, for Bernie to get within 2 points of her is an amazingly strong showing. Knock it off with the "liberal state Sanders should have won" - this is just a MSM line trying to make Bernie's strong showing look weak. Not the case. ..."
"... Hey, guess what? There are all different kinds of black people. I suppose that might be a little difficult for MSM to understand. Black people have regional differences, just like white people do. Yes, really. ..."
"... Last I checked, African Americans and self-identifying "black" people constituted about 13 percent of U.S. population and, thanks to mandatory sentencing policies adopted or enacted under the [Bill] Clinton administration, actually make up an even smaller percentage of Americans eligible to vote. ..."
"... How, then, did the Democratic Party decide to make its nominating process so skewed toward minority voters in Southern states the eventual Democratic nominee might be less likely to carry? But let's ignore, for the moment, the structural 'rigging' of a primary schedule ..."
"... Goldman Sachs ran the Clinton White House and has paid Hillary hundreds of thousands in "speaker's fees". Goldman owns her. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders did lead the civil rights movement and joined CORE,at the expense of his studies at the University of Chicago! He was arrested in a demonstration against discrimination in housing! Why do you mock this? And why do African Americans not recognize the good will of Sanders? What about anti-semitism? ..."
"... It really has not been demonstrated that Goldman Sachs and HRC connection are all that bad. An excellent article about it all... http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/is-goldman-sachs-the-root-of-all-evil/20210 / ..."
"... Clinton was nearly mocking Sanders' positions until she saw how many people they resonate with, and then she simply adopted them for herself. But the problem with that is she every few days runs back to Wall Street ( or Wall Street comes to her ) to have her meetings with Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and Jamie Dimin at Chase and a few 'BFF' hedge fund managers to get her marching orders and some money and then she heads back out on the trail talking tough about breaking up the big banks, "if they need to be broken up". ..."
"... The majority of blacks, 55%, live in the South, yet the DNC has seen fit to upload those Red/Black states in the nomination process, knowing full well that they are Republican states. Where is the logic in that? ..."
"... African Americans could have closed this deal. I think they have made a "huge" mistake, Hillary will do nothing for the poor in general. But we will see I guess ..."
"... It is rather remarkable how the Bush/Obama regime candidate - Clinton - specifically chose to play the black race card. That won't go over well with the white majority. ..."
"... Clinton promised to break down all the barriers, barriers of race, sexism, class.....is that possible? or is there a certain level of rhetoric being used in political campaigns? and are you biased in your assesment? ..."
"... Right on with regard to old FDR! That man had courage and a big heart. But you and I are a bit older than most voters, I presume, so we get the whole FDR thing easily -- in my case, the connection is through my parents, both of whom were tough-as-nails Depression-Era people. My point is that Bernie's a well-read, very bright guy, an intellectual -- it isn't that people "gasp with fear," it's more like they're looking for something not so directly based on economics, and Bernie doesn't seem to give them that. ..."
"... Trump does better with low educational voters...as Does Clinton - take a moment to think about your bias here, you automatically state "Well trump voters are idiots cause they obviously haven't all the information I have about trump but clinton voters are smart because they agree with me" ..."
"... Sanders is not going to win 500 delegates from California-- nobody is, since the delegate count is proportional. To keep to your example, a best case scenario for Sanders would be just to *win* California, since he's behind in all the polls. But that isn't good enough at this point. He has to rack up huge margins in California (and other big states) to close the lopsided 80/20 results across the south. That is not going to happen. ..."
"... Exactly. The US has a far right party and a center right party. Bernie, who's basically a Social Democrat, chose to run as part of the center right party. And bizzarely, he and his supporters wonder why he doesn't get more traction and why the party insiders are against him. ..."
"... Well out of touch black southern voters may keep it mainstream with Hillary on this one but Bernie has caused enough of a disruption that she has had to rewrite many of her strategies. At least it exposes just how bad at being consistent she is to those who pay attention. I never thought I would have to but Trump it is. Thanks for your votes/ voices being heard. "Duh, votins fun. I wish we could do this more than once every 4 years." ..."
"... He won Colorado, why? The Latino vote!!! "The entire Democratic congressional delegation in Colorado supports Hillary Clinton-the Democratic governor, John W. Hickenlooper, here supports Hillary Clinton; former U.S. Secretary of the Interior and U.S. Senator Ken Salazar supports Hillary Clinton; the mayor of Denver; the former mayor of Denver. And yet Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders here in Colorado by what looks like about 20 points." -- The Nation. ..."
"... It's way off topic, but my favorite Mencken quote was, "We have to respect the other man's religion, but only in the same way, and to the same extent, that we have to respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his kids are smart." ..."
"... Not really a better America for all, just a better America for the 99%. As it turns out, the vast majority don't matter. History has always shown that the vast majority don't matter. 1% moneyed people with a lot of influence, can easily sway a huge swathe of the great unwashed to simply do their bidding. ..."
"... If you want to take a break from yet another Shillary article see here where it says Hillary finds common ground with disgraced Tom Delay http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/politex-blog/article53787095.html ..."
"... Identity politics is overshadowing class politics. This is a sad turn of events at a time when class inequality is larger than it has ever been - and at a time when poverty corresponds overwhelmingly with race. ..."
"... That and the fact that the Guardian has been repeating Clintons talking points that "He wan'ts to demolish Obamacare" - No he doesn't, the implication is that he will repeal Obamacare and then try for new healthcare that may or may not be succesful - it's not true but southern blacks have bought it, hook, line and sinker ..."
"... Not to mention that in 2008, Hillary won Massachusetts by a large margin over Barack Obama, demonstrating both her strength in that state and how amazingly well-run the Sanders campaign was this year. At the time, people also said it was the the death knell of Obama's campaign. Of course, he then went on to do extremely well in the west and north, which Bernie may or may not do. But to say his very close 2nd in Massachusetts means he's done is not accurate or historical. ..."
"... The statement ... "the former secretary of state is now well on the road to reaching the 2,383 total needed to win the nomination, leading Sanders by 1,001 to 371" is disingenuous. The actual totals are HRC 596, Bernie 399. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats / The Guardian has added superdelegates in their numbers. These superdelegates can change their mind at any time before the convention and historically will honor the candidate who get the most delegates through primaries and caucus'. ..."
"... For anyone who needs a non-Guardian perspective on same: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-bernie-sanders-won-su_b_9363416.html ..."
"... Bernie does not do poisonous identity politics. That's a Clinton specialty. my real news from The Young Turks even though I'm over 50. ..."
"... Sad thing is that it isn't a lie. In 2008 the superdelegates could switch from one Establishment candidate (Hillary) to another Establishment candidate (Obama). But Bernie isn't establishment. Superdelegates know that if they switch to him, their careers as Party hacks are over. ..."
"... remember warren used to be republican. she is pretty militaristic, coming from a military family ..."
"... Grauniad playing the race card on behalf of its darling corporatist warmonger. How utterly predictable. ..."
"... I agree that Elizabeth Warren has shown herself to be a coward. ..."
"... The Guardian needs to find a new Bureau Chief or start paying him more than the Clinton Machine. Or is MSNBC trying to buy the Guardian, and just has you trying out the Company standard line? ..."
"... Can someone actually explain to me the difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush's Sr. presidency? Outside of actually balancing the budget, I don't see that much difference between both presidencies... . ..."
"... With Clinton, though? There is SO much baggage going in that the level of discourse will never go beyond Benghazi, emails, Whitewater, the Iraq war, President Clinton's affairs and impeachment hearings, tax problems, etc. ..."
"... Additionally, if the Republicans actually wanted to go up against Sanders and not Clinton, their rhetoric would reflect that. They, like many members of the establishment, are treating Clinton as the presumptive winner and licking their chops waiting to get to her. If they wanted Sanders instead, they would be propping him up as "the" candidate, thus galvanizing his legitimacy in the race. ..."
"... I used to be able to read articles in The Guardian and glean what was really happening by reading between the lines. Now they just insult our intelligence, and though a few decent writers remain in their employ, there really isn't much of substance. Just asinine puffery. ..."
"... It seems that on number of issues, healthcare, foreign intervention, Wall St, Trump is actually on the LEFT of Clinton. ..."
"... on the whole, he is actually a good deal more liberal than Clinton. ..."
"... The media seem to be willing a Clinton win and are desperate to have us believe her nomination is a given. What they don't realise is that this is 2016 and this sort of spinning only strengthens peoples resolve to stick behind the only truly progressive candidate and probably dig another few dollars in donation. ..."
"... Said it before and I'll say it again, MLK is rolling in his grave. ..."
"... Black leadership has let us down. Clearly, they're on the payroll. ..."
"... I know many of them don't think he does. That's because the American people are pretty dumb, by and large. The fact remains that Bill Clinton sold out leftist, liberal views and values. From three strikes and mandatory minimums, expanding the death penalty, deregulating Wall Street, shipping American industry out of the country, slashing capital gains tax rates, demonizing and slashing the welfare safety net, Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, it's quite demonstrably true that the man owes American liberals an apology. ..."
"... The establishment grief of the Guardian is just so obvious. I'm literally disgusted by the relentless shilling of this newspaper rag for a deeply corrupt Wall Street owned candidate like Shillary. ..."
"... Clinton is winning the black vote without having ever really done a thing to deserve it. Sanders has much more of an actual participatory record in the Civil Rights movement. ..."
"... Make that NEO-liberal not liberal that seems to be happy keeping people like you in power. ..."
"... She very obviously did not win the youth vote ..."
"... The establishment are TERRIFIED of Sanders - because with Hillary they know they can control her with money! Just listen to her speech last night, and it literally was a compilation of platitudes! In terms of speaking without actually saying anything she is as bad as Trump! ..."
"... She has e-mails PROVING she has been actively campaigning FOR nafta and TTIP! ..."
"... Fast running out of patience with the Guardian and its bias for Clinton. This article is biased, it is rooted in hunches. ..."
Horse feathers. Sanders has supported civil rights since before Clinton was a GOLDWATER GIRL!
He put his life on the line for civil rights and got arrested for his trouble.
you mean like superpredators? Hillary has gone from working for Goldwater to stop the civil rights
movement in its tracks, to working for Goldman sachs.
What a nasty smear. The support for Senator Sanders comes from all races. He has also been embraces
by many black civil rights leaders and others. I'm sick of the media and its attacks on Bernie.
Yes, he can and must win without blacks, because they have opted out of a role in a progressive
movement. At least for now in the South. They chose staus quo and Madame Secretary Establishment.
The Southern states Hillary won Tuesday are Deep Red Republican states she cannot possibly win
in NOV. So writers pushing the idea it's over are exagerrating, or worse.
Turnout has been very low in America for decades, if Sanders can turn out just a few first time
voters he can overcome Hillary's Big Money advantages.
I have never seen before now liberals insist that The Word of The South is final, demanding Sanders'
immediate surrender at Appamattox Courthouse. They're scared of a new coalition Madame Secretary
Establishment can't control.
This article is trying to be clever, but comes off as snarky. Never mind that, though. The bigger
problem is that it lacks any context, historical or otherwise, about the United States and its
politics, demographics, and culture. It seems that the writer doesn't have a very deep understanding
of such things, which The Guardian may want to consider when it hires journalists to cover the
U.S..
Of course the "revolution" that Sanders is touting can't be all white, and his supporters
would be the first to tell you that (I am one of them, and white, grew up in South Carolina, and
have worked for racial justice for some time now). It's just simply ridiculous to state that African
Americans' voting preferences on Super Tuesday was a "withering refutation of the central premise
of [Sanders'] campaign: that an overthrow of the billionaire class is possible if ordinary Americans
come together as one." Where do I start? First, the premise of Sanders' campaign is that the system
is rigged - that even when ordinary people play by the rules, they get screwed economically. It's
not that different from what Obama has said many times, it's just that his solutions are different.
Sanders never said his campaign alone would "overthrow" the billionaire class. His campaign must
be seen in a larger historical context - which is not provided in this article - that includes
Occupy Wall Street, the strong and growing labor movement in the U.S. focused on the abysmal situation
of fast food and Wal-Mart-type workers, and yes, even racial justice movements such as Black Lives
Matter. The point this article misses - egregiously - is that movements are not built in an election
cycle, and that again, Sanders' campaign is part of a much greater trajectory that involves much
more than electoral politics.
That's why Sanders is so persistent, I believe, because he knows
that what he is doing is helping to build that sense of belief in something more just. Over sometimes
very long periods of time, enough ordinary people eventually CAN come together and, as you say,
"overthrow the billionaire class." It's just that it's going to take much more than one election
to do that. What's amazing is that so many people are willing to work for a better country even
though they know -- and Sanders knows this full well since he is 74 -- that they won't be around
to see the fruits of those efforts.
To the race issue: Black voters didn't reject Sanders' platform,
this is a bunch of nonsense. They rejected, in part, the unknown. Black people in the South are
SOUTHERNERS. Yes, they are also Black, a demographic in which there exists substantial diversity
that many overlook, but Southerners tend to be conservative, and this has to do with the issue
of Southern identity more generally, which isn't irrelevant to black folks. You have to understand
that Blacks in the South are not politicized in the same way that Blacks in other parts of the
country, such as New York City or Boston or Oakland are.
The South has a totally different labor
history (very anti-union), for example, which has been the context in which the working-class
has developed its expectations of what is politically possible. Somebody like Bernie Sanders,
who is a classic Northeastern (Jewish) Leftist, is very culturally alien (and don't even get me
started on the long history of animosity between the Northeast and the South - which also plays
into this). So to expect Blacks to vote for Sanders just because of his ideas, without really
knowing him (and eight visits is not a lot compared to Clinton's history with South Carolina)
is unfair.
Another point: Blacks in the South may not feel they have the luxury to risk their
vote on an idealistic candidate they don't really know, even if they like his ideas. They haven't
exactly been in a social position to vie for such dreams as free education, a decent social safety
net, etc., whereas whites are more accustomed to demanding things and having those demands met.
This may also explain some of the racial divide. I am not trying to say that white Liberals/Leftists
don't have a lot of work to do on race; nor am I saying that Sanders didn't make big mistakes
in his campaign with regard to his message in the South (Spike Lee, for instance, may not be the
best person to move Southern Blacks). But to trash his whole campaign as just an all-white "protest"
movement is just a gross oversimplification, and missing the point entirely.
Bernie needs to win 53% of the remaining delegates to take a non 'superdelegate' lead
to the convention. Not unfeasible by any stretch
Impossible? No. Feasible? Not really. Sanders has won about 38% of the pledged delegates so far.
What makes you think he's going to go from 38 to 53 points from here on out? No doubt he'll win
a few remaining states by large margins, but that's not going to be enough to boost his aggregate
numbers up enough, given the fact that the remaining large states -- NY, California, Ohio, Illinois,
Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey -- all look at least as Hillary friendly as Massachusetts (where
Clinton won). There are also a number of states with high black populations left, including Louisiana,
Arkansas, Michigan and Missouri.
Sure, a black swan event could get Bernie back in it. But that's what it'll take.
Hispanic voters voted strongly for Bernie in Colorado. Perhaps African-Americans living in the
South need to find out Sanders positions prior to voting for Hillary. Some of his positions might
have been more in line with their thinking now that it is 2016.
This is a canard. There are many reasons why Hillary did well in MA: the Clintons have vacationed
there for many years; they raise a lot of money there and are extremely well-connected with the
MA Dem Machine, which is one of the most highly organized in the country. The Boston Globe and
the rest of the MSM were for her. There is a long history. In 2008, Hillary beat Obama in MA by
15.4%, and that's with Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama.
So, for Bernie to get within 2 points of her is an amazingly strong showing. Knock it off with
the "liberal state Sanders should have won" - this is just a MSM line trying to make Bernie's
strong showing look weak. Not the case.
There are not enough minority votes to compensate for losing 80% of the white voters.
The DNC has totally miscalculate the political climate of the electorate. Those white voters
that are angry at the rigged economy and income inequality are going to Trump.
Bernie Sanders has the right message, but is being stifled by the party elite who want a return
to the 1990s.
States vie for earlier primaries to claim greater influence in the nomination process, as the
early primaries can act as a signal to the nation, showing which candidates are popular and giving
those who perform well early on the advantage of the bandwagon effect.
In such a primary season, however, many primaries will fall on the same day, forcing candidates
to choose where to spend their time and resources.
Indeed, Super Tuesday was created deliberately to increase the influence of the South. Moreover,
a compressed calendar limits the ability of lesser-known candidates to corral resources and raise
their visibility among voters, especially when a better-known candidate enjoys the financial and
institutional backing of the party establishment.
So if, the northern or western states would now want to change there primary dates, and have
their own 'Super Monday', the penalties would be harsh.
For Democrats, states violating these rules will be penalized half of their pledged delegates
and all of their Super Delegates.
So, in effect, the non representative nature of the southern Super Tuesday is locked in place.
I rest my case.
Hey, guess what? There are all different kinds of black people. I suppose that might be a little
difficult for MSM to understand. Black people have regional differences, just like white people
do. Yes, really.
He will likely not win, but that's just wrong what you are saying. He is losing big with African-Americans,
between 80-90% depending on the state voted for Hillary so far, that's true, and that's his biggest
hurdle and why Hillary was able run up the score on him in the south.
But he won with Latinos in Nevada and Colorado, probably not in Texas, but still not bad, and
he is actually beating Hillary with working class whites and independents big time, and that includes
moderate and conservative whites.
While Hillary is beating him with middle aged white women and women over 65, and people over 65
in general, that's also true. But the fact that it's just 'white liberals' and young people who
are for Bernie is not true.
In fact, the 2008 and 2016 primary voter groups have completely switched this year, and Bernie
is getting most of the white working class voters who voted for Hillary over Obama in 2008, while
Hillary is getting the African-American vote overwhelmingly, and is probably still slightly up
with the Latino vote overall, and Hillary is also getting white people making over $200,000 a
year, but not by huge margins like with African-Americans.
Last I checked, African Americans and self-identifying "black" people constituted about 13 percent
of U.S. population and, thanks to mandatory sentencing policies adopted or enacted under the [Bill]
Clinton administration, actually make up an even smaller percentage of Americans eligible to vote.
How, then, did the Democratic Party decide to make its nominating process so skewed toward minority
voters in Southern states the eventual Democratic nominee might be less likely to carry? But let's
ignore, for the moment, the structural 'rigging' of a primary schedule that allows such small
percentages of voters to choose the nominee and ask why African Americans, who got very little
beyond lip service and pleasing optícs from Barack Obama, would now believe that they can expect
any better from Hillary Clinton (who promises to do little else than continue the Obama program,
or whatever remains of it, at this point). I'm suspecting that Afrcan American voters don't know
enough about either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton -- neither what he could do FOR them nor
what she has sad and done TO them.
I am really astounded at the cynical and unsympathetic Guardian stance on Sanders! I thought you
might deal with the substance of the Sanders message about the need to destroy the strangle hold
that the U. S. Oligarchy has on politics and how they have damaged the country by pursuing their
own economic interests at the expense of the general public. Instead, you parrot the U. S. media
by treating it all as a spectator sport--concentrating on tactics and strategies rather than substance
and mocking his losses in southern republican states?
You might ask why African American voters have supported Hillary Clinton when her husband's trade
policies, welfare policies, and crime sentencing policies so harmed them?
What does that say about the political consciousness, or the lack thereof, of the U. S. electorate?
Bernie Sanders did lead the civil rights movement and joined CORE,at the expense of his studies
at the University of Chicago! He was arrested in a demonstration against discrimination in housing!
Why do you mock this? And why do African Americans not recognize the good will of Sanders? What
about anti-semitism?
You might deal with some deeper analysis of U. S. society and politics rather than this cynical
and superficial journalism that is slanted in support of the existed rotten social and economic
order?
Clinton was nearly mocking Sanders' positions until she saw how many people they resonate with,
and then she simply adopted them for herself. But the problem with that is she every few days
runs back to Wall Street ( or Wall Street comes to her ) to have her meetings with Lloyd Blankfein
of Goldman Sachs and Jamie Dimin at Chase and a few 'BFF' hedge fund managers to get her marching
orders and some money and then she heads back out on the trail talking tough about breaking up
the big banks, "if they need to be broken up".
One really has to start questioning the over influence of Blacks in the Democratic Party.
The majority of blacks, 55%, live in the South, yet the DNC has seen fit to upload those Red/Black
states in the nomination process, knowing full well that they are Republican states. Where is the logic in that?
It makes as much sense as if the Republicans upload all the New England states and California
in their process.
Logic would dictate that a hard right conservative wouldn't make it and it's being shown that
a true progressive can't win in the Democratic Party rigged system.
African Americans could have closed this deal. I think they have made a "huge" mistake, Hillary
will do nothing for the poor in general. But we will see I guess
It is rather remarkable how the Bush/Obama regime candidate - Clinton - specifically chose to
play the black race card. That won't go over well with the white majority.
Independents love Bernie over Hillary, and thats what the general is about, who do independents
and libertarians hate less - clinton or bernie? you think the right are not going to bring up
FBI, emails, benghazi? not saying it's fair, but neither is it fair of them to hate leftists for
being leftists
The point is Hillary is not a favourable general election candidate
Clinton promised to break down all the barriers, barriers of race, sexism, class.....is that possible?
or is there a certain level of rhetoric being used in political campaigns? and are you biased
in your assesment?
Right on with regard to old FDR! That man had courage and a big heart. But you and I are a bit
older than most voters, I presume, so we get the whole FDR thing easily -- in my case, the connection
is through my parents, both of whom were tough-as-nails Depression-Era people. My point is that
Bernie's a well-read, very bright guy, an intellectual -- it isn't that people "gasp with fear,"
it's more like they're looking for something not so directly based on economics, and Bernie doesn't
seem to give them that.
American social life and politics are labyrinthine, so one "master discourse"
isn't capable of dealing with it all. All the same, I admire Bernie Sanders' courage and convictions.
I mentioned in another post (about Ben Carson) that running for president diminishes most people
who dare attempt it. That hasn't been the case with Bernie. If anything and no matter what the
outcome, his campaign is showing us what a wise and wonderful man he is.
Trump does better with low educational voters...as Does Clinton - take a moment to think about
your bias here, you automatically state "Well trump voters are idiots cause they obviously haven't
all the information I have about trump but clinton voters are smart because they agree with me"
The demos tell us, the dumber you are, the more likely you will vote for clinton and trump
Sanders is not going to win 500 delegates from California-- nobody is, since the delegate count
is proportional. To keep to your example, a best case scenario for Sanders would be just to *win*
California, since he's behind in all the polls. But that isn't good enough at this point. He has
to rack up huge margins in California (and other big states) to close the lopsided 80/20 results
across the south. That is not going to happen.
If the Democratic primary were more like the Republican one (with lots of winner take all contests),
it would still be anyone's game. However, that is simply not the case. The Democratic primary
is set up to reward the candidate with the broadest coalition of supporters, and this year that
person is Clinton.
Exactly. The US has a far right party and a center right party. Bernie, who's basically a Social
Democrat, chose to run as part of the center right party. And bizzarely, he and his supporters
wonder why he doesn't get more traction and why the party insiders are against him.
If Jeremy Corbyn tried to run as a Tory what kind of welcome do you think he would get?
What she is doing here is stifling Democracy, and denying the public meaningful say in who runs
the country and how. Using the party establishment in absolute lockstep to keep the electorate
out in the cold is staunchly anti-democratic. She really thinks she has the right to control the
entire party and the nomination process in her favor.
We already know she is an authoritarian. She is a staunch imperialist, supports NSA spying,
the national security state, protects torture, executive power, endless wars, the war on drugs,
mass incarceration, and we know that she stands for the richest and most powerful factions in
society.
Well out of touch black southern voters may keep it mainstream with Hillary on this one but Bernie
has caused enough of a disruption that she has had to rewrite many of her strategies. At least
it exposes just how bad at being consistent she is to those who pay attention. I never thought
I would have to but Trump it is. Thanks for your votes/ voices being heard. "Duh, votins fun.
I wish we could do this more than once every 4 years."
He won Colorado, why? The Latino vote!!! "The entire Democratic congressional delegation in Colorado
supports Hillary Clinton-the Democratic governor, John W. Hickenlooper, here supports Hillary
Clinton; former U.S. Secretary of the Interior and U.S. Senator Ken Salazar supports Hillary Clinton;
the mayor of Denver; the former mayor of Denver. And yet Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders
here in Colorado by what looks like about 20 points." -- The Nation.
More than likely the smart Sanders strategists know that winning or losing these early primaries
doesn't really matter, not in the long run, just do enough to keep Sanders in the running, but
keep your powder dry.
In a month, maybe 6 weeks, charges should be laid against Clinton, and that will be her campaign
done. Sanders needs to simply hold on till then, at which point he'll default to being the Democratic
candidate.
It's way off topic, but my favorite Mencken quote was, "We have to respect the other man's religion,
but only in the same way, and to the same extent, that we have to respect his belief that his
wife is beautiful and his kids are smart."
Not really a better America for all, just a better America for the 99%.
As it turns out, the vast majority don't matter. History has always shown that the vast majority
don't matter.
1% moneyed people with a lot of influence, can easily sway a huge swathe of the great unwashed
to simply do their bidding.
Hence, so many uneducated imbeciles are happy to vote against their own interests. Please, heap
on the vitriolic nonsense, calling me bigoted, etc, but it doesn't change anything. The majority
of voters have happily voted against their own interests, and not even bothered realising that
they're done it.
Because Americans are so distrustful of our media sources at this point, that we've started reading
foreign media sources. I think someone took notice.
Here is a Bloomberg article from a few days ago, just before Super tuesday. It predicts Clinton
will win every state except Vermont. I.e., 10 out of 11. Now that Sanders actually won 4, Bloomberg
just whistles past, pretends it didn't happen and gets it's next set of lies ready.
It's not just Bloomberg of course, it's every establishment rag that has been banging on about
of Clinton's inevitability, without any evidence other than - well, it's Clinton.
A lot of savvy pundits, that I have learned to trust over the years are saying Sanders has
a better than 50-50 chance of being the nominee. Every time you see the Guardian or it's ilk tell
you why Clinton is a certainty, remember they don't even believe this, It's editorial policy.
We don't know why the Guardian has chosen Clinton as their candidate but we have discovered
the motives for other outlets. The Daily Beast for example upset a lot of it's readers by gunning
for Hillary. The Daily Beast is a part of the IAC group, which boasts owning over 150 websites.
The following page lists their board of directors, one name stands out - Chelsea Clinton.
http://iac.com/about/leadership
The reason Sanders is getting no cut through with black voters is nothing to do with his failure
to communicate or his offer, which would actually help the black community far more than Hillary
- from education to minimum wage and health insurance. It also has little to do with Hillary.
It's to do with Bill. He was and is incredibly popular with black voters across the whole of the
USA and did a lot of good work for true equality, so much so that he was even known as 'the first
black president'. He's also seen as a true Democrat hero and it's no surprise that he spent his
last day of Super Tuesday canvassing in Massachusetts, home of Democrat royalty, which could well
have swung that state. How Jeb must regret his family legacy.
Bernie has been criticized for running with the Class Struggle Idea, i.e., the 99% vs 1%. The
Media Pundits said he would have to sharpen up the message to include African-American Democrats.
He did that and still lost the African-American Vote.
Everyone would benefit from a higher minimum wage, Medicare for all, reining in Wall Street
and a free College Education. The message is clear Bernie has the promise of a better America
for all. If people cannot take the time or effort to educate themselves then perhaps H. L. Mencken
was right, - Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
Another quote from Mencken came true when GWB was elected President - On some great and glorious
day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will
be adorned by a downright moron.
Identity politics is overshadowing class politics. This is a sad turn of events at a time when
class inequality is larger than it has ever been - and at a time when poverty corresponds overwhelmingly
with race.
Nah, Liz is playing it smart, she doesn't want the progressive faction in washington to live and
die by Bernies campaign. She wants to remain neutral so that she and all other progressives are
not written off, discredited by the establishment if Bernie doesn't win.
Malcom X and MLK didn't agree on tactics, that doesn't make one of them a coward, nor does
it make one of them right and the other wrong, it takes all kinds
Elizabeth Warren isn't endorsing because she wants to have sway with Clinton if she wins. She
already knows she would with Bernie. That woman is the power broker for Senate Democrats, and
she, and everyone else, knows it. She's going to go along with Clinton, and not actively oppose
her in the primary, so she can call in a favor or two during a Clinton administration, if that's
the way it pans out. She'll be the one who tries to hold Clinton to her new-found liberalism if
she's elected. She's also the only one who might be able to muster the Democratic troops to put
a stop to the TPP, TTIP and TISA, which is where I hope she uses her influence. Staying on speaking
terms with Clinton is the smart move for her, as much as we'd like to see her on the stump for
Bernie.
So perhaps it is not just southern whites who are more conservative. Perhaps that is true also
of southern blacks too. Talking class politics is a novelty for most Americans. British readers
need to remember that unlike Europe, there is no mass socialist or social democratic party in
the U.S. We have two conservative parties basically, one really of the right, the other more moderate.
That and the fact that the Guardian has been repeating Clintons talking points that "He wan'ts
to demolish Obamacare" - No he doesn't, the implication is that he will repeal Obamacare and then
try for new healthcare that may or may not be succesful - it's not true but southern blacks have
bought it, hook, line and sinker
Not to mention that in 2008, Hillary won Massachusetts by a large margin over Barack Obama, demonstrating
both her strength in that state and how amazingly well-run the Sanders campaign was this year.
At the time, people also said it was the the death knell of Obama's campaign. Of course, he then
went on to do extremely well in the west and north, which Bernie may or may not do. But to say
his very close 2nd in Massachusetts means he's done is not accurate or historical.
What does a primary win in a state whose general election electoral college votes will be going
to the other party mean, anyway? OK, so Clinton does well among African-Americans in states that
are solidly Republican. I don't think the pundit class has dealt with the demographic fact that
Latinos are the larger minority, and that in the so called "swing states" (like Colorado) Sanders
is winning and in very large states like California... where Latino support is going to be crucial,
there hasn't been any action, yet. As it is, the whole point of "Super Tuesday" has been to knock
insurgents out of the running, and it just didn't work this time.
The statement ... "the former secretary of state is now well on the road to reaching the 2,383
total needed to win the nomination, leading Sanders by 1,001 to 371" is disingenuous.
The actual totals are HRC 596, Bernie 399.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats / The Guardian has added superdelegates in their numbers. These superdelegates can change their
mind at any time before the convention and historically will honor the candidate who get the most
delegates through primaries and caucus'.
The Young Turks have had fabulous unbiased reporting, also entertaining, but full of intelligent
analysis. It's no coincidence that they are funded largely by their viewers rather than corporations.
Also, they have fantastic LIVE coverage during and after primaries and debates. Check it out here
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks/featured
First, I definitely encourage all of you to read how the political establishment and the elite-controlled
media address people like Bernie Sanders:
http://portside.org/2016-01-27/seven-stages-establishment-backlash-corbynsanders-edition
Second, percentages mean nothing (Clinton winning 86% of African-American vote over Bernie's 14%)
when we look at just how many people ACTUALLY voted; only 367,000 votes for the Democrats- 30%
LESS than in 2008:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-do-the-voting-turnout-numbers-say-about-the-2016-presidential-race
/
The voting population in South Carolina alone is roughly 3 million people (with about 700,000
votes cast on the Republican side). This means only ONE THIRD of people ACTUALLY voted in the
primary; to conclude that Sanders lost this one because Blacks voted more for Hillary grossly
undermines the real problem: LESS African-Americans actually voted period.
This can be for many reasons, but I am willing to bet that scheduling less Democratic Party debates,
at odd times, and constant scrutiny by the media to sow doubt against Bernie by Hillary and the
Democratic Party establishment IS largely what is determining these results. They say that he
can't win and support Hillary (without disclosing their own financial interests in her campaign:
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/25/tv-pundits-praise-hillary-clinton-on-air-fail-to-disclose-financial-ties-to-her-campaign
/), they schedule less coverage on TV for him, they scrutinize his policies, ideas (but not
Hillary's), and supposed lack of minority support, and when they see 86-14% they conclude "See,
we told you- You should have listened to us."
There's more to this charade of an election and political system than merely "Sanders lost the
Black vote". The Democratic Party will do nothing to mobilize its base if it means Sanders becomes
the nominee, and minorities will continue to loose under this status quo enforced by the political
establishment because free college for their kids, healthcare for their families, a protected
environment, and a US government that works for them is too lofty a goal for us to be striving
for. #Feelthatbern
Everyone needs to be protected by financial regulation. The history of banking is quite clear.
Every ten to fifteen years they overleverage themselves, or invest too heavily in a bubble, and
they sink themselves. We removed the Glass-Steagall Act and passed the Commodity Futures Modernization
Act, and 8 years later they bankrupted themselves, after more than 60 years of largely sound and
stable banking. If we've decided that the financial institutions are too important and too interconnected
to allow them to fail, then we need regulation to protect these greedy bastards from themselves.
The alternative is more than a trillion dollars in taxpayer money every 10 or 15 years to bail
them out when they've gone and stuck their feet in it again.
Sanders won the Latino vote in both Nevada and Colorado. 20 points win in swing state Colorado?
You call this a protest movement? Who wrote this crap?
There's all the western progressive states and northern to come. I'm glad he has the money to
keep going without sucking up to Wall Street, so we can vote for him in California. To keep up
with his fundraising Hillz is having to stage a fundraiser where one of the hosts is an NRA lobbyist.
Really. And she's going to "take on the NRA"
The fact that Bernie has the money to do this is the REAL story that no-one is covering. It's
historic.
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/01/nra-lobbyist-will-co-host-clinton-fundraiser /
"He argues that young people who have used computers and other microchipped devices since infancy
will have effortless advantages over their elders in processing information and coping with change
when they reach adulthood. Their short attention spans, now disparaged by educators and parents,
may be an advantage in coping with the huge mass of disparate bits of information that will bombard
the wired person of the 21st century."
We've been force fed this bullshit our whole lives, and we're just really good at seeing through
it now.
So why couldn't Sanders win Masachusetts, one of the most progressive states in the US, and home
to more colleges and universities per-capita (and thus lots of young people - his big supporters)
than anywhere else? It's easier to blame the media than to take a good hard look at your campaign.
"Why would she sit this one out and help hand her home state over the pro-bank and payday lender
faction of the Democratic party? The answer is that she doesn't think Bernie will win and is afraid
of the consequences of supporting him, just like all the other liberals in Congress. They know
there is a steep price to pay to go against a Clinton, and to not fall in line with DNC, and they
don't want to be punished."
1) The evidence for your conspiracy theory is silly. Elizabeth Warren is not afraid to speak
out if she wishes. 2) The second part of your post is a classic slippery slope fallacy. Somehow
you're moved from Warren not endorsing a candidate to Clinton will be an absolute dictator if
elected (even more hilarious since you grant Trump is a fascist and somehow see Clinton as worse
than that).
To me this looks bad for the Democrats. This block of southern black democrats seem to control
the nomination the way white evangelicals control the Republican nomination, but are likewise
a minor factor in the actual election. For a start most or all of these states aren't going to
go to the democrats anyway. It sounds like a pyrrhic for either party to have a nominee who owes
it all to a demographic that won't have such a big say in the actual election.
Donald Trump is somewhat less likely to start new Middle Eastern wars. Hillary has a proven track
record of doing just that, which is one of many reasons this newspaper is in love with her.
Sad thing is that it isn't a lie. In 2008 the superdelegates could switch from one Establishment
candidate (Hillary) to another Establishment candidate (Obama). But Bernie isn't establishment.
Superdelegates know that if they switch to him, their careers as Party hacks are over.
More capitalist propaganda for Clinton. Remember, it is mainstream media that stands to lose most
from a Sanders win. Any effort to get money out of politics must be opposed by media outlets--political
campaigns are their CASH COW.
But that's politics and always has been. She's no more ruthless and calculating in that respect
than any major, successful politician in either party. Personally I can't stand her and would
never vote for her, but I think your complaint about her cutthroat politics is a bit naive. Did
you ever see 'House of Cards' ? (I haven't see the recent American remake, but I saw the original
on the BBC), and that is exactly how politics works.
Another mainstream media hack celebrating the success of the mainstream media's unique ability
to to simultaneously ignore Sanders' achievements and Clinton's disastrous racist record.
remember warren used to be republican. she is pretty militaristic, coming from a military family.
she's good on financial reform, may not favor bernie's foreign policy or being a democratic socialist--just
because she wants the laws enforced doesn't mean she wants an fdr level change (which is what
we need at this point).
First Wolffe, an MSNBC Shill bought and paid for by Corporations, now the Guardians own Bureau
Chief regurgitating Wolfie's article, even to using the same graphics.
And you believe the public stupid enough to believe they are unbiased.
The Guardian needs to find a new Bureau Chief or start paying him more than the Clinton Machine.
Or is MSNBC trying to buy the Guardian, and just has you trying out the Company standard line?
Hear, hear. There has been a massive drop-off in quality since Alan Rusbridger left. A slant is
one thing; blatantly superficial, badly researched, regurgitative journalism such has been the
level of late is just a shame for this paper that once did far better. But now it has joined the
ranks of LCD internet rags that are all about the clicks. I almost hate to give them the satisfaction
by clicking on this piece, but it's too important that errors in it be pointed out.
Can someone actually explain to me the difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush's Sr. presidency?
Outside of actually balancing the budget, I don't see that much difference between both presidencies...
.
Is it possible that the donations and polling in favor of Sanders is the result of right-wing
scheming? I suppose it's possible.
But is it likely? No, not even close to likely. To the best of my knowledge there has been
1 right-wing sponsored ad criticizing Clinton (
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/anti-sanders-attack-ad-isnt-quite-what-it-seems-be
). As for mass small donation fund raising by Republicans on the behalf of Sanders - the level
of complexity (and money) necessary to execute that is just too large to keep under wraps.
As for how Sanders will stand up under scrutiny - here's the "trump" card (pun intended). The
right wing will dub him a "Socialist" and Bernie will reply "Yup. Socialist. Next question?".
He's never shied away from that. In the Republican mind (and I worked for the Libertarian party
for a while so I have a little first-hand experience in how the right views the term) that's the
kiss of death right there.
They are myopic in their views and don't understand (or vastly underestimate) how *anyone*
could possibly have left-leaning views, let alone be a Progressive.
Beyond that, they'll have the same talking points on policy they would have with anyone from
the Democratic Party, and that's that.
With Clinton, though? There is SO much baggage going in that the level of discourse will never
go beyond Benghazi, emails, Whitewater, the Iraq war, President Clinton's affairs and impeachment
hearings, tax problems, etc.
Additionally, if the Republicans actually wanted to go up against Sanders and not Clinton,
their rhetoric would reflect that. They, like many members of the establishment, are treating
Clinton as the presumptive winner and licking their chops waiting to get to her. If they wanted
Sanders instead, they would be propping him up as "the" candidate, thus galvanizing his legitimacy
in the race.
Honestly, assuming that Trump wins the nomination, Sanders will be their worst nightmare. There
are no "gotchas" with the man. His record as a public servant is pretty transparent. They could
go after age, or perhaps his previous careers before public servant (he's just an aging hippy
that couldn't get a job until he got into politics, etc. etc.) but..well...that's about it.
If Sanders tells his supporters at the convention to vote for Clinton then will you vote
for Hillary?
Against any of the viable Republican candidates, yes. Though I live in a Red state so I am
considering a write-in for Sanders out of conscience. But, should the polling numbers suggest
the Democratic nominee stands even a snowball's chance, I will vote for Secretary Clinton if she
is the nominee.
I agree, it isn't really a new development. What upsets me is that despite its bias, it used to
be more sophisticated and subtly propagandistic. Their coverage of the Labour leadership election
and the US presidential election so far has been abysmal. The vast majority of the articles they
publish bashing Corbyn and Sanders or boosting Hillary Clinton and Yvette Cooper haven't just
been hopelessly slanted, they have also been puerile and light on serious probing of the issues
at hand.
I used to be able to read articles in The Guardian and glean what was really happening by reading
between the lines. Now they just insult our intelligence, and though a few decent writers remain
in their employ, there really isn't much of substance. Just asinine puffery.
Sanders leads with Asians, and may do better with black, and for that matter, other Christian
voters outside the South, where you pretty much have to be a Protestant to win statewide.
It seems that on number of issues, healthcare, foreign intervention, Wall St, Trump is actually
on the LEFT of Clinton. People support him mainly because of racism, Islamophobia, xenophobia,
a reaction against PC culture, and the breakdown of immigration policy, and he plays the demagogue
card well. But on the whole, he is actually a good deal more liberal than Clinton.
What I am beginning to realize, and which is making me more adamantly against Clinton, is how
she is wielding power in this election. Elizabeth Warren, the only other liberal in the Senate,
Sander's natural ally, refused to endorse him before the Massachusetts primary likely allowing
a narrow Clinton victory. This at a time when Clinton's main supporters, and the head of the DNC,
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz are pushing a bill to protect payday lenders, one of Warren's fiercest
enemies. Why would she do this? Why would she sit this one out and help hand her home state over
the pro-bank and payday lender faction of the Democratic party? The answer is that she doesn't
think Bernie will win and is afraid of the consequences of supporting him, just like all the other
liberals in Congress. They know there is a steep price to pay to go against a Clinton, and to
not fall in line with DNC, and they don't want to be punished.
I infer from this that Clinton will run the country with an iron fist, exercising gangster
like political control on behalf of her interests. Even Trump, though an unstable xenophobe authoritarian,
doesn't have the same capacity for authoritarianism as Clinton. He might blow everything up and
move in fascist direction, but a Clinton presidency will be about total and absolute power and
control, and she knows how to accomplish it. Pander here, lie there, take that bribe, intimidate,
muckrake, exploit identity politics and prestige networks. She's practically out of Game of Thrones
and she may be the more dangerous of two incredibly dangerous candidates.
"Hillary bought off the entire Southern black religious establishment, and their local pastors
duped their 'flocks' into voting for her."
Bought them off with what? ... "walkin' around money"? This is slimy racism.
She bought them off by promising to help rebuild their crumbling communities, education, and healthcare
resources. She promised more jobs and equal pay and they believed her. The real Sanders supporters
here must feel queasy about having to share a forum with all these neo- Jim Crow unreconstructed
racists!
-the full support of the DNC
-25 years of media celebrity
- a popular ex-president campaigning for her
-a swooning corporate media
-cabinet experience
-endorsements from: all the major unions, famous celebrities, civil rights leaders, prominent
congressmen, secretaries of state and president Obama himself
-a bottomless campaign war chest
And yet she's facing a stiff challenge from an obscure elderly socialist from Vermont... .
The common tone being spouted by mass media is almost defeatist of Sanders' viability. I wouldn't
be surprised if this was already orchestrated long before Super Tuesday as it was apparent Clinton
would sweep the majority of southern states. The media seem to be willing a Clinton win and are
desperate to have us believe her nomination is a given. What they don't realise is that this is
2016 and this sort of spinning only strengthens peoples resolve to stick behind the only truly
progressive candidate and probably dig another few dollars in donation.
If you ever want a solid look at how well-managed you are by the establishment and its media teams,
compare Trump and Clinton on the issues. The dominant narrative constantly "reminds" you that
Trump is scary because noone knows what he truly believes. Yet look how differently this is constructed
when assessing Clinton. If you are going to be honest, you have to admit that either we don't
know what SHE believes either, or she has changed her mind on virtually everything. If you are
a Hillary supporter, prove this wrong by listing, in your reply, a list of ten things Hillary
believes, that she has publicly believed her whole life. Seriously. Go for it Hilaristas.
Said it before and I'll say it again, MLK is rolling in his grave.
John Lewis did a great disservice to 'his people' in downplaying Bernie's importance, focussing
on fame rather than the core of his message in step with MLK's plan of economic justice, tying
it all together.
Black leadership has let us down. Clearly, they're on the payroll. Just more exploitation for
the disenfranchised Southern populace. But it's hardly time to lay down.
Great job on Super T, Bernie and friends. Onward!...
Why was such scrutiny not put on Hillary who it seems predominantly depends on votes from ethnic
communities mainly in the south. I wonder what the media mantra will be if Sanders starts sweeping
the Northern and Western states as projected. Will they then ask can Clinton sustain a path to
the nomination without the support of traditionally Democrat states and white folks?
African Americans under 30 are voting for Sanders. They tend to get their news from the internet.
Older Americans rely more on the mainstream media which has been providing little if no coverage
of Sanders.
" to **pragmatically**navigate the entire [read, "Republican and Democratic"] Washington Establishment"
Uh huh - except she already had her chance with Health Care Reform. She had the President behind
her, she had a Democrat House and Senate, back when the Republicans were nice, when Newt Gingrich
was an impotent back bencher - and Hillary fell flat on her face.
You should look more carefully at the poll Sanders beats all the GOP candidates Hillary can only
beat Trump and that is not by as much as Sanders does. Trump has not even started on Clinton.
Can you remember the sexist comments by Clinton and Trumps reply, Clinton and her husband hid
under a rock and never said anything else against Trump. Well expect this times 100 in the general
if it is Clinton. she has to much baggage and bad history, plus she is under FBI investigation
people, come on wake up. Only Sanders can beat Trump.
Can the media kindly write about the things Bernie Sanders is actually bringing up? The tightening
grip of the oligarchy? The corrupt pols? The Wall Street malfeasance? Instead all we get is; "Bernie's
on the ropes!" Every day.
It is beyond disgusting the way the mainstream media has played along with the Clinton campaign
narrative that Sanders is somehow ignoring racial minorities or preaching a message that ignores
them. Sanders and Clinton are lightyears apart on racial relations and politics, when one gets
past the Clinton-paid pundits spin doctoring. Bernie marched with Doctor King. He got arrested
fighting for civil rights, and has the documentation to prove it. When BLM took over the stage
at a rally, he let them talk as long as they wanted to, leaving the microphone with them as he
waded through the crowd. He didn't boot the activists out of a $500/head fundraiser at a mansion,
the way Clinton did. Clinton has spent a lifetime supporting all types of legislation that threw
black people under a bus to impress her rich, white donor base and her husband's rightwing supporters.
It wasn't Sanders who referred to black teens as "superpredators", or made dozens of speeches
for NAFTA, or the crime bills of the 90's, or the elimination of welfare programs. And lets look
at actual facts, for once. Just last week Glenn Greenwald reported on a study showing that the
longer people know who Sanders is, the higher his popularity, while the longer people know who
Clinton is, the lower her popularity is. This extends to all racial groups. So in Nevada, for
example, we've already seen where Latinos clearly demonstrated a preference for Sanders over Clinton,
as they got to know both candidates. The advantage Clinton has "racially" evaporates when you
account for class distinctions too. Look at her "black vote" in large, wealthier northern cities
like Boston, Minneapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, and you'll notice that the massive advantages she
enjoys in the South disappear. That is because her advantage comes from time and southern disinvestment
in public education, not any sort of racial bias in Sanders. Wherever people have any serious
amount of time to study both candidates, her leads disappear. If the media paid attention to this,
instead of declaring the race over with only 30% of the states wrapped up, we'd TRULY give racial
minorities around the country the voice they deserve in this election. Just think how screwy and
irrational the narrative is, when you look for precedents. Where else in history have you seen
racial minorities, Wall Street, and retirement-age baby boomers voting as a bloc? This has more
to do with ignorance and clear media bias for the establishment, more than some sort of inherent
flaw in Sanders message. Honestly, point out exactly where his platform is somehow unfriendly
or less open to racial minorities than Clinton is. Her advantage is fleeting, and not something
she can wield against Republicans. Failure to acknowledge this "strength" as the weakness it truly
is, is going to be expensive for Democrats during the general election. The South is NOT going
to be some sort of bastion for Hillary in November. In fact, nominating her instead of Sanders
is going to COST the Dems southern states this autumn, if polling is at all accurate over the
last few months.
I know many of them don't think he does. That's because the American people are pretty dumb, by
and large. The fact remains that Bill Clinton sold out leftist, liberal views and values. From
three strikes and mandatory minimums, expanding the death penalty, deregulating Wall Street, shipping
American industry out of the country, slashing capital gains tax rates, demonizing and slashing
the welfare safety net, Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, it's quite demonstrably
true that the man owes American liberals an apology.
Genuine question, what do Blacks or Latinos see in Clinton?
Most Latino's live on the gulf coast, not exactly the most progressive part of the U.S. to
begin with. Then you've got the Miami Cubans, who're naturally hostile to a candidate who describes
himself as a 'socialist'. And to be honest, Sanders has been ambivalent at best about immigration.
as a hilary supporter, how many young black males would you call super predators? how would you
"rein them in"? tasers? shotguns? bull conor's boys used cattle prods--don't forget the conservative
democrats back then were the southern racists. of course hilary wasn't one of those; she was one
of the conservative republican types, working in the goldwater campaign so he could fight the
civil rights movement.
Yeah! Because of course black people cannot possibly vote for Clinton for any reason other than
that they're being duped by her. Funny how republicans say blacks vote for democrats because of
all the "free stuff" and "obamaphones". Different sides of the same coin. Patronizing condescension
much?
When you see the media pushing and pushing and pushing the narrative that "Hillary cannot be defeated",
you know it's because they are scared to death that Hillary will be defeated.
As for Barbara Boxer, used to admire her, but YEP she joined the inside-the-beltway establishment
years ago. She wouldn't know a liberal if she ran over a liberal in her hemp-powered SUV
Don't buy into the game of dividing people up by race and putting them in this or that camp. That's
the media narrative trying to tell you it's game over for Bernie when all that's happened is he
has lost in overwhelmingly conservative states. No race thinks with one mind, black, white or
hispanic and the blatant racism of the media and how they treat racial groups as homogenous entities
is tiresome. Sanders may not win, but he is very much in the race and we don't need to get down
on the black community because many of them actually support Sanders.
Barbara Boxer said this morning that Hilary winning the White House will be the crowning glory
of the women's right to vote 100 years ago.
For these people, it's another party & they want to shop for a new dress.
Barbara Boxer has never returned my emails over the years. Wish we could take away her retirement
package.
35 states still to vote. Sanders needs about 53% to gain a majority of the popular vote. And the
media is calling the whole thing for Clinton because she won strongly in southern conservative
states that are never going to go Democratic.
But that argument risks looking dismissive, suggesting that voters in the south and in African
American communities were just too ignorant to understand what was in their best interests.
So we can't say the truth now? Hillary bought off the entire Southern black religious establishment,
and their local pastors duped their 'flocks' into voting for her. Typical Clinton sleaze if you
ask me. The establishment grief of the Guardian is just so obvious. I'm literally disgusted by
the relentless shilling of this newspaper rag for a deeply corrupt Wall Street owned candidate
like Shillary.
Whether Hillary wins or the GOP wins the country will be hijacked, although I'm sure there are
others in power who are feeling like they're being hijacked (what goes around comes around). And
yes they are trying to paint a narrative, that the only people who support him must be white people.
This is totally a divisive tactic.
I wasn't around in 1933 when FDR decried Wall Street, Big banks and pedatory Capital run amok
but I was around for a part of the fifty or sixty years that followed on the changes he brought
about that created a level playing field in society and which helped gaurantee that we would deafat
Facism around the world. So I don't gasp with fear if Bernie, or anyone else, rails against milliobaires
and billonaires. Bully for him!
You're right to some extent, but if Sanders was to look like a potential winner he really needed
to do better in Nevada and Massachusetts to counteract Clinton's strength elsewhere.
By turning your back on Clinton you are, in effect, acting as a Trump shill
This is a rather cynical position to take, don't you think? Especially considering that Sanders
leads most Republican candidates by larger margins than does Clinton.
I mean, that's the only context I can think of where your statement actually makes sense -
that by pushing for Sanders one is somehow guaranteeing a Republican win which is, to put it delicately,
factually inaccurate based on actual polling.
nd BTW, you're a fake Sanders supporter too.
Damn, now ya tell me! All those donations, working the phone banks, both local marches, and
canvassing were wasted. If I had known I was just a poseur for Sanders I would have stayed home
and saved a few bucks.
Sarcasm aside, you have no standing or knowledge sufficient to make such a claim either factually
or ethically so I would recommend you stop using it as your standard reply. Setting up a false
dichotomy does not make you correct (See GW Bush, circa 2002).
So, just in case it isn't evident, I am an actual supporter of Sanders and want to see him
be our next president.
Sanders would never condone your statements and actions.
Would you care to share the special relationship you have to the Senator that actually backs
up your claim? I'm pretty certain he doesn't have the time to comment on the Guardian right now
so safe to say you're not him. So, I'll be charitable here...maybe you're a distant cousin or
something.
Now you're just kitchen-synching it. Sanders has overwhelming support amongst the party's rank-and-file.
And in case you haven't notice, votes for both parties are staging a full on revolt against the
enscronced and bought-out political operatives who govern the parties. They main difference is
their guy is a monster.
I don't follow this argument. What concerns of the black community hasn't he engaged with? He's
addressed mandatory minimum sentencing, the drug war, for-profit prisons, community policing,
police homicide, poverty, and criminal justice reform. What else does he need to address?
Clinton is winning the black vote without having ever really done a thing to deserve it. Sanders
has much more of an actual participatory record in the Civil Rights movement. Will Clinton finally
make the banking establishment pay attention to the financial needs of black voters. Yeah, right.
" I'm Barbara Boxer: a Jewish, liberal feminist from California,..."Whereas Bernie Sanders
calls me 'the establishment'. Have you seen Bernie Sanders rallies? I haven't seen that many white
voters since the Oscars ."
Make that NEO-liberal not liberal that seems to be happy keeping people like you in power.
It's hard for Bernie to get his message across to people that want change but vote the same old,
same old people in. Please tell us how much better the black situation improved with that attitude
the last 7 years? It will only get worse under Hillary. Of course she is an expert at pandering
so she'll get the older black and older feminist votes. Bernie has great appeal to both of that
sector's younger voters that want real change.
"Even in the states where Clinton won handily, like Texas, Virginia, and Georgia, Sanders still
won handily with his core constituencies - voters aged 18 to 29, first-time primary voters, and
independents. According to NBC News' exit polls, Sanders won young voters by a 30-point margin
in Texas, 39 points in Virginia, 13 points in Georgia, and even captured the youth vote in Clinton's
home state of Arkansas, where Bill Clinton served as governor, by 24 points. Among first-time
primary voters, Sanders won by, again, 30 points in Texas and 8 points in Virginia. And Sanders
captured independent voters by 16 points in both Texas and Virginia, 3 points in Georgia, 13 points
in Tennessee, and 17 points in Arkansas."
I'm black and I and many black people I know voted for Sanders, so to represent him as a for whites
only candidate is really an unfair angle for covering him. But unfair media coverage is hardly
a new complaint. If the media had spent even half of the time it spent on Trump or Clinton, Bernie
and his issues might be better known by more people.
In any case, I have voted for Bernie and he's the only candidate I'm voting for this year.
I'll write his name in for the general election if I have to, but I'm not voting for that other
person, the fake Bernie.
"Regardless of how well Bernie does today, the media will say Hillary is now the Democratic
candidate. Baloney. The "momentum" theory of politics is based on momentum stories the media itself
generates. Don't succumb to the "momentum" game. Regardless of what happens today, this race is
still very much alive, for at least 3 reasons:
1. In the next few months the primary map starts tilting in Bernie's favor: In later March: Maine,
Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Arizona, Washington state, and Hawaii. In April: Wisconsin,
New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island. In May: Indiana and Oregon. In June,
California, New Jersey, and New Mexico.
2, Small-donor contributions continue to flow in to Bernie's campaign. In February, the campaign
raised a whopping $42 million. South Carolina's loss didn't stop the flow: The campaign received
$6 million on Monday alone.
3. Bernie's campaign is a movement. Americans know we must get big money out of politics and take
back our economy from an incipient oligarchy. That's why Bernie will take this movement all the
way to the Democratic convention in, July 25-28 in Philadelphia (you might make plans to be there,
too)."
And they shouldn't be doing that. I think part of that frustration comes from people that HAVE
been supportive of solving problems black commumities face, and feeling like there's no mutual
cohesion and solidarity in return (I've cared about this stuff long before Sanders came onto the
national scene). At least that was how I initially felt when I saw the election results. I know
that there are tons of different opinions out there, and I can't speak for everyone.
A shame that the black community doesn't seem to want to get behind Bernie. It's too bad Martin
Luther King isn't still around to give an endorsement. I don't think there's much doubt who it'd
go to. People tend to forget he'd become a bit of a radical leftist by the end.
If you want to see politically organized racism at work , look no farther than Clinton surrogate
Debra Wasserman- Schultz recent activities to encourage abusive payday lending in Fla.
This coming from the leader of the DNC and Clinton's hand-picked former campaign manager....
And yes Black minorites have been deceived by their own leaders who are in the Clinton machine
pockets to the detriment of their constituents. When black community leaders are promised big
donations from the Clinton Foundation , is it any surprise that they exhort their followers to
vote the Clinton line? "legalized bribery"Jimmy Carter calls it....
And Clinton has the chutzpah to claim the Obama mantle... and raising minority anger at Trump
and paint Sanders black at the same time. Her spin doctors like Barbara Boxer are working overtime.
Quite incredible that such mis-direction has been so successfull until now.
The only hope we have that this creature will not reach the WH is that she is her own worst
enemy and may yet fall at the gate.
The establishment are TERRIFIED of Sanders - because with Hillary they know they can control her
with money! Just listen to her speech last night, and it literally was a compilation of platitudes!
In terms of speaking without actually saying anything she is as bad as Trump!
Does ANYONE actually know what she stands for ? Is she FOR or AGAINST gun control? Is she the
'08 Annie Oakley Clinton, or 16 Anti-gun Clinton? The '10 anti-gay marriage or the '16 Pro gay
marriage?
She has e-mails PROVING she has been actively campaigning FOR nafta and TTIP! And let's not
forget the time bomb of the corruption scandal in the Clinton foundation! She "forgot" to include
$1 million dollars in foreign contributions - and this was what has been found so far!
She is a liability - an empty suit. She wants power for power's sake! She simply is UNFIT for
purpose
Fast running out of patience with the Guardian and its bias for Clinton. This article is biased,
it is rooted in hunches. This article follows Richard Wollfe's biased opinion piece. Where is
the pro Sanders opinion piece? How about looking at some numbers: The author is basing a lot on
South Carolina. It is not very important since it will go for the GOP in the general. If you look
at the total number of votes cast for Sanders and Clinton and compare them to any one of the 3
GOP leaders, then it is clear that the democrats have no hope in the state. Then look at New Hampshire
which will be a battleground state and look at Bernie's win there. Most of these southern states
came together early and bias the number of wins toward Clinton. There are 35 primaries to go.
Barack Obama for example lost Boston by a bigger margin than Sanders in 2008. Now in the next
few weeks we have a lot of states Bernie will do well in. Look at the donations pouring into Bernie,
look at the marches for him that are not covered. Look at the statement of the author here that
it is unfair to call African Americans in SC uninformed and blame the media for not covering Sanders
enough there. Well, what was to blame, there were a significant number of voters interviewed leaving
the polls in SC who had never heard of Sanders. Is there not some onus on a voter to watch a debate
before voting to at least get some impression of the candidates?
I am a loyal Guardian reader but this is complete bias. I recommend Democracy Now! and The Young
Turks for unbiased and detailed news.
Well, the elites of the NAACP are trying their best to turn Hillary into the nations third black
President after Bill and Obama. Maybe they can get her to promise she won't sign another draconian
Welfare Reform Bill like her husband did, causing an explosion of children and families living
below the poverty line. Or maybe she will promise not to sign another Omnibus federal crime bill
like the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, giving us the three strikes law and setting
mandatory sentences that impacted the black community more so then the whites who were incarcerated.
But then again she was Bills strongest advisor. Its too late for them to ask her not to support
another awful trade bill like NAFTA, that destroyed manufacturing, because she has given her full
throsted support to TPP which will impact negatively on all segments of the population and takes
us back to the good old days of deregulating banks and insurance companies ,extending patents
to pharmaceutical companies to limit access to affordable generic drugs,send high paying jobs
overseas to low wage countries, attack labor and consumer safety, just for starters. This is what
the NAACP is now supporting. All minority groups will be effected. Following the elites of groups
desperate to hold on to power at the expense of their members is now considered just politics.
Sanders policies are not just for whites, but are for everyone. They are the same as he has fought
for forty years. That is why he is fighting not only Hillary, but the Super delegates, and the
rich and powerful. A novel idea, government of the people, for the people and by the people is
what Sanders stands for. But its all the people.
and the article completely ignores that lewis backtracked, instead describing him as "pointing
out" as if there were no factual dispute. it's as dishonest as the wolfe article this morning.
Barbara Boxer is just stirring up the black vote in favor of her pal.
Meanwhile, the reality is that Sanders is the most electable Democrat due to electoral dynamics
:
From Real Clear Politics :
Ms. Clinton won 4 Southern states that have not voted for a Democrat in the presidential elections
since before Nixon. Mr. Sanders won 4 states that are reliable Democratic in the general election.
In the general election, almost all states are winner take all for electoral delegates, so winning
southerns states in the primary is meaningless for a Democrat in the grand scheme of things, which
is the November general election. They essentially tied in Mass. She kicked his ass in Virginia.
Objectively, he is still the best bet for taking the White House.
"
So yes , she won the Alabama vote big . and Texas ... but neither Texas nor Alabama nor many Southern
states will vote Democrat in the general and she has no hope of this.
"... Equality in America has been falling since 1980's, real terms median income falling since 1999. Black or white, America was a more equal more livable place 20-30 years ago. ..."
"... You should speak for yourself. Look at the economic data for American GDP, Inequality and real terms household income. The economy used to work better for the average American. Rising income trends have been reversed by globalisation and automation, not by increasing diversity. Why should American voters trust mainstream candidates who simply repeat the same failed messages they have stuck to for the last generation? ..."
"... median household incomes in America peaked (in real terms) around 1999 and inequality has been rising since 1980. The drivers of this are automation and globalisation, not increasing diversity. ..."
"... Yeah, my family has white privilege- write a play about this. My great-great grandfather served two enlistments in the northern army of the Civil war to free the slaves. Lucky for him, he survived and I got to be born 90 years later. Many of his friends died and their entire future family line got cut off. I dare say that tens of millions of white Americans never got to be born, because their kin fought and died in the Civil war to free the slaves. I don't think blacks today appreciate the blood sacrifice that was made by northern whites to free them. ..."
"... The Southern Baptist church attended by millions of African-Americans, with its traditional, creationist, homophobic platform, is far more representative of African-American culture than is the select group of playwrights listed in the article. ..."
It took how many years to come up with the appalling misconception that blue collar steel workers
benefited from any type of "supremacy" unless you believe that having a job that pays enough to
put a roof over your family's heads and food on the table should be beyond the reach of all but
a selected few....Blue collar workers have only ever aspired to keeping their kids in school as
long as possible and neither they nor their kids ever had any designs on a college education.
Word hard, pay the bills, retire, and die within five years. I don't know in what world that translates
to white privelege or advantage, especially when they worked with African Americans and Latinos.
Now politicians promise every child a college education. If you can't understand the difference
between this generation that has been told the world is their oyster and the ones who worked in
the Steel mills for generations and knew what their kids could look forward, knew that college
was beyond the modest aspirations of their kids and their grandkids you didn't ask the right questions
or the right people and the result is an ideologically driven mess of race baiting, sexist claptrap.
Get used to being called on your bullsh*t. We all need to check our privilege when we write about
race. Talk about entitlement.
The tough part for me is constantly hearing about what the President did or didn't do. The US
government is structured specifically to limit the actions of the executive branch. The conditions
of the economic disaster were exacerbated by the unparalleled obstructionism of the opposition
party and the lack of support from the president's own party. If Democrats had been willing to
oppose a sitting president back in '03 we might have avoided a bankrupting war that still has
not ended.
Not really. Equality in America has been falling since 1980's, real terms median income falling
since 1999. Black or white, America was a more equal more livable place 20-30 years ago.
For sure it was better to be white then black but since you can never really measure the extent
of white privilege on your own life, how can you have nostalgia for it?
The writer claims that current political events are being shaped by a chimaera she can provide
no evidence for and ignoring the very real changes that could be driving the political shifts
toward more radical candidates.
You should speak for yourself. Look at the economic data for American GDP, Inequality and
real terms household income. The economy used to work better for the average American. Rising
income trends have been reversed by globalisation and automation, not by increasing diversity.
Why should American voters trust mainstream candidates who simply repeat the same failed messages
they have stuck to for the last generation?
Trump is insane, of course, but voting for Hillary or Cruz is equally insane for most of middle
America. They would effectively be voting to see their incomes go down and to fall further behind
the wealthiest. Why is that a good decision?
For sure there is nostalgia: nostalgia for the time when middle class incomes were enough to provide
a decent lifestyle, were expected to rise and provide enough to pay for your kids to get a decent
education. The writer then frames this as nostalgia for white privilege, but I have to question
that. Surely the expectation was that as discrimination was rolled back, ethnic minorities would
start to come up and equalise their incomes with the white population. After all, that is what
every mainstream politician promised would happen. But median household incomes in America
peaked (in real terms) around 1999 and inequality has been rising since 1980. The drivers of this
are automation and globalisation, not increasing diversity.
And *every* US president and political party has dissembled on this point. Every time, the
promise is the same - we can get back to the rising incomes and increasing equality of the last
century. And every time, nothing of the sort is delivered.
So if there is nostalgia, it not only has a very real basis in fact, but is a nostalgia for
a time when economic gains were distributed more equally, not a nostalgia for a time when white
privilege (whatever that means) was a greater force.
Sanders and Trump both represent a break from politicians and messages that have palpably failed
to deliver. The voters put up with being lied to for some time but their patience has run out.
Of course Trump can be portrayed as an out and out racist, so its easy to say - well his support
is based on race politics. I have no doubt that many do support him for that reason. But the wider
picture is this:
The American voters feel they have been lied to by established politicians and are now looking
for alternatives. If they have nostalgia for times past, that is founded not on a dream of white
supremacy, but founded on a recollection of times when the economy did work better for the majority.
Yeah, my family has white privilege- write a play about this. My great-great grandfather served
two enlistments in the northern army of the Civil war to free the slaves. Lucky for him, he survived
and I got to be born 90 years later. Many of his friends died and their entire future family line
got cut off. I dare say that tens of millions of white Americans never got to be born, because
their kin fought and died in the Civil war to free the slaves. I don't think blacks today appreciate
the blood sacrifice that was made by northern whites to free them.
They now realize their automatic entitlement to being consequential is gone
What the hell are you talking about? My father didn't have any damn " entitlement to
being consequential". He worked his heart out for it, day in and out, and I was proud to do it
alongside him.
Maybe instead of just applying a racist take on perspective, why not think about what you write
first? And why is it that every time - every. single. time - this topic comes up that someone
widens the gap of guilt to the entirety of white people generally? Where's the border for you?
Canada? The UK? Latvia? What is enough of a geographic guilt complex for your needs? Let us know.
The Southern Baptist church attended by millions of African-Americans, with its traditional,
creationist, homophobic platform, is far more representative of African-American culture than
is the select group of playwrights listed in the article.
the fact that the more academically qualified white female has less chance of getting a place
in harvard than a wealthy African-American, is hardly the fault of African Americans or any form
of reverse racism, it s the fault of first Harvard being a private university that caters to economic
elites, the lack of funding in education and that education is handled at the local level, so
funding and quality depend greatly on the education level of the local community and how wealthy
they are. This perpetuates inequalities. Still, if you put this hypothetical white female from
Harlan County in nice clothes and send her to a fancy mall, together with an equally well dressed
young black woman, who do you think security will follow?
There are also studies where equal CV were sent to potential employers, with the only difference
being white, latino, asian or African American sounding names, and the white sounding names were
picked more often, everything else being equal.
It is time that you realize that racism is a real thing and no, working class whites 't doing
poorly because of minorities, they are doing poorly (together with minorities) because of the
economic system. Unless of course, you think that whites should do better, because, well, they
are whites. The later is what I think the nostalgia is all about, 50 years ago white would have
had an edge over minorities that today no longer have in most places.
This woman is so so wise and enlightened that that her extreme intellect has crossed the line
on insanity. Liberals like her will do their best to herd the rest of us into believing that only
white working class men are attracted to people like trump and it's only because they are racists.
No no lady bone head.
First of all, you and your elitists, pompous and supposed educated comrades need to stop using
the race card overtime you find someone you disagree with. Secondly, Trump has attracted the attention
on a multitude of people across all facets of our society and it's not because we are racists,
it't because he at least vocalizes, inspire of all of your absurd PC proclamations, facts that
the majority of us Americans know and see each day.
By the way, I am an American with brown skin who's ancestry is African and I appreciate most
of what Trump espouses. So please stop trying to make the rest of us fear and hate white working
class men just because you've fantasized about their hatred toward you. You and your kind (elitists
liberals) will no longer lead me down the path of destruction.
Exactly, all the places that hit rock bottom during the crack epidemic are on their way up now
just in time to start attracting people back from the suburban and peri-urban sprawl with its
body and soul weakening car dependent isolation.
Cities like New York and DC are way ahead of surrounding areas in providing public services
and creating sustainable buildings plus car-less ways of getting around.
While we would be the first
to admit that Jeffrey Sachs was the godfather of "shock therapy" (aka "the economic rape of Russia"
and several other xUSSR republics), he is right as for the ongoing Syria bloodbath which has come to
define the geopolitical situation for the past 3 years. And how this is an event that would "surely
rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment" if the truth were fully known, we
agree 100 percent.
Notable quotes:
"... Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead. ..."
"... As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad, or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic and misguided for that reason. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East, view Iran, the leading Shia power, as a regional rival for power and influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable foe that controls Hezbollah, a Shi'a militant group operating in Lebanon, a border state of Israel. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all clamored to remove Iran's influence in Syria. ..."
"... And Israeli right-wingers are naïve, and deeply ignorant of history, to regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken view pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists. ..."
"... Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat, Iran. In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between Israel and Syria to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran's influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad. ..."
"... When the unrest of the Arab Spring broke out in early 2011, the CIA and the anti-Iran front of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey saw an opportunity to topple Assad quickly and thereby to gain a geopolitical victory. Clinton became the leading proponent of the CIA-led effort at Syrian regime change. ..."
"... Clinton has been much more than a bit player in the Syrian crisis. Her diplomat Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi was killed as he was running a CIA operation to ship Libyan heavy weapons to Syria. Clinton herself took the lead role in organizing the so-called "Friends of Syria" to back the CIA-led insurgency. ..."
"... This instrument of U.S. foreign policy has not only been in stark violation of international law but has also been a massive and repeated failure. Rather than a single, quick, and decisive coup d'état resolving a US foreign policy problem, each CIA-led regime change has been, almost inevitably, a prelude to a bloodbath. How could it be otherwise? Other societies don't like their countries to be manipulated by U.S. covert operations. ..."
"... And where is the establishment media in this debacle? The New York Times finally covered a bit of this story last month in describing the CIA-Saudi connection , in which Saudi funds are used to pay for CIA operations in order to make an end-run around Congress and the American people. The story ran once and was dropped. Yet the Saudi funding of CIA operations is the same basic tactic used by Ronald Reagan and Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s (with Iranian arms sales used to fund CIA-led covert operations in Central America without consent or oversight by the American people). ..."
"... Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in deploying this instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today. ..."
"... Many historians believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of his peace overtures to the Soviet Union, overture he made against the objections of hardline rightwing opposition in the CIA and other parts of the U.S. government. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of comprehension, in facing down the CIA She has been the CIA's relentless supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by supporting every one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are relentlessly hidden from view. Clinton is a danger to global peace. She has much to answer for regarding the disaster in Syria. ..."
"... She is totally unqualified, a disaster of a secretary of state, has incredibly poor judgement is a terrible candidate and should never be allowed to serve in any government capacity - EVER. ..."
"... Well said. Hillary is a warmonger neocon just like Bush/McCain/Graham/Cheney. Trump and Bernie are not. ..."
"... Pundits do not realize when they heap praises at Hillary Clinton's debate performances that ordinary people watching cannot get past her lack of trustworthiness and her dishonesty; and that whatever she says is viewed in that context and is therefore worthless. ..."
"... It's dismaying that the blowback from the 1953 CIA-assisted overthrow of Mossadegh is still behind the instability of the Middle East, and that we have continued to commit the same mistakes over and over. Can't we just get rid of this agency? ..."
"... The CIA repeated this stunt in Vietnam 10 years after the Mossadegh mess and have been doing it at least once every decade since then. In every case, it has been a failure. How supporting that nonsense is seen as foreign policy experience, I'll never know. ..."
"... Hillary helped facilitate the arming of terrorists in Syria in 2010 and 2011. She as far as I al concerned, Hillary supported the deaths of Syrians and terrorism. So why on earth would I want her to be president? Hello? ..."
"... More like a continuance of a disaster deferred. Thanks to John Kerry cleaning up the mess of her disastrous term as SoS. Syria is still a mess, but he has been working his butt off to be every bit of diplomat that Hillary was not. ..."
"... she was for an all out invasion by the USA into Syria to remove Assad. She, John McCain, and Linsey Graham had to settle for just arming the Al Queda and IS for the time being. ..."
"... Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc DC corruption used to bring down regimes that have continually destabilized America & the world. ..."
"... Where & Why was Obama & Holder not as directly held accountable in this discussion. Trump rightfully points that Americans have died for nothing yet the villains who are the catalysts of these atrocities still have jobs & stature in US. America needs to be rebooted once again & bring in leadership not buoyed by greed. power & indifference of those before him. ..."
"... The problem here really is the fact that Americans bitch and don't vote every election and this has let money just walk in and buy more influence, you want a real revolution, ..."
"... That is about it, Clinton is a repub in dem clothing and the US is the biggest threat to world peace when it can not get its way in another countries politics or to get them to follow the US master plan that mainly supports the US's goal. ..."
"... what makes her so maddeningly hawkish? what credentials she has that her peace-loving supporters believe that she can lead the US/world for peace? wake-up, and let's get united behind bernie. ..."
"... They believe the mythology that if women ruled the world it would be a better place...I beg to differ....Margaret Thatcher, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I were not exactly peace lovers... ..."
"... years ago I was shocked to see that there were women members of the KKK. So much for women by their gender alone saving the world. ..."
"... But let us not forget Hillary Clinton's "regime change" record in Ukraine with Victoria "Fuc# the E.U.!" Nuland, wife of Neocon Robert Kagan and an Under Secretary of Hillary Clinton's at The State Department. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's fingerprints are all over Ukraine: ..."
"... Yes, Somehow the so-called MSM refuses to expose the continuing debacle of our worldwide acts of Terrorism! The failure after failure of "our" military establishment such as targeted assassinations ..."
"... Further it is American war industry in partnership with our military that is arming the world with military grade weapon systems, tons and tons of munitions, and training to use them for such terror weapons as IEDs. It is MSM control by the establishment that enables the failures of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Obama, Clinton to treat horrendous failures as successes! ..."
"... Hillary Clinton supporters don't care, they don't care that she could be a felon nor do they care she is owned by Wall Street and many other corporate special interest, they just don't care. ..."
"... Up here in New Hampshire, we soundly rejected untrustworthy, dishonest, disingenuous and corrupt Hillary, we just wish the rest of the nation had as much time to get to know the candidates as we had up here! ..."
In the
Milwaukee debate, Hillary Clinton took pride in her role in a recent UN Security Council resolution
on a Syrian ceasefire:
But I would add this. You know, the Security Council finally got around to adopting a resolution.
At the core of that resolution is an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva, which set
forth a cease-fire and moving toward a political resolution, trying to bring the parties at stake
in Syria together.
This is the kind of compulsive misrepresentation that makes Clinton unfit to be President. Clinton's
role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close.
In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special
Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence - Clinton's intransigence - that led to the failure of
Annan's peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats. Despite Clinton's
insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage.
Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10
million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead.
As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad,
or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic
and misguided for that reason.
Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East, view Iran, the leading
Shia power, as a regional rival for power and influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable
foe that controls Hezbollah, a Shi'a militant group operating in Lebanon, a border state of Israel.
Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all clamored to remove Iran's influence in Syria.
This idea is incredibly naïve. Iran has been around as a regional power for a long time--in fact,
for about 2,700 years. And Shia Islam is not going away. There is no way, and no reason, to "defeat"
Iran. The regional powers need to forge a geopolitical equilibrium that recognizes the mutual and
balancing roles of the Gulf Arabs, Turkey, and Iran. And Israeli right-wingers are naïve, and
deeply ignorant of history, to regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken
view pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists.
Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing
Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat, Iran. In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between
Israel and Syria
to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran's influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton
pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad.
When the unrest of the Arab Spring broke out in early 2011, the CIA and the anti-Iran front
of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey saw an opportunity to topple Assad quickly and thereby to gain
a geopolitical victory. Clinton became the leading proponent of the CIA-led effort at Syrian regime
change.
In early 2011, Turkey and Saudi Arabia leveraged local protests against Assad to try to foment
conditions for his ouster. By the spring of 2011, the CIA and the US allies were organizing an armed
insurrection against the regime. On August 18, 2011, the US Government
made public
its position: "Assad must go."
Since then and until the
recent fragile UN Security Council accord, the US has refused to agree to any ceasefire unless
Assad is first deposed. The US policy--under Clinton and until recently--has been: regime change
first, ceasefire after. After all, it's only Syrians who are dying. Annan's peace efforts were sunk
by the United States' unbending insistence that U.S.-led regime change must precede or at least accompany
a ceasefire. As the
Nation editors
put it in August 2012:
The US demand that Assad be removed and sanctions be imposed before negotiations could seriously
begin, along with the refusal to include Iran in the process, doomed [Annan's] mission.
The U.S. policy was a massive, horrific failure. Assad did not go, and was not defeated. Russia
came to his support. Iran came to his support. The mercenaries sent in to overthrow him were themselves
radical jihadists with their own agendas. The chaos opened the way for the Islamic State, building
on disaffected Iraqi Army leaders (deposed by the US in 2003), on captured U.S. weaponry, and on
the considerable backing by Saudi funds. If the truth were fully known, the multiple scandals
involved would surely rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment.
The hubris of the United States in this approach seems to know no bounds. The tactic of CIA-led
regime change is so deeply enmeshed as a "normal" instrument of U.S. foreign policy that it is hardly
noticed by the U.S. public or media. Overthrowing another government is against the U.N. charter
and international law. But what are such niceties among friends?
This instrument of U.S. foreign policy has not only been in stark violation of international
law but has also been a massive and repeated failure. Rather than a single, quick, and decisive coup
d'état resolving a US foreign policy problem, each CIA-led regime change has been, almost inevitably,
a prelude to a bloodbath. How could it be otherwise? Other societies don't like their countries to
be manipulated by U.S. covert operations.
Removing a leader, even if done "successfully," doesn't solve any underlying geopolitical problems,
much less ecological, social, or economic ones. A coup d'etat invites a civil war, the kind that
now wracks Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It invites a hostile international response, such
as Russia's backing of its Syrian ally in the face of the CIA-led operations. The record of misery
caused by covert CIA operations literally fills volumes at this point. What surprise, then, the Clinton
acknowledges Henry Kissinger as a mentor and guide?
And where is the establishment media in this debacle? The New York Times finally covered a
bit of this story last month in
describing the CIA-Saudi connection, in which Saudi funds are used to pay for CIA operations
in order to make an end-run around Congress and the American people. The story ran once and was dropped.
Yet the Saudi funding of CIA operations is the same basic tactic used by Ronald Reagan and Oliver
North in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s (with Iranian arms sales used to fund CIA-led covert
operations in Central America without consent or oversight by the American people).
Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in deploying this instrument
of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not
limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War
in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated
insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today.
It takes great presidential leadership to resist CIA misadventures. Presidents get along by going
along with arms contractors, generals, and CIA operatives. They thereby also protect themselves from
political attack by hardline right-wingers. They succeed by exulting in U.S. military might, not
restraining it. Many historians believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of his peace overtures
to the Soviet Union, overture he made against the objections of hardline rightwing opposition in
the CIA and other parts of the U.S. government.
Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of comprehension, in facing down
the CIA She has been the CIA's relentless supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by
supporting every one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are relentlessly hidden
from view. Clinton is a danger to global peace. She has much to answer for regarding the disaster
in Syria.
The people of the United States do not want that woman, Hillary Rodham Clinton to have relations
with the people of the United States. She is totally unqualified, a disaster of a secretary
of state, has incredibly poor judgement is a terrible candidate and should never be allowed to
serve in any government capacity - EVER.
Simple equation....war=money=power. Perpetual warfare is the post 911 gold rush and every establishment
politician in every country is the snake oil salesman pushing this through. The people on the
top make money and the rest of us get killed and go broke.
Max South
Not only the root cause, but also to-ols are important: now Western media/StateDep try depict
what happens in Syria as sectarian, all while majority of both Syrian army and government are
Sunni (even Assad's wife is Sunni) -- secular ones.
Syrian government is only hope for them, as well as for Christians, Kurds and all other ethnic
and religious minorities that fight against Wahhabi/Salafist jihadists.
Sanders' platform is expansive and IMO he has provided the most detail on how he will get things
done, which anyone can find out with a bit of investigation (http://berniesanders.com/issues/).
But all of it doesn't matter since you can't predict how events will unfold. In this regard, I
trust Sanders more than anyone else to decide what is best for all people in the the country (and
even the world). I personally will do well with anyone but I think Sanders is looking out for
the average person more than anyone else.
Pundits do not realize when they heap praises at Hillary Clinton's debate performances that
ordinary people watching cannot get past her lack of trustworthiness and her dishonesty; and that
whatever she says is viewed in that context and is therefore worthless.
It's dismaying that the blowback from the 1953 CIA-assisted overthrow of Mossadegh is still behind
the instability of the Middle East, and that we have continued to commit the same mistakes over
and over. Can't we just get rid of this agency?
Bijan Sharifi
as an iranian-american (and veteran), i appreciate sen sanders bringing this up in the debate.
Bijan Sharifi Indeed. The CIA repeated this stunt in Vietnam 10 years after the Mossadegh mess
and have been doing it at least once every decade since then. In every case, it has been a failure.
How supporting that nonsense is seen as foreign policy experience, I'll never know.
Hillary helped facilitate the arming of terrorists in Syria in 2010 and 2011. She as far as I
al concerned, Hillary supported the deaths of Syrians and terrorism. So why on earth would I want
her to be president? Hello?
More like a continuance of a disaster deferred. Thanks to John Kerry cleaning up the mess of her
disastrous term as SoS. Syria is still a mess, but he has been working his butt off to be every bit of diplomat that
Hillary was not. As soon as she returns to office expect more of her warfare first and diplomacy 'meh'.
Gary Pack
Ignacio, she was for an all out invasion by the USA into Syria to remove Assad. She, John McCain,
and Linsey Graham had to settle for just arming the Al Queda and IS for the time being.
This is what Trump has been alluding to in re Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc DC corruption used to
bring down regimes that have continually destabilized America & the world.
Where & Why was Obama
& Holder not as directly held accountable in this discussion. Trump rightfully points that Americans
have died for nothing yet the villains who are the catalysts of these atrocities still have jobs
& stature in US. America needs to be rebooted once again & bring in leadership not buoyed by greed.
power & indifference of those before him.
James Elliott cheerleading will not get anything done, I don't think Bernie understands how to
get things done in our system, reality is 40 years of bad will not be fixed in even 4 years.
The problem here really is the fact that Americans bitch and don't vote every election
and this has let money just walk in and buy more influence, you want a real revolution,
vote every election you are alive and you will let your children and their children a better
life.
Harvey Riggs
That is about it, Clinton is a repub in dem clothing and the US is the biggest threat to world
peace when it can not get its way in another countries politics or to get them to follow the US
master plan that mainly supports the US's goal.
More messes in this world has been started with covert means in order to get what we want and
millions upon milllions are suffering and the rest of the world countries 1'%ers who run those
countries are scared to stand up aguinst the US and lose that under the table support.
what makes her so maddeningly hawkish? what credentials she has that her peace-loving supporters
believe that she can lead the US/world for peace? wake-up, and let's get united behind bernie.
They believe the mythology that if women ruled the world it would be a better place...I beg to
differ....Margaret Thatcher, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I were not exactly peace lovers...
Additionally, years ago I was shocked to see that there were women members of the KKK. So much
for women by their gender alone saving the world.
Sheila Rajan
Looking at the various misguided US excursions over the past 2 decades from outside of America,
this comes as no surprise. Clinton's deep involvement in these venal adventures comes as no surprise
either. Bill Clinton may have been adored in liberal America, but he was NOT, outside of your
borders. To us he appeared as just another one in a long line of Presidents under the sway of
the arms manufacturers, CIA, banks and financiers. Hillary Clinton is just an offshoot.
But let us not forget Hillary Clinton's "regime change" record in Ukraine
with Victoria "Fuc# the E.U.!" Nuland, wife of Neocon Robert Kagan and an Under Secretary of Hillary
Clinton's at The State Department.
Hillary Clinton's fingerprints are all over Ukraine:
Yes, Somehow the so-called MSM refuses to expose the continuing debacle of our worldwide acts
of Terrorism! The failure after failure of "our" military establishment such as targeted assassinations
as an official policy using drones, black ops, spec ops, military "contractors", hired mercenaries,
war lord militias and the like; the illegal and immoral acts of war cloaked in the Israeli framed
rubric of "national defense".
Further it is American war industry in partnership with our military that is arming the
world with military grade weapon systems, tons and tons of munitions, and training to use them
for such terror weapons as IEDs. It is MSM control by the establishment that enables the failures
of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Obama, Clinton to treat horrendous failures as successes!
Hillary Clinton supporters don't care, they don't care that she could be a felon nor do they
care she is owned by Wall Street and many other corporate special interest, they just don't care.
Up here in New Hampshire, we soundly rejected untrustworthy, dishonest, disingenuous and corrupt
Hillary, we just wish the rest of the nation had as much time to get to know the candidates as
we had up here!
"... The American public has been living under collective Stockholm syndrome. The have secretly been deceived and betrayed while our freedoms, rights and national security has been compromised. The surveillance state was never for our protection. ..."
"... Various rogue agencies have intentionally and illegally subverted our constitution, rights and freedoms while secretly targeting Americans committing various crimes, including murder. ..."
"... When Clapper says "they might" then they are already doing so. ..."
"... Tea party never was. It always was promoted by the media and big business. Financed by the same. Look at the coverage: Occupy was ridiculed by big Media into no existence. Not the same at all. ..."
"... USSR has won! Now we treat our people the same way they did. Soon we can blackmail everyone into compliance. And we can easily plant evidence should we not find any - if they're in they can do anything they want. ..."
"... She is an opportunist, not a feminist. ..."
"... Ban Ki Moon and the Pope saying capitalism is destroying the life AND economy of the entire fricken globe, may be an opportunity for a popular movement, and this Bernie thing has the potential to be part of a wake up moment. ..."
"... I said I wouldn't ever do that again after O'bummer, but as Woodie Guthrie said, Hope is what makes us human and is the driver of evolution. Or something like that. ..."
"... You lost me on "equality is women having all the same opportunities as men". Actually many of us want entirely different "opportunities" and these women who play the patriarch, like Thatcher and Rice, and Shillary, do not represent the diverse and rich culture of "feminism" that is enmeshed in people's real lives. ..."
"... I'm an aussie and I can tell you America Bernie Sanders is what you need to keep you guys from becoming a laughing stock. Hillary, trump is on the same brush as the elitist of your country. Bernie may or not be able to do what he wants to as he will get stonewalled but if everyone is united and keeps fighting with him they will have no choice to implement some of them. ..."
The American public has been living under collective Stockholm syndrome. The have secretly
been deceived and betrayed while our freedoms, rights and national security has been compromised.
The surveillance state was never for our protection.
Various rogue agencies have intentionally and illegally subverted our constitution, rights
and freedoms while secretly targeting Americans committing various crimes, including murder.
I'll say this, if this inevitable surveillance can prevent actual criminals from committing
actual crimes, it might be useful.
And I'll say this: if that is the intention of these devices - and if your bog-standard criminal
is ever caught using them - I'll eat your smart fridge.
Tea party never was. It always was promoted by the media and big business. Financed by the same.
Look at the coverage: Occupy was ridiculed by big Media into no existence. Not the same at all.
USSR has won! Now we treat our people the same way they did. Soon we can blackmail everyone into
compliance. And we can easily plant evidence should we not find any - if they're in they can do
anything they want.
Hear ya, I plan to hold him to the fire. I'm a realist, and married to an uber realist, so not
gonna argue with ya here, but, as this article actually says really well, is that the holistic
embrace of all inequity opens the landscape to the big conversations we do Need to have right
now.
I know i know, the UN is at one hand a weak tool and on the other a NWO franchise, but
Ban Ki Moon and the Pope saying capitalism is destroying the life AND economy of the entire fricken
globe, may be an opportunity for a popular movement, and this Bernie thing has the potential to
be part of a wake up moment.
I have let my Hope thing vibrate a bit, and I said I wouldn't ever
do that again after O'bummer, but as Woodie Guthrie said, Hope is what makes us human and is the
driver of evolution. Or something like that.
You lost me on "equality is women having all the same opportunities as men". Actually many of
us want entirely different "opportunities" and these women who play the patriarch, like Thatcher
and Rice, and Shillary, do not represent the diverse and rich culture of "feminism" that is enmeshed
in people's real lives.
I'm an aussie and I can tell you America Bernie Sanders is what you need to keep you guys from
becoming a laughing stock. Hillary, trump is on the same brush as the elitist of your country.
Bernie may or not be able to do what he wants to as he will get stonewalled but if everyone is
united and keeps fighting with him they will have no choice to implement some of them.
As an Aussie
it is important that his message is heard and implemented as America can then show the world there
is good in the world and that we all can live in a fair, just and equal world. Something America
has stopped showing for a very longtime. This hopefully will filter down to other countries as
America rightly or wrongly leads the world and many countries do follow suit.
"... Spot on. The Republican party is about corporatism and the "1%". They are irrelevant to nearly all the American public apart from democrat haters. The GOP might as well be a corpse. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's always going on and on about her "Proven track record" at the State Dept....where she set Libya on fire, for example.....unlike her competitor, Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... Dear Lord, please let the American people not vote in anyone from the GOP side as president in 2016 ..."
"... Okay, my prayer skills are a bit rusty, I admit, but you get the idea. ..."
"... Anyhow, Donald Trump reminds me more and more of Italy's media mogul/politician Silvio Berlusconi -- maybe it's just my eyes playing tricks on me, but he is even starting to LOOK more and more like that man, what with the many faces he makes and the populist theatricality and all. Trump offers no substance in terms of policy, but he clearly has an intuitive grasp of how the major media outlets will respond to and cover his every move. ..."
"... I wonder if this column was written before or after the subject events. It is so trite meaningless and predictable he must have written it in his sleep. ..."
"... Trump is a centre-right, and possibly even slightly left candidate. His grandstanding is for the core base. All candidates walk back toward the middle once they have to appeal to the national electorate. He's far more liberal than Cruz, who, I assure you, will set about undoing every last bit of progress for working people and women that managed to creep forward over the last eight years, starting with health care, Medicare, and Social Security. ..."
"... You have to separate out Trump's grandstanding with his east coast New York roots. It's actually Trump who has brought up single-payer health care and some brutal talk about Wall Street. I would wager a month's salary that Trump and Mrs Clinton are not too far apart on how they would govern. And you forget that Congress is involved as well. ..."
"... The hyperbole is meaningless. So far, Jeb Bush's brother and his Vice President have done more damage to the US and the world than I would guess Trump would do in 20 years. ..."
"... And do remember on whose watch NAFTA, that infamous "ending welfare as we know it", the equally infamous DOMA, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which paved the way for The Big Short were passed: dear old Bill Clinton. ..."
"... The media is trusted by the public about as much as bankers and politicians. Trump sticking it to FOX not only didn't get him "sidelined" it probably increased his support among the Republican base. ..."
"... Translation: Trump knows he already has the nomination locked up. Why should he give Cruz and Rubio an opportunity to attack him in a live debate? He made the smart move. Since 9/11 and the buildup to the war in Iraq, the media's only real job is political propaganda. ..."
"... As far as I know, Trump, Sanders and Obama were equally resentful because American businessmen are moving production abroad, thus leaving American workers out of work, and the state budget deprived of taxes that go also to foreign countries instead of remaining in the US. ..."
"... In addition, Trump also stands for a kind of economic protectionism, particularly in relation to China, bearing in mind "the urgent need to reduce the trade deficit with China", which is now about $ 500 billion a year, if I remembered well. ..."
"... So, it is interesting that the current as well as two of the possible future US presidents are pushing for some kind of protectionism of domestic production and economic isolationism that are completely contrary to previous commitment of the United States to free markets and free flow of capital in the world.However, taking into account the current economic crisis in the world, that from acute increasingly turns into some kind of chronic phase, it is perhaps not so surprising. ..."
"... The vast majority of the political elite, from Bush to Clinton, are there to further the agenda, as well as their own careers. In this way, you have Obama brought into to finish by proxy what Bush started by direct force. I.e the wrecking of any Nation State that opposes the neo-liberal economic system. ..."
"... They only exist in the spotlight for as long as they are tolerated in terms of their persona, until the public wise-up. It is then they go into their background role; the cushy and lucrative 'consulting' jobs they have been promised by the special interest 'think tanks' they already belong to; be it the Council of Foreign Relations, or the Bilderberg group; all funded by international banking cartels. ..."
"... Supposed 'right' or supposed 'left' of the mainstream media are just part and parcel of the same ultimate deception. ..."
"... Trump, although not perfect in his persona, is certainly a problem for the agenda: thus their attack dogs in the media have been called to take him out. ..."
"... It's amusing to see the attacks on Trump; who just for speaking his mind is starting to steadily resonate with a growing demographic, both at home and abroad. ..."
"... You'd never hear about it here of course; but he harshly denounced the invasion of Iraq, and was a big critic of Bush. ..."
"... He also seems to be the only one who understands that the majority of Americans needs real jobs – not some laughable concept of an 'ideas economy.' and is willing to fight for them on a trade level to ensure this. ..."
"... He is also the least likely to drag the US into dangerous conflicts, (proxy or otherwise) with those such as Russia – Sadly I can see some Guardian commentators already gunning for that. ..."
"... He is also not controlled by the usual financial ties to banking elites: Goldman & Sachs just gave Hillary $3 million – what's that then? Just pocket money? ..."
"... America isn't better than this - this IS America. The land of political dynasties and limitless corporate donations. Where a movie star became the President and a body builder a Governor. It doesn't even have a one-man-one vote voting system for heavens sake. ..."
"... It's kind of like Iranian 'democracy', where the Ayatollah picks out and approves 4-5 candidates, and then the Iranian people get to 'vote' for them. We do it a bit differently, in a society where we have freedom of speech, but the outcome always ends up the same, with 2 establishment, corporate, Wall street, military industrial complex, globalist 'free trade' choices for president. All approved by corporate America, our corporate and mainstream media and by Wall street, it always ends up like that. Like right now, there is no difference between Hillary, and establishment corporate Democrats like the Clintons, and the establishment Republicans like Rubio, Kasich or Bush, on all those really big and truly important issues. ..."
"... That thing about Cruz labelling Trump a Democrat is interesting. I'm sure most Democrats would be understandably offended by the suggestion, and I'm pretty sure Cruz doesn't actually believe it either. I haven't been following Trump's statements on policy closely at all, but from my general impression of him over the years, I always thought that, although he was clearly a dyed in the wool capitalist, he probably wasn't a social conservative. ..."
"... I can't help thinking he's just another wealthy, metropolitan businessman who probably didn't give a single toss about immigration, gay marriage, Islam or any of it, and if you pushed him probably would have been completely relaxed about all those issues. ..."
"... Tough for any GOP candidate to avoid the flip flops in fairness. Pro life gun nuts, military spending addicted defecit hawks, die hard defenders of the Constitution hell bent on removing church/state separation, defenders of the squeezed middle sucking on the teat of Murdoch and the Koch brothers.... A very high and skinny tight rope.... ..."
"... Trump won because these people have nothing people want to listen to. Nobody cares about Rubio or Bush flip flopping on immigration, because they have decided not to vote for them. ..."
"... People care about jobs and their dwindling opportunities. Trump talks populism. He talks about tariffs on manufacturers who moved jobs overseas. People like that. He said he thinks the US should have left Saddam Hussein in power. Every rational person today agrees with that. He says the US should have left Gaddafi in power. While not too many people think about that too much, if they do, they agree with that too. Especially once they learn about the domino effect it has had, such as the attack on the coffee shop in Burkina Faso a week ago or so. ..."
"... People have grown tired of war. All of the mainstream candidates want war because their campaigns depend on it. Bush's family has massive investment in the Carlisle Group and other players in the MIC. ..."
"... Trump made his money in real estate, not war. ..."
"... Not a Trump fan, but it is great to see someone with enough nous to tell Fox to go bite their bum. Good on him. We know from past experience what a sleazy old fart Rupert is and his fellow travelers in Fox are a good fit. The "moderators" are third rate journo's out to polish their image and try the bigmouth on the guy that 'may' become President. No need for Trump to take that kind of crap off of those sort of people. ..."
"... Cruz was attacked, got flustered and blew his opportunity. Trump's judgement turned out to be vindicated in not attending. Trump is currently the front runner and bearing in mind that the entire West is moving to the right it is quite likely that by the time of the election Trump may turn out to be closer to the mainstream. If there are further Islamic terrorist attacks on US soil then this will likely be a certainty. ..."
You could tell the Trumpless debate was an almost normal presidential event by the nature
of the closing statements.
Bland, clichéd, and frankly boring.
Zetenyagli -> benbache 29 Jan 2016 11:49
Trump won because these people have nothing people want to listen to.
Spot on. The Republican party is about corporatism and the "1%". They are irrelevant to
nearly all the American public apart from democrat haters. The GOP might as well be a corpse.
tonybillbob -> Commentator6 29 Jan 2016 11:31
Trump is currently the front runner and bearing in mind that the entire West is moving
to the right it is quite likely that by the time of the election Trump may turn out to be closer
to the mainstream.
Mainstream of what? The conservative movement? America? The globe?
tonybillbob 29 Jan 2016 11:25
Jeb Bush insisted several times that he had "a proven record", begging the question why
he needed to mention such a proven thing quite so many times.
Yeah!!! How come those who have a "proven track record" always have to remind folks that they
have a proven track record and usually follow that claim with "unlike my competitor"?
Hillary Clinton's always going on and on about her "Proven track record" at the State Dept....where
she set Libya on fire, for example.....unlike her competitor, Bernie Sanders.
And her "hands on experience" reforming banks....."Cut that out!!!!" ...another something she
has over Bernie Sanders. Another thing Clinton can say about herself is that she's made a huge
pile of 'speakin' fees' dough rubbin' elbows with bankers.....another something that Bernie can't
say about himself. And don't forget: Hillary's gonna color inside the lines because she's a realist.
She knows what Wall Street will approve of and what Wall Street won't approve of......Hillary's
unique in that regard....at least she thinks so, and claims that's why we should vote for her....because
she already knows what Wall Street will and won't allow a president to do.
simpledino 29 Jan 2016 11:23
Okay, Ted Cruz -- I'll gladly pray on the nation's decision. (Kneeling humbly): "Dear Lord,
please let the American people not vote in anyone from the GOP side as president in 2016.
Lord, hear my prayer -- let them choose either HIllary Clinton or Bernie Sanders (or even thy
faithful and honorable servant Martin O'Malley, who doesn't have a chance in .... oh never mind,
Lord...)."
Okay, my prayer skills are a bit rusty, I admit, but you get the idea.
Anyhow, Donald Trump reminds me more and more of Italy's media mogul/politician Silvio
Berlusconi -- maybe it's just my eyes playing tricks on me, but he is even starting to LOOK more
and more like that man, what with the many faces he makes and the populist theatricality and all.
Trump offers no substance in terms of policy, but he clearly has an intuitive grasp of how the
major media outlets will respond to and cover his every move.
Lafcadio1944 29 Jan 2016 11:15
I wonder if this column was written before or after the subject events. It is so trite
meaningless and predictable he must have written it in his sleep.
Cranios 29 Jan 2016 11:13
I was never warmly disposed toward Trump, but the more I hear him annoying the news media by
refusing to be frightened and dance to their tune, the more I am starting to like him.
tklhmd 29 Jan 2016 11:11
Managing to outfox Fox news is no mean feat, I'll give him that.
Tearoutthehairnow -> hawkchurch 29 Jan 2016 11:11
Trump is a centre-right, and possibly even slightly left candidate. His grandstanding is
for the core base. All candidates walk back toward the middle once they have to appeal to the
national electorate. He's far more liberal than Cruz, who, I assure you, will set about undoing
every last bit of progress for working people and women that managed to creep forward over the
last eight years, starting with health care, Medicare, and Social Security.
You have to separate out Trump's grandstanding with his east coast New York roots. It's
actually Trump who has brought up single-payer health care and some brutal talk about Wall Street.
I would wager a month's salary that Trump and Mrs Clinton are not too far apart on how they would
govern. And you forget that Congress is involved as well.
The hyperbole is meaningless. So far, Jeb Bush's brother and his Vice President have done
more damage to the US and the world than I would guess Trump would do in 20 years.
And do remember on whose watch NAFTA, that infamous "ending welfare as we know it", the
equally infamous DOMA, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which paved the way for The Big Short
were passed: dear old Bill Clinton.
Try analysis instead of hyperbole. It works wonders.
Tearoutthehairnow -> lefthalfback2 29 Jan 2016 11:06
I have been nonplussed from this end of things by how lackluster J. Bush's performance has
been - I can only assume that unconsciously, he really doesn't want it - because no one who really
wants it and has the advantage of his experience, access, and background, could possibly be turning
in this deadly a performance. It reeks of self-sabotage in the name of self-preservation. At of
course a huge cost in funds . . .
Tearoutthehairnow 29 Jan 2016 11:02
I was able to catch some US news - Trump not only wasn't "sidelined" as the other Guardian
article on last night's debate proclaimed, firstly he walked out of his own accord, and second,
he cut FOX's debate audience in half. Last night's debate attracted the lowest audience ratings
of all the Republican debates so far - approximately 11-12 million as opposed to the approximately
23 million the debates attracted when he participated. CNN did quite well covering the "other"
event.
And he's still leading in the polls among Republicans - including among Republican women according
to CNN, so the Guardian's recent article on these parties' only audience being "angry white men"
was, again, off the mark by including Trump and the US Republicans.
The media is trusted by the public about as much as bankers and politicians. Trump sticking
it to FOX not only didn't get him "sidelined" it probably increased his support among the Republican
base. Jeb Bush is still pretending to be a candidate as is Ben Carson, and Cruz in the spotlight
reinforced his reputation as so nasty a human being that even if he gets into the Oval Office,
no one, including those on his own side of the aisle, will want to work with him.
It would be refreshing to see the media try to report rather than shape the news to its own
liking.
JackGC -> ACJB 29 Jan 2016 10:34
Keeping people "scared" is a full time job for the government. It would be impossible to have
a war without the "scared" factor.
"We are a nation in grave danger." George Bush.
In 'Merica, people need their guns just in case ISIS invades their town. It's like War of the
Worlds only with Muslims, not Martians. That was a REALLY scary flick back in the 30s. 'Mericans
really didn't know if New Jersey had been invaded and Christie is the guv. of Jersey.
Trump is a New Yorker, so those two are on the front lines of any potential outer space invasion.
War of the Worlds II. 'Merica is ready.
Harry Bhai 29 Jan 2016 10:27
Be like......
This is Ted Cruz.
Cruz is a world-class question-dodger
When Cruz is asked about his votes against defense budgets, he launches into an extended diatribe
against Barack Obama's defense budgets.
When Cruz is asked about his own position on issues, he talks about his idol: Ronald Reagan.
When Cruz is asked about why he flip-flopped on his feelings towards Trump, he pretends that he
was asked to insult Trump
Cruz is a flip-flop politician.
Be like Cruz, NOT.
JackGC N.M. Hill 29 Jan 2016 10:22
Translation: Trump knows he already has the nomination locked up. Why should he give Cruz
and Rubio an opportunity to attack him in a live debate? He made the smart move. Since 9/11 and
the buildup to the war in Iraq, the media's only real job is political propaganda.
N.M. Hill 29 Jan 2016 09:48
Trump just proved: it's possible to win a debate you didn't attend
Translation: Media more obsessed with Trump than actual issues.
MeereeneseLiberation -> LiamNSW2 29 Jan 2016 09:24
he was chastised for saying he'd stop Muslims from entering the US
Because Muslim immigration is really the one thing that affects ordinary Americans the most.
Not affordable health care, wealth distribution, labour rights ... Muslim immigration. Especially
of those few thousand Syrian refugees that are vetted over months and months. (But oh yes, "the
Muslims" hate the West, each and every one. Especially if he or she is fleeing from ISIS terror,
I guess.)
Sweden, that paragon of migrant virtue
Sweden, like all Scandinavian countries, has extremely restrictive immigration and asylum policies.
Calling Sweden a "paragon of migrant virtue" is about as accurate as calling Switzerland a 'paragon
of banking transparency' (or the US a 'paragon of gun control').
nnedjo -> RusticBenadar 29 Jan 2016 08:59
Just curious, can anyone share some actual substance concerning any of Trump's policy
plans?
As far as I know, Trump, Sanders and Obama were equally resentful because American businessmen
are moving production abroad, thus leaving American workers out of work, and the state budget
deprived of taxes that go also to foreign countries instead of remaining in the US.
In addition, Trump also stands for a kind of economic protectionism, particularly in relation
to China, bearing in mind "the urgent need to reduce the trade deficit with China", which is now
about $ 500 billion a year, if I remembered well.
So, it is interesting that the current as well as two of the possible future US presidents
are pushing for some kind of protectionism of domestic production and economic isolationism that
are completely contrary to previous commitment of the United States to free markets and free flow
of capital in the world.However, taking into account the current economic crisis in the world,
that from acute increasingly turns into some kind of chronic phase, it is perhaps not so surprising.
SeniorsTn9 29 Jan 2016 08:44
UPDATE: 2016/01/29 Trump won the debate he didn't even participate in. No surprise here.
Which debate will you focus on, the elephant walk or Trump? If you want to hear positive messages
listen to Trump. Trump stood his ground. Trump is definitely different. When we look at the options
there is simply no alternative. I prefer to watch the next president of the United States of America.
I was on the fence but how I am definitely a Trump supporter. Trump will make America great again.
There is a personality conflict here and everyone knows it. This reporter definitely has a
hate on for Trump. Trump was right to not participate in this debate. Replace the so called bias
reporter. Fox News could have fixed this but choose not to. Call Trump's bluff and he will have
no choice but to join the debate. This is not and should not be about reporters. The press, for
some reason, always plays into Trump's hand. This is another Trump strategic move to force the
debate to focus on him first. Seriously just look at what has already happened, All Trump's opponents
and the media are talking about now is the fact that Trump is not participating in the debate.
Brilliant!
Trump has changed the debating and campaigning rules. Trump will or will not be successful
based on his decisions and his alone. Trump now has the focus on him and the debates haven't even
startled. Trump is now winning debates he isn't even participating in. This has got to be a first
in successful political debating strategies! Amazing! A win win for Trump. Smart man! Smart like
a Fox.
ID0020237 -> NYcynic 29 Jan 2016 08:25
Methinks all this debate and chatter are nothing but distractions for the masses so those behind
and above the scene can carry out their hidden agendas. Debates are like more opium for the masses,
it keeps their brains churning while other issues are burning. I see no problems being solved
here with all the empty rhetoric.
kaneandabel -> kodicek 29 Jan 2016 07:45
Well kodi, your comments are valid in it that ALL of these candidates are part of the revolving
door irrespective of the supposed 'right' or supposed 'left'. Clinton is as much a compromised
candidate as the entire bunch of the republican team. Trump may appear to be a different kind
but that that's only because he is a good "talker" who seems to give 2 hoots to the establishment.
But thats only talk. He would turn on a cent the moment he becomes President. A perfect example
of that is Barack Obama. He talked the sweet talk and made people think a new dawn is coming in
American politics. But as it turned out.... zilch!
But there is a slight ray of hope, a thin one. With Sanders. As he has walked the talk all
along! Otherwise you van be sure to be in the grip of the wall street scamstars and plutocrats
for the next decade.
RusticBenadar B5610661066 29 Jan 2016 06:02
Plutocracy; and all candidates are millionaires or billionaires being hoisted upon Americans
by the establishment media/business/banks/politics- all, that is, with the single exception of
Bernie Sanders, who alone has managed not to enrich himself with special interest bribery or financial
exploitation during his unparalleled 45+ years of outstanding common sense public service.
kodicek -> LazarusLong42 29 Jan 2016 05:52
The vast majority of the political elite, from Bush to Clinton, are there to further the
agenda, as well as their own careers. In this way, you have Obama brought into to finish by proxy
what Bush started by direct force. I.e the wrecking of any Nation State that opposes the neo-liberal
economic system.
They only exist in the spotlight for as long as they are tolerated in terms of their persona,
until the public wise-up. It is then they go into their background role; the cushy and lucrative
'consulting' jobs they have been promised by the special interest 'think tanks' they already belong
to; be it the Council of Foreign Relations, or the Bilderberg group; all funded by international
banking cartels.
Supposed 'right' or supposed 'left' of the mainstream media are just part and parcel of
the same ultimate deception.
Trump, although not perfect in his persona, is certainly a problem for the agenda: thus
their attack dogs in the media have been called to take him out.
This is what first raised my suspicions: I thought for myself, rather than double clicking
on a petition.
Best Regards, K
kodicek 29 Jan 2016 05:19
It's amusing to see the attacks on Trump; who just for speaking his mind is starting to
steadily resonate with a growing demographic, both at home and abroad.
You'd never hear about it here of course; but he harshly denounced the invasion of Iraq,
and was a big critic of Bush.
Despite all the allegations of racism, he has the largest support amongst the Black and Latino
community; and is the most popular Republican candidate with Women.
He also seems to be the only one who understands that the majority of Americans needs real
jobs – not some laughable concept of an 'ideas economy.' and is willing to fight for them on a
trade level to ensure this.
He is also the least likely to drag the US into dangerous conflicts, (proxy or otherwise)
with those such as Russia – Sadly I can see some Guardian commentators already gunning for that.
He is also not controlled by the usual financial ties to banking elites: Goldman & Sachs
just gave Hillary $3 million – what's that then? Just pocket money?
We always drone on about democracy etc, but when someone is actually popular, from Corbyn to
Trump, we denounce them and ridicule their supporters.
Funny thing is; if it wasn't for all these attacks I might never have noticed!
TheChillZone -> SteelyDanorak 29 Jan 2016 05:05
America isn't better than this - this IS America. The land of political dynasties and limitless
corporate donations. Where a movie star became the President and a body builder a Governor. It
doesn't even have a one-man-one vote voting system for heavens sake. The rise of Trump makes
perfect sense - most of American culture has been relentlessly dumbed down; now it's Politics
turn.
europeangrayling -> shaftedpig 29 Jan 2016 04:40
It's kind of like Iranian 'democracy', where the Ayatollah picks out and approves 4-5 candidates,
and then the Iranian people get to 'vote' for them. We do it a bit differently, in a society where
we have freedom of speech, but the outcome always ends up the same, with 2 establishment, corporate,
Wall street, military industrial complex, globalist 'free trade' choices for president. All approved
by corporate America, our corporate and mainstream media and by Wall street, it always ends up
like that. Like right now, there is no difference between Hillary, and establishment corporate
Democrats like the Clintons, and the establishment Republicans like Rubio, Kasich or Bush, on
all those really big and truly important issues.
fanfootbal65 29 Jan 2016 04:20
At least with Trump you know where he stands unlike most politicians who just tell the voters
what they want to hear. Then after getting elected, these lip service politicians just go off
on their own agenda against the wishes of the people that voted for them.
SamStone 29 Jan 2016 03:55
Haha, Trump is tremendously astute and clever when it comes to tactics. It will be awesome
if he actually becomes president.
boldofer 29 Jan 2016 03:46
That thing about Cruz labelling Trump a Democrat is interesting. I'm sure most Democrats
would be understandably offended by the suggestion, and I'm pretty sure Cruz doesn't actually
believe it either. I haven't been following Trump's statements on policy closely at all, but from
my general impression of him over the years, I always thought that, although he was clearly a
dyed in the wool capitalist, he probably wasn't a social conservative.
I can't help thinking he's just another wealthy, metropolitan businessman who probably
didn't give a single toss about immigration, gay marriage, Islam or any of it, and if you pushed
him probably would have been completely relaxed about all those issues. But I guess what
he is above all else is a power hungry narcissist and a showman, and if he feels he needs to push
certain buttons to get elected...
SGT123 29 Jan 2016 03:29
"Megyn Kelly, the Fox News anchor whose participation in the debate led to Trump's boycott,
referred to him as "the elephant not in the room".
Which is both quite funny and accurate. I can see why Donald was so frightened of her!
Blaaboy 29 Jan 2016 03:03
Tough for any GOP candidate to avoid the flip flops in fairness. Pro life gun nuts, military
spending addicted defecit hawks, die hard defenders of the Constitution hell bent on removing
church/state separation, defenders of the squeezed middle sucking on the teat of Murdoch and the
Koch brothers.... A very high and skinny tight rope....
benbache 29 Jan 2016 02:22
Trump won because these people have nothing people want to listen to. Nobody cares about
Rubio or Bush flip flopping on immigration, because they have decided not to vote for them.
And despite the press, no one I know cares about terrorism in the US. No one ever brings it up
in any conversation, despite constant fear mongering.
People care about jobs and their dwindling opportunities. Trump talks populism. He talks
about tariffs on manufacturers who moved jobs overseas. People like that. He said he thinks the
US should have left Saddam Hussein in power. Every rational person today agrees with that. He
says the US should have left Gaddafi in power. While not too many people think about that too
much, if they do, they agree with that too. Especially once they learn about the domino effect
it has had, such as the attack on the coffee shop in Burkina Faso a week ago or so.
People have grown tired of war. All of the mainstream candidates want war because their
campaigns depend on it. Bush's family has massive investment in the Carlisle Group and other players
in the MIC.
Trump made his money in real estate, not war.
ID1569355 29 Jan 2016 01:53
I have no vote in the U.S.A. I greatly respect it's people and achievements. President Obama
has been a big disappointment to me. I really thought he could make some good changes for his
citizens. Should Mr Trump actually win the Presidency life for many will be very, very interesting,
perhaps not in a good way. Then again perhaps his leadership might be just what America needs.
A few years of Mr Trump as leader of the world's greatest super-power may give us all a new
outlook on life as we know it, help us adjust our personal and National priorities. Give him the
power as the Supreme Commander of Military Forces and we can all learn some lessons about the
consequences of Americans votes on everyone else's lives. Americans may learn a thing or two also........Go
Trump !
Oboy1963 29 Jan 2016 01:37
Not a Trump fan, but it is great to see someone with enough nous to tell Fox to go bite
their bum. Good on him. We know from past experience what a sleazy old fart Rupert is and his
fellow travelers in Fox are a good fit. The "moderators" are third rate journo's out to polish
their image and try the bigmouth on the guy that 'may' become President. No need for Trump to
take that kind of crap off of those sort of people.
Commentator6 29 Jan 2016 01:32
Cruz was attacked, got flustered and blew his opportunity. Trump's judgement turned out
to be vindicated in not attending. Trump is currently the front runner and bearing in mind that
the entire West is moving to the right it is quite likely that by the time of the election Trump
may turn out to be closer to the mainstream. If there are further Islamic terrorist attacks on
US soil then this will likely be a certainty.
"... For sale, cheap, one POTUS puppet, strings firmly attached. Keep the kiddies entertained, good for four years worth of distraction. ..."
"... Where does most of the money, dark or obvious, go? Answer: The Main Stream Media (I include the Guardian in this). Do you now understand why they're all having a bob-each-way? Morals, journalistic integrity, decency or the welfare of the public be damned, it's raining wads of cash. ..."
"... Because of the SCOTUS Citizens united decision, it is just fine to bribe politicians IN PUBLIC. How could SCOTUS and the GOP do this to the United States. It is destroying our Democracy. ..."
"... Let the ass-kissing and groveling begin ..."
"... The undue influence of the rich over American politics is an absolute disgrace. How can those who claim to be conservatives justify their destruction of democratic processes? They conserve nothing but their own power. Traitors! ..."
"... I'm afraid that the soul of America was lost with the scotus ruling. Corporations are just that, corporations. They are not people. They already had a disproportionate say in politics because of lobbying money. ..."
"... Now the princes of darkness have descended on the land like perpetual night. Leaving the populace longing for the light! The Kochs and their ilk are slaves to their ideology which is to destroy the federal government, destroy all social safety net's, even privatize our military. All this for the ideology of the extreme right wing corporate fascism. ..."
"... All Hail the Deep State! ..."
"... Check this out...It will blow you away: 'Dark Money: Jane Mayer on How the Koch Bros. & Billionaire Allies Funded the Rise of the Far Right' http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/20/dark_money_jane_mayer_on_how ..."
"... "Dred Scott turned people into property....Citizens United turned property into people." ..."
"... One of the great sources of Trump's appeal has been the perception of his independence from the Kochs and other corporate manipulators. If he gets the nomination, they will of course attempt to co-opt him just as they did the tea party. It will be interesting to see how he responds. ..."
"... The Kochs didn't co-opt the Tea Party--they created it. They brainstormed it, branded it, funded it, propped it up, bought positive news coverage for it, and pulled its strings to keep the GOP voting base at a full boil for the fall elections in 2010. ..."
"... This was tactically necessary to enable them to take full advantage of the gorgeous opportunity John Roberts had created for them earlier that spring with Citizens United, rushed through precisely to help the oligarchs buy themselves Congress and as many state houses and governor's mansions as they could reap. ..."
"... The best government money can buy...... Since the Supreme Court ruled unlimited corporate bribes to politicians would be considered "free speech" in the eyes of the law, people lost any chance they had of representation based on what's best for average citizen. It's -ALL- about big money now, a literal Corporatocracy. The idea that government should be "Of the people, by the people and for the people" is long lost, RIP. ..."
"... Dark money = Corruption.....period..!! Just because its not illegal doesn't make it right. What it is, is the continual demolition of democracy in the US where whoever has the biggest cheque-book has an advantage over everyone else. Totally wrong and the slippery slope to an end of 'government by the people'... ..."
"... And the theft of the Presidency is underway. Does anyone not think that allowing millions, even a billion dollars to be donated to campaigns with the donor kept secret is a problem? Heck, foreign government can contribute to get the candidate that they want. So.......Who will be the one to kiss Koch butt? ..."
"... Hey look, they're trying to buy the elections again. No surprises there... ..."
"... Not trying. Succeeding. The Koch brothers own many, many politicians who are beholding to Koch and will vote any way Koch wants. ..."
"... Their intentions are now plain: they aim the overthrow of democracy and the establishment of a modern feudal state/oligarchy. ..."
"... If money didn't work, people would not be spending over a billon dollars on the election. Of course money works. Think of it this way: The Koch brothers give almost a billion dollars to support most of the GOP candidates. Regardless of who wins, they will be completely owned by the Koch brothers. It doesn't matter who you vote for if they are all owned by Koch. ..."
"... Moneylenders own the temple. ..."
"... Not to mention that in their own minds and mirrors, the money-lenders are the temple. ..."
"... "The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat." ..."
"... The pendulum has swung too far - the rich are too rich, and the poor are too poor. The Emperor we have been told has beautiful clothes will soon be found to have none. ..."
"... Or that famous Apalachin, NY, meeting of the five families in 1957. One difference: I bet the FBI won't be raiding the Koch compound, forcing all the big dogs to flee into the woods. More likely, the feds will be providing protection, writing down the license plate numbers of everyone who might object to billionaires dividing up their 'turf' in America. ..."
Dark money is the name for cash given to nonprofit organizations that can receive unlimited
donations from corporations, individuals and unions without disclosing their donors. Under IRS
regulations these tax-exempt groups are supposed to be promoting "social welfare" and are not
allowed to have politics as their primary purpose – so generally they have to spend less than
half their funds directly promoting candidates. Other so-called "issue ads" paid for by these
groups often look like thinly veiled campaign ads.
The boom in dark money spending in recent elections came in the wake of the supreme court's
2010 Citizens United decision, which held that the first amendment allowed unlimited political
spending by corporations and unions. That decision and other court rulings opened the floodgates
to individuals, corporations and unions writing unlimited checks to outside groups, both Super
Pacs and dark money outfits, which can directly promote federal candidates. Dark money spending
rose from just under $6m in 2006 to $131m in 2010 following the decision, according to the CRP.
Well, there you have it. In the USA you can actually buy yourself a president. But for Real! No
underhanded bribes, but openly buying. Would you like fries with that...? And here's the kicker
- Everyone, from media outlets all the way down to the 'person on the street' just accepts it
as is without any real protestations...
Learn how Citizens United has allowed Billionaires like the Koch's to rabble-rouse, whip into
a frenzy and influence one-half of America to vote against their own best interest!
For sale, cheap, one POTUS puppet, strings firmly attached. Keep the kiddies entertained,
good for four years worth of distraction.
ps
Where does most of the money, dark or obvious, go? Answer: The Main Stream Media (I include
the Guardian in this). Do you now understand why they're all having a bob-each-way? Morals, journalistic
integrity, decency or the welfare of the public be damned, it's raining wads of cash.
Until we have a system that makes sense, I guess we can only hope someone realizes that if they
just paid a reasonable tax rate it would cost them less than funding Super PACs. Then again, money
doesn't make you smart -- they just might spend a billion to save a million. Can we give crowd
sourcing political decisions a chance?
Because of the SCOTUS Citizens united decision, it is just fine to bribe politicians IN PUBLIC.
How could SCOTUS and the GOP do this to the United States. It is destroying our Democracy.
The undue influence of the rich over American politics is an absolute disgrace. How can those
who claim to be conservatives justify their destruction of democratic processes? They conserve
nothing but their own power. Traitors!
I'm afraid that the soul of America was lost with the scotus ruling. Corporations are just
that, corporations. They are not people. They already had a disproportionate say in politics because
of lobbying money.
Now the princes of darkness have descended on the land like perpetual night. Leaving the
populace longing for the light! The Kochs and their ilk are slaves to their ideology which is
to destroy the federal government, destroy all social safety net's, even privatize our military.
All this for the ideology of the extreme right wing corporate fascism.
Thank you, Peter Stone! So few Americans even know this is happening. Check this out...It will blow you away: 'Dark Money: Jane Mayer on How the Koch Bros. & Billionaire
Allies Funded the Rise of the Far Right' http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/20/dark_money_jane_mayer_on_how
Please Wake Up America.....Citizens United is the Mirror Image of Dred Scott.
"Dred Scott turned people into property....Citizens United turned property into people."
One of the great sources of Trump's appeal has been the perception of his independence from
the Kochs and other corporate manipulators. If he gets the nomination, they will of course attempt
to co-opt him just as they did the tea party. It will be interesting to see how he responds.
The Kochs didn't co-opt the Tea Party--they created it. They brainstormed it, branded it,
funded it, propped it up, bought positive news coverage for it, and pulled its strings to keep
the GOP voting base at a full boil for the fall elections in 2010.
This was tactically necessary to enable them to take full advantage of the gorgeous opportunity
John Roberts had created for them earlier that spring with Citizens United, rushed through precisely
to help the oligarchs buy themselves Congress and as many state houses and governor's mansions
as they could reap.
Trump is a different matter. They can't invent Trump the same way they invented the so-called
Tea Party.
What they can do is flatter him and wheedle him and beguile him in hopes of making him more
receptive to little things like, for instance, their nominations to the federal bench.
This, given Trump's pathetic grasp of reality and his monumental ego, shouldn't actually prove
too complicated a feat for the Kochs and their worker bees to pull off.
After all, all Marla Maples had to do was say "Donald Trump--best sex I ever had" on Page 6
at the Post and she got to marry the schlub: the Kochs will surely be equally adept at figuring
out the wizened, soulless old billionaire version of this time-honored tactic.
The Donald is one of the oligarchs but with an immense ego. Instead of playing the political puppets
from behind the curtain as the Koch's do, he thought he'd become the puppet show himself.
An oligarch in politician's clothing attempting to persuade America that he's on our side.
How very Putinesque.
The best government money can buy...... Since the Supreme Court ruled unlimited corporate
bribes to politicians would be considered "free speech" in the eyes of the law, people lost any
chance they had of representation based on what's best for average citizen. It's -ALL- about big
money now, a literal Corporatocracy. The idea that government should be "Of the people, by the
people and for the people" is long lost, RIP.
Dark money = Corruption.....period..!!
Just because its not illegal doesn't make it right. What it is, is the continual demolition of
democracy in the US where whoever has the biggest cheque-book has an advantage over everyone else.
Totally wrong and the slippery slope to an end of 'government by the people'...
And the theft of the Presidency is underway.
Does anyone not think that allowing millions, even a billion dollars to be donated to campaigns
with the donor kept secret is a problem? Heck, foreign government can contribute to get the candidate that they want. So.......Who will be the one to kiss Koch butt?
Dark money cannot compete with the elephant on the block, the electorate.
If any one has the finances to buy the oval office and or Congress it is "citizens united" ten
dollars ahead should do it.
What you are failing to reckon with is the scale of their organization and its capacity. This
retreat probably has a trillion dollars backing it. That's a lot of high paying jobs...
If money didn't work, people would not be spending over a billon dollars on the election.
Of course money works. Think of it this way: The Koch brothers give almost a billion dollars to support most of the GOP candidates. Regardless
of who wins, they will be completely owned by the Koch brothers. It doesn't matter who you vote
for if they are all owned by Koch.
So, no, the power does NOT lie with the voters. SCOTUS has stolen our democracy and has given
it to the richest 100 people in the US.
And what you're failing to recognize is the scale and capacity of the internet--the people's MSM
and Super PAC. Whatever the outcome of this year's election, the Sanders' campaign is creating
the template by which guerrilla/insurgent campaigns will be modeled for the next 20 years or longer...depending
on if and when the Kochs et al finally get to end net neutrality.
Dark money - it's the undetectable dark matter of politics that bends and motivates political
stars to the black hole of government. Ordinary people can't detect it or see it, but it's effect
is to control the movement of money to the star clusters (otherwise known as tax havens).
The Kochs are concentrating on State legislatures, the key to amending the Constitution.
By the time they're finished, the President will have less power than the Queen.
These people laugh in the face of democracy.
I like particularly this quote - if I remember it correctly - by Lily Tomlin:
"The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat."
The pendulum has swung too far - the rich are too rich, and the poor are too poor. The Emperor we have been told has beautiful clothes will soon be found to have none.
I'm a U.S. citizen, and I don't know because I stopped watching U.S. "news" although I'm not
sure how much better The Guardian is the people in comments seem a tad nicer better grammar
and spelling did I answer the questions? Oh, a butterfly!
Good--let them blow billions (more) attacking Clinton; it'll only be more delicious when they
find out they should have spent it against Sanders. You better hope Clinton wins IA big, because
if she doesn't, she just might jump-start the process by which she loses the nomination. Like
last time.
Several Koch network donors have voiced strong concerns about the rise of Trump, raising doubts
about his conservative bona fides and his angry anti-immigrant rhetoric, which they fear could
hurt efforts by the Koch network and the Republican party to appeal to Hispanics and minorities.
I wonder if they also worry about their lavishly-funded support of theocratic loudmouth Republican
lunatics such as Tom Cotton, Sam Brownback and Joni Ernst potentially alienating moderate Christians
or, heaven (literally) forbid, non-believers?
Don't let nobody give your guns to shoot down your own brother Don't let nobody give your bombs to blow down my sweet mother
Tell me are you really feeling sweet when you sit down to eat You eating blood money you spending blood money
You think you're funny living off blood money https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anjkSBQDRjc
Its funny to see them without Trump. You are so mesmerised by Trump and his hair that you
haven't
noticed what an incredibly weird looking bunch the rest are. Not that it matters given Bernie
will *ump them all anyway -- :)
"Several Republican congressional incumbents and candidates facing tough races are slated to attend
the Koch retreat this weekend, and, if recent history is a guide, are expecting to gain support
from Koch-backed dark money groups." * For some reason I'm reminded of the opening scene of The Godfather where supplicants meet with
Don Corleone and present their requests on the occasion of his daughter's wedding, kissing his
hand at the end.
That's exactly what it is. The Koch Brothers will own most of the GOP politicians. It doesn't
matter which one you vote for because that person will likely be owned by Koch and will do their
bidding.
Or that famous Apalachin, NY, meeting of the five families in 1957. One difference: I bet the FBI won't be raiding the Koch compound, forcing all the big dogs
to flee into the woods. More likely, the feds will be providing protection, writing down the license plate numbers
of everyone who might object to billionaires dividing up their 'turf' in America.
"... Oh, but it is serious. The material is/was classified. It just wasn't marked as such. Which means someone removed the classified material from a separate secure network and sent it to Hilary. We know from her other emails that, on more than one occasion, she requested that that be done. ..."
"... fellow diplomats and other specialists said on Thursday that if any emails were blatantly of a sensitive nature, she could have been expected to flag it. "She might have had some responsibility to blow the whistle," said former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, "The recipient may have an induced kind of responsibility," Pickering added, "if they see something that appears to be a serious breach of security." ..."
"... Finally whether they were marked or not the fact that an electronic copy resided on a server in an insecure location was basically like her making a copy and bringing it home and plunking it in a file cabinet... ..."
"... In Section 7 of her NDA, Clinton agreed to return any classified information she gained access to, and further agreed that failure to do so could be punished under Sections 793 and 1924 of the US Criminal Code. ..."
"... The agreement considers information classified whether it is "marked or unmarked." ..."
"... According to a State Department regulation in effect during Clinton's tenure (12 FAM 531), "classified material should not be stored at a facility outside the chancery, consulate, etc., merely for convenience." ..."
"... Additionally, a regulation established in 2012 (12 FAM 533.2) requires that "each employee, irrespective of rank must certify" that classified information "is not in their household or personal effects." ..."
"... As of December 2, 2009, the Foreign Affairs Manual has explicitly stated that "classified processing and/or classified conversation on a PDA is prohibited." ..."
"... Look, Hillary is sloppy about her affairs of state. She voted with Cheney for the Iraq disaster and jumped in supporting it. It is the greatest foreign affair disaster since Viet Nam and probably the greatest, period! She was a big proponent of getting rid of Khadaffi in Libya and now we have radical Islamic anarchy ravaging the failed state. She was all for the Arab Spring until the Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power in Egypt....which was replaced by yet another military dictatorship we support. And she had to have her own private e-mail server and it got used for questionable handling of state secrets. This is just Hillary being Hillary........ ..."
"... Its no secret that this hysterically ambitious Clinton woman is a warmonger and a hooker for Wall Street . No need to read her e-mails, just check her record. ..."
"... What was exemplary about an unnecessary war, a dumbass victory speech three or so months into it, the President's absence of support for his CIA agent outed by his staff, the President's German Chancellor shoulder massage, the use of RNC servers and subsequently "lost" gazillion emails, doing nothing in response to Twin Towers news, ditto for Katrina news, the withheld information from the Tillman family, and sanctioned torture? ..."
"... Another point that has perhaps not been covered sufficiently is the constant use of the phrase "unsecured email server" - which is intentionally vague and misleading and was almost certainly a phrase coined by someone who knows nothing about email servers or IT security and has been parroted mindlessly by people who know even less and journalists who should know better. ..."
"... Yet the term "unsecured" has many different meanings and implications - in the context of an email server it could mean that mail accounts are accessible without authentication, but in terms of network security it could mean that the server somehow existed outside a firewall or Virtual Private Network or some other form of physical or logical security. ..."
"... It is also extremely improbable that an email server would be the only device sharing that network segment - of necessity there would at least be a file server and some means of communicating with the outside world, most likely a router or a switch, which would by default have a built-in hardware firewall (way more secure than a software firewall). ..."
"... Anything generated related to a SAP is, by it's mere existence, classified at the most extreme level, and everyone who works on a SAP knows this intimately and you sign your life away to acknowledge this. ..."
"... yeah appointed by Obama...John Kerry. His state department. John is credited on both sides of the aisle of actually coming in and making the necessary changes to clean up the administrative mess either created or not addressed by his predecessor. ..."
"... Its not hard to understand, she was supposed to only use her official email account maintained on secure Federal government servers when conducting official business during her tenure as Secretary of State. This was for three reasons, the first being security the second being transparency and the third for accountability. ..."
"... You need to share that one with Petraeus, whos career was ruined and had to pay 100k in fines, for letting some info slip to his mistress.. ..."
"... If every corrupt liar was sent to prison there'd be no one left in Washington, or Westminster and we'd have to have elections with ordinary people standing, instead of the usual suspects from the political class. Which, on reflection, sounds quite good -- ..."
"... It's a reckless arrogance combined with the belief that no-one can touch her. If she does become the nominee Hillary will be an easy target for Trump. It'll be like "shooting fish in a barrel". ..."
"... It is obvious that the Secretary of State and the President should be communicating on a secure network controlled by the federal government. It is obvious that virtually none of these communications were done in a secure manner. Consider whether someone who contends this is irrelevant has enough sense to come in out of the rain. ..."
The Obama administration
confirmed for the first time on Friday that Hillary Clinton's unsecured home server contained some
of the US government's most closely guarded secrets, censoring 22 emails with material demanding
one of the highest levels of classification. The revelation comes just three days before the Iowa
presidential nominating caucuses in which Clinton is a candidate.
jrhaddock -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 23:04
Oh, but it is serious. The material is/was classified. It just wasn't marked as such. Which
means someone removed the classified material from a separate secure network and sent it to Hilary.
We know from her other emails that, on more than one occasion, she requested that that be done.
And she's not just some low level clerk who doesn't understand what classified material is
or how it is handled. She had been the wife of the president so is certainly well aware of the
security surrounding classified material. And then she was Sec of State and obviously knew what
kind of information was classified. So to claim that the material wasn't marked, and therefore
she didn't know it was classified, is simply not credulous.
Berkeley2013 29 Jan 2016 22:46
And Clinton had a considerable number of unvetted people maintain and administer her communication
system. The potential for wrong doing in general and blackmail from many angles is great.
There's also the cost of this whole investigation. Why should US taxpayers have to pick up
the bill?
And the waste of good personnel time---a total waste...
Skip Breitmeyer -> simpledino 29 Jan 2016 22:29
In one sense you're absolutely right- read carefully this article (and the announcement leading
to it) raises at least as many questions as it answers, period. On the other hand, those ambiguities
are certain not to be resolved 'over-the-weekend' (nor before the first votes are cast in Iowa)
and thus the timing of the thing could not be more misfortunate for Ms. Clinton, nor more perfect
for maximum effect than if the timing had been deliberately planned. In fact I'm surprised there
aren't a raft of comments on this point. "Confirmed by the Obama administration..."? Who in the
administration? What wing of the administration? Some jack-off in the justice dept. who got 50,000
g's for the scoop? The fact is, I'm actually with Bernie over Hilary any day, but I admit to a
certain respect for her remarkable expertise and debate performances that have really shown the
GOP boys to be a bunch of second-benchers... And there's something a little dirty and dodgy that's
gone on here...
Adamnoggi dusablon 29 Jan 2016 22:23
SAP does not relate to To the level of classification. A special access program could be at
the confidential level or higher dependent upon content. Special access means just that, access
is granted on a case by case basis, regardless of classification level .
Gigi Trala La 29 Jan 2016 22:17
She is treated with remarkable indulgence. Anywhere with a sense of accountability she will
be facing prosecution, and yet here she is running for even higher office. In the middle of demonstrating
her unfitness.
eldudeabides 29 Jan 2016 22:15
Independent experts say it is highly unlikely that Clinton will be charged with wrongdoing,
based on the limited details that have surfaced up to now and the lack of indications that
she intended to break any laws.
since when has ignorance been a defence?
nataliesutler UzzDontSay 29 Jan 2016 22:05
Yes Petraeus did get this kind of scrutiny even though what he did was much less serious that
what Clinton did. this isn't about a rule change. And pretending it is isn't going to fool anyone.
Sam3456 kattw 29 Jan 2016 21:18
Thats a misunderstanding on your part First lets look at Hillary's statement in March:
"I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified
material. So I'm certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified
material."
She later adjusted her language to note that she never sent anything "marked" classified. So
already some Clinton-esque word parsing
And then what people said who used to do her job:
fellow diplomats and other specialists said on Thursday that if any emails were blatantly
of a sensitive nature, she could have been expected to flag it.
"She might have had some responsibility to blow the whistle," said former Ambassador Thomas Pickering,
"The recipient may have an induced kind of responsibility," Pickering added, "if they see something
that appears to be a serious breach of security."
It is a view shared by J. William Leonard, who between 2002 and 2008 was director of the Information
Security Oversight Office, which oversees the government classification system. He pointed out
that all government officials given a security clearance are required to sign a nondisclosure
agreement, which states they are responsible if secrets leak – whether the information was "marked
or not."
Finally whether they were marked or not the fact that an electronic copy resided on a server
in an insecure location was basically like her making a copy and bringing it home and plunking
it in a file cabinet...
beanierose -> dusablon 29 Jan 2016 21:08
Yeah - I just don't understand what Hillary is actually accused of doing / or not doing in
Benghazi. Was it that they didn't provide support to Stevens - (I think that was debunked) - was
it that they claimed on the Sunday talk shows that the video was responsible for the attack (who
cares). Now - I can think of an outrage - President Bush attacking Iraq on the specious claim
that they had WMD - that was a lie/incorrec/incompetence and it cost ~7000 US and 200K to 700K
Iraqi lives. Now - there's a scandal.
Stephen_Sean -> elexpatrioto 29 Jan 2016 21:07
The Secretary of State is
an "original classifier" of information. The individual holding that office is responsible
to recognize whether information is classified and to what level regardless if it is marked or
not. She should have known. She has no true shelter of ignorance here.
Stephen_Sean 29 Jan 2016 21:00
The Guardian is whistling through the graveyard. The FBI is very close to a decision to recommend
an indictment to the DOJ. At that point is up to POTUS whether he thinks Hillary is worth tainting
his entire Presidency to protect by blocking a DOJ indictment. His responsibility as an outgoing
President is to do what is best for his party and to provide his best attempt to get a Democrat
elected. I smell Biden warming up in the bullpen as an emergency.
The last thing the DNC wants is a delay if their is going to be an indictment. For an indictment
to come after she is nominated would be an unrecoverable blow for the Democrats. If their is to
be an indictment its best for it to come now while they can still get Biden in and maintain their
chances.
Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 20:57
In Section 7 of her NDA, Clinton agreed to return any classified information she gained
access to, and further agreed that failure to do so could be punished under Sections 793 and 1924
of the US Criminal Code.
According To § 793 Of Title 18 Of The US Code, anyone who willfully retains, transmits or causes
to be transmitted, national security information, can face up to ten years in prison.
According To § 1924 Of Title 18 Of The US Code, anyone who removes classified information "
with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location," can face up
to a year in prison.
The agreement considers information classified whether it is "marked or unmarked."
According to a State Department regulation in effect during Clinton's tenure (12 FAM 531), "classified
material should not be stored at a facility outside the chancery, consulate, etc., merely for
convenience."
Additionally, a regulation established in 2012 (12 FAM 533.2) requires that "each employee,
irrespective of rank must certify" that classified information "is not in their household or personal
effects."
As of December 2, 2009, the Foreign Affairs Manual has explicitly stated that "classified
processing and/or classified conversation on a PDA is prohibited."
kus art 29 Jan 2016 20:54
I'm assuming that the censored emails reveal activities that the US government is into are
Way more corrupt, insidious and venal as the the emails already exposed, which says a lot already...
Profhambone -> Bruce Hill 29 Jan 2016 20:53
Look, Hillary is sloppy about her affairs of state. She voted with Cheney for the Iraq
disaster and jumped in supporting it. It is the greatest foreign affair disaster since Viet Nam
and probably the greatest, period! She was a big proponent of getting rid of Khadaffi in Libya
and now we have radical Islamic anarchy ravaging the failed state. She was all for the Arab Spring
until the Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power in Egypt....which was replaced by yet another
military dictatorship we support. And she had to have her own private e-mail server and it got
used for questionable handling of state secrets. This is just Hillary being Hillary........
PsygonnUSA 29 Jan 2016 20:44
Its no secret that this hysterically ambitious Clinton woman is a warmonger and a hooker
for Wall Street . No need to read her e-mails, just check her record.
USfan 29 Jan 2016 20:41
Sorry to be ranting but what does it say about a country - in theory, a democracy - that is
implicated in so much questionable business around the world that we have to classify mountains
of communication as off-limits to the people, who are theoretically sovereign in this country?
We've all gotten quite used to this. In reality, it should freak us out much more than it does.
I'm not naive about what national security requires, but my sense is the government habitually
and routinely classifies all sorts of things the people of this country have every right to know.
Assuming this is still a democracy, which is perhaps a big assumption.
Neil Berkitt – a former banker (Lloyds, St George Bank) who then helped vulture capitalist
Richard Branson with Virgin Media.
David Pemsel – Former head of marketing at ITV.
Nick Backhouse – On the board of the bank of Queensland, formerly with Barings Bank.
Ronan Dunne – On the Telefónica Europe plc board, Chairman of Tesco Mobile. He has also
worked at Banque Nationale de Paris plc.
Judy Gibbons – Judy is currently a non-executive director of retail property kings Hammerson,
previously with O2, Microsoft, Accel Partners (venture capital), Apple and Hewlett Packard.
Jennifer Duvalier – Previously in management consultancy and banking.
Brent Hoberman – Old Etonian with fingers in various venture capital pies including car
rental firm EasyCar.
Nigel Morris – chairman of network digital marketing giants Aegis Media.
John Paton – CEO of Digital First Media – a very large media conglomerate which was sued
successfully in the U.S. for rigging advertising rates.
Katherine Viner – Startlingly not a banker, in marketing or venture capital. She is I gather
(gulp) a journalist.
Darren Singer – formerly with BSkyB, the BBC and Price Waterhouse Coopers
FirthyB 29 Jan 2016 20:36
Hillary is in that class, along with Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bush, Cheney etc.. who believe
the rule of law only pertains to the little guys.
MooseMcNaulty -> dusablon 29 Jan 2016 20:28
The spying was illegal on a Constitutional basis. The Fourth Amendment protects our privacy
and prevents unlawful search and seizure. The government getting free access to the contents of
our emails seems the same as opening our mail, which is illegal without a court order.
The drone program is illegal based on the Geneva accords. We are carrying out targeted killings
within sovereign nations, usually without their knowledge or consent, based on secret evidence
that they pose a vaguely defined 'imminent threat'. It isn't in line with any international law,
though we set that precedent long ago.
makaio USfan 29 Jan 2016 20:08
What was exemplary about an unnecessary war, a dumbass victory speech three or so months
into it, the President's absence of support for his CIA agent outed by his staff, the President's
German Chancellor shoulder massage, the use of RNC servers and subsequently "lost" gazillion emails,
doing nothing in response to Twin Towers news, ditto for Katrina news, the withheld information
from the Tillman family, and sanctioned torture?
Those were just starter questions. I'm sure I missed things.
Another point that has perhaps not been covered sufficiently is the constant use of the
phrase "unsecured email server" - which is intentionally vague and misleading and was almost certainly
a phrase coined by someone who knows nothing about email servers or IT security and has been parroted
mindlessly by people who know even less and journalists who should know better.
As an IT professional the repeated use of a phrase like that is a red flag - it's like when
people who don't know what they're talking about latch on to a phrase which sounds technical because
it contains jargon or technical concepts and they use it to make it sound like they know what
they're talking about but it doesn't actually mean anything unless the context is clear and unambiguous.
The phrase is obviously being repeated to convey the impression of supreme negligence - that
sensitive state secrets were left defenceless and (gasp!) potentially accessible by anyone.
Yet the term "unsecured" has many different meanings and implications - in the context
of an email server it could mean that mail accounts are accessible without authentication, but
in terms of network security it could mean that the server somehow existed outside a firewall
or Virtual Private Network or some other form of physical or logical security.
Does this term "unsecured" mean the data on the server was not password-protected, does it
mean it was unencrypted, does it mean that it was totally unprotected (which is extremely unlikely
even if it was installed by an ignorant Luddite given that any modern broadband modem is also
a hardware firewall), and as for the "server" was it a physical box or a virtual server?
It is also extremely improbable that an email server would be the only device sharing that
network segment - of necessity there would at least be a file server and some means of communicating
with the outside world, most likely a router or a switch, which would by default have a built-in
hardware firewall (way more secure than a software firewall).
And regarding the "unsecured" part, how was the network accessed?
There are a huge number of possibilities as to the actual meaning and on its own there is not
enough information to deduce which - if any - is correct.
I suspect that someone who knows little to nothing about technology has invented this concept
based on ignorance a desire to imply malfeasance because on its own it really is a nonsense term.
seanet1310 -> Wallabyfan 29 Jan 2016 19:37
Nope. Like it or not Manning deliberately took classified information, smuggled it out and
gave it to foreign nationals.
Clinton it would appear mishandled classified material, at best she failed to realise the sensitive
nature and at worst actively took material from controlled and classified networks onto an unsecured
private network.
dusablon 29 Jan 2016 19:28
Classified material in the US is classified at three levels: confidential, secret, and top
secret. Those labels are not applied in a cavalier fashion. The release of TS information is considered
a grave threat to the security of the United States.
Above these classification levels is what is as known as Special Access Program information,
the release of which has extremely grave ramifications for the US. Access to SAP material is extremely
limited and only granted after an extensive personal background investigation and only on a 'need
to know' basis. You don't simply get a SAP program clearance because your employer thinks it would
be nice to have, etc. In fact, you can have a Top Secret clearance and never get a special access
program clearance to go with it.
For those of you playing at home, the Top Secret SAP material Hillary had on her server - the
most critical material the US can have - was not simply 'upgraded' to classified in a routine
bureaucratic exercise because it was previously unclassified.
Anything generated related to a SAP is, by it's mere existence, classified at the most
extreme level, and everyone who works on a SAP knows this intimately and you sign your life away
to acknowledge this.
What the Feds did in Hillary's case in making the material on her home-based server Top Secret
SAP was to bring those materials into what is known as 'accountability .'
That is, the material was always SAP material but it was just discovered outside a SAP lock-down
area or secure system and now it must become 'accountable' at the high classification level to
ensure it's protected from further disclosure.
Hillary and her minions have no excuse whatsoever for this intentional mishandling of this
critical material and are in severe legal jeopardy no matter what disinformation her campaign
puts out. Someone will or should go to prison. Period.
(Sorry for the length of the post)
Sam3456 -> Mark Forrester 29 Jan 2016 19:22
yeah appointed by Obama...John Kerry. His state department. John is credited on both sides
of the aisle of actually coming in and making the necessary changes to clean up the administrative
mess either created or not addressed by his predecessor.
Within weeks of taking the position JK implemented the OIG task forces recommendations to streamline
the process and make State run more in line with other government organizations. I think John
saw the "Sorry it snowed can't have you this info for a month" for what it was and acted out of
decency and fairness to the American people. I still think he looks like a hound and is a political
opportunist but you can't blame him for shenanigans here
chiefwiley -> DoktahZ 29 Jan 2016 19:18
The messages were "de-papered" by the staff, stripping them from their forms and headings and
then scanning and including the content in accumulations to be sent and stored in an unclassified
system. Taking the markings off of a classified document does not render it unclassified. Adding
the markings back onto the documents does not "declare" them classified. Their classified nature
was constant.
If you only have an unsecured system, it should never be used for official traffic, let alone
classified or special access traffic.
dusablon -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 19:05
Give it up.
She used a private server deliberately to avoid FOIA requests, she deleted thousands of emails
after they were requested, and the emails that remained contained Top Secret Special Access Program
information, and it does not matter one iota whether or not that material was marked or whether
or not it has been recently classified appropriately.
chiefwiley -> Exceptionalism 29 Jan 2016 19:04
18USC Section793(f)
$250,000 and ten years.
dusablon -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 19:00
False.
Anything related to a special access program is classified whether marked as such or not.
dalisnewcar 29 Jan 2016 18:58
You would figure that after all the lies of O'bomber that democrats might wake up some. Apparently,
they are too stupid to realize they have been duped even after the entire Middle Class has been
decimated and the wealth of the 1% has grown 3 fold under the man who has now bombed 7 countries.
And you folks think Clinton, who personally destroyed Libya, is going to be honest with you and
not do the same things he's done? Wake up folks. Your banging your head against the same old wall.
fanUS -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 18:46
She is evil, because she helped Islamic State to rise.
Paul Christenson -> Barry_Seal 29 Jan 2016 18:45
20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang.
Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her
office at the Department of Commerce.
21 - Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security
clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.
22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee
died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving
on Clinton 's advisory council personally treated Clinton 's mother, stepfather and Brother.
23 - Barry Seal - Drug running TWA pilot out of Mean Arkansas , death was no accident.
24 - John ny Lawhorn, Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of
a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.
25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guaranty. His death was a purported suicide and
his report was never released.
26 - Hershel Friday - Attorney and Clinton fundraiser died March 1, 1994, when his plane exploded.
27 - Kevin Ives & Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the two boys
may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. The initial report of death said
their deaths were due to falling asleep on railroad tracks and being run over. Later autopsy reports
stated that the 2 boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case
died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.
THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:
28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, 7/88.
29 - Keith McMaskle - Died, stabbed 113 times, Nov 1988
30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.
31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989. (Coroner
ruled death due to suicide)
32 - James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to natural
causes"?
33 - Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June
1990.
34 - Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives/Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery
July 1989.
THE FOLLOWING CLINTON PERSONAL BODYGUARDS ALL DIED OF MYSTERIOUS CAUSES OR SUICIDE
36 - Major William S. Barkley, Jr.
37 - Captain Scott J . Reynolds
38 - Sgt. Brian Hanley
39 - Sgt. Tim Sabel
40 - Major General William Robertson
41 - Col. William Densberger
42 - Col. Robert Kelly
43 - Spec. Gary Rhodes
44 - Steve Willis
45 - Robert Williams
46 - Conway LeBleu
47 - Todd McKeehan
And this list does not include the four dead Americans in Benghazi that Hillary abandoned!
Paul Christenson Barry_Seal 29 Jan 2016 18:42
THE MANY CLINTON BODY BAGS . . .
Someone recently reminded me of this list. I had forgotten how long it is. Therefore, this
is a quick refresher course, lest we forget what has happened to many "friends" and associates
of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
1- James McDougal - Convicted Whitewater partner of the Clintons who died of an apparent heart
attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.
2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee
Shop in Georgetown (Washington, D. C.). The murder happened just after she was to go public with
her story of sexual harassment by Clinton in the White House.
3 - Vince Foster - Former White House Councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little
Rock 's Rose Law Firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide. (He was about to
testify against Hillary related to the records she refused to turn over to congress.) Was reported
to have been having an affair with Hillary.
4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact
in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the
top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated,
and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors. The rest of the people on
the plane also died. A few days later the Air Traffic controller committed suicide.
5 - C. Victor Raiser, II - Raiser, a major player in the Clinton fund raising organization
died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room
in Little Rock on September 1992. Described by Clinton as a "dear friend and trusted advisor".
7 - Ed Willey - Clinton fundraiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot
wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day His wife Kathleen Willey claimed
Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several
Clinton fund raising events.
8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock .. Gunned down
in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock . Park's son said his father was building
a dossier on Clinton . He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files
were mysteriously removed from his house.
9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of
people which contained names of influential people who visited Prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas
10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported
to have ties to the Clintons ' Whitewater deals.
11 - Kathy Ferguson - Ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson , was found dead in May 1994,
in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several
packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with
Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones Lawsuit, and Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness
for Paula Jones.
12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancée of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide
ruling of his fiancée, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide
at the grave site of his fiancée.
13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton 's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window
of a tall building January, 1994. His client, Dan Lassater, was a convicted drug distributor.
14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal,
Mena , Arkansas Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot Wounds.
15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney
General. Died Of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a Suicide. Was pregnant at the
time of her death.
16 - Paula Grober - Clinton 's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December
9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.
17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter who was Investigating the Mean Airport and Arkansas
Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.
18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mean Airport with Casolaro and the
1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993, in his Washington DC apartment.
Had delivered a report to Janet Reno 3 weeks before his death. (May have died of poison)
19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his
death from his Arlington , Virginia apartment balcony August 15,1993. He was investigating the
Morgan Guaranty scandal.
Thijs Buelens -> honey1969 29 Jan 2016 18:41
Did the actors from Orange is the New Black already endorsed Hillary? Just wondering.
Sam3456 -> Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 18:35
Remember as soon as Snowden walked out the door with his USB drive full of secrets his was
in violation. Wether he knew the severity and classification or not.
Think of Hillary's email server as her home USB drive.
RedPillCeryx 29 Jan 2016 18:33
Government civil and military employees working with material at the Top Secret level are required
to undergo incredibly protracted and intrusive vetting procedures (including polygraph testing)
in order to obtain and keep current their security clearances to access such matter. Was Hillary
Clinton required to obtain a Top Secret clearance in the same way, or was she just waved through
because of Who She Is?
Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 18:32
Just to be clear, Colin Powell used a private email ACCOUNT which was hosted in the cloud and
used it only for personal use. He was audited (never deleted anything) and it was found to contain
no government records.
Hillary used a server, which means in electronic form the documents existed outside the State
Department unsecured. Its as if she took a Top Secret file home with her. That is a VERY BIG mistake
and as the Sec of State she signed a document saying she understood the rules and agreed to play
by them. She did not and removing state secrets from their secure location is a very serious matter.
Wether you put the actual file in your briefcase or have them sitting in electronic version on
your server.
Second, she signed a document saying she would return any and ALL documents and copies of documents
pertaining to the State Department with 30 (or 60 I can't remember) of leaving. The documents
on her server, again electronic copies of the top secret files, where not returned for 2 years.
Thats a huge violation.
Finally, there is a clause in classification that deals with the information that is top secret
by nature. Meaning regardless of wether its MARKED classified or not the very nature of the material
would be apparent to a senior official that it was classified and appropriate action would have
to be taken. She she either knew and ignored or did not know...and both of those scenarios don't
give me a lot of confidence.
Finally the information that was classified at the highest levels means exposure of that material
would put human operatives lives at risk. Something she accused Snowden of doing when she called
him a traitor. By putting that information outside the State Department firewall she basically
put peoples lives at risk so she could have the convenience of using one mobile device.
Wallabyfan -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 18:10
Sorry you can delude yourself all you like but Powell and Cheney used private emails while
at work on secure servers for personal communications not highly classified communications and
did so before the 2009 ban on this practice came into place . Clinton has used a private unsecured
server at her home while Sec of State and even worse provided access to people in her team who
had no security clearance. She has also deleted more than 30,000 emails from the server in full
knowledge of the FBI probe. You do realise that she is going to end up in jail don't you?
MtnClimber -> boscovee 29 Jan 2016 18:07
Are you as interested in all of the emails that Cheney destroyed? He was asked to provide them
and never allowed ANY to be seen.
Typical GOP
Dozens die at embassies under Bush. Zero investigations. Zero hearings.
4 die at an embassy under Clinton. Dozens of hearings.
OurNigel -> Robert Greene 29 Jan 2016 17:53
Its not hard to understand, she was supposed to only use her official email account maintained
on secure Federal government servers when conducting official business during her tenure as Secretary
of State. This was for three reasons, the first being security the second being transparency and
the third for accountability.
Serious breach of protocol I'm afraid.
Talgen -> Exceptionalism 29 Jan 2016 17:50
Department responses for classification infractions could include counseling, warnings
or other action, officials said. They wouldn't say if Clinton or senior aides who've since
left government could face penalties. The officials weren't authorized to speak on the matter
and demanded anonymity."
You need to share that one with Petraeus, whos career was ruined and had to pay 100k in
fines, for letting some info slip to his mistress..
Wallabyfan 29 Jan 2016 17:50
No one here seems to be able to accept how serious this is. You cant downplay it. This is the
most serious scandal we have seen in American politics for decades.
Any other US official handling even 1 classified piece of material on his or her own unsecured
home server would have been arrested and jailed by now for about 50 years perhaps longer. The
fact that we are talking about 20 + (at least) indicates at the very least Clinton's hubris, incompetence
and very poor judgement as well as being a very serious breach of US law. Her campaign is doomed.
This is only the beginning of the scandal and I predict we will be rocked when we learn the
truth. Clinton will be indicted and probably jailed along with Huma Abedin who the FBI are also
investigating.
This is supposed to be the lady who (in her own words) has a huge experience of government
yet she willingly broke not just State Department protocols and procedures, by using a privately
maintained none secure server for her email service she also broke Federal laws and regulations
governing recordkeeping requirements.
At the very least this was a massive breach of security and a total disregard for established
rules whilst she was in office. Its not as if she was just some local government officer in a
backwater town she was Secretary of State for the United States government.
If the NSA is to be believed you should presume her emails could have been read by any foreign
state.
This is actually a huge story.
TassieNigel 29 Jan 2016 17:41
This god awful Clinton family had to be stopped somehow I suppose. Now if I'd done it, I'd
be behind bars long ago, so when will Hillary be charged is my question ?
Hillary made much of slinging off about the "traitor" Julian Assange, so let's see how Mrs
Clinton looks like behind bars. A woman simply incapable of telling the truth --
Celebrations for Bernie Sanders of course.
HiramsMaxim 29 Jan 2016 17:41
They also wouldn't disclose whether any of the documents reflected information that was
classified at the time of transmission,
Has nothing to do with anything. Maybe the author should read the actual NDA signed by Mrs.
Clinton.
If every corrupt liar was sent to prison there'd be no one left in Washington, or Westminster
and we'd have to have elections with ordinary people standing, instead of the usual suspects from
the political class. Which, on reflection, sounds quite good !
In_for_the_kill 29 Jan 2016 17:15
Come on Guardian, this should be your lead story, the executive branch of the United States
just confirmed that a candidate for the Presidency pretty much broke the law, knowingly. If that
ain't headline material, then I don't know what is.
dusablon -> SenseCir 29 Jan 2016 17:09
Irrelevant?
Knowingly committing a felony by a candidate for POTUS is anything but irrelevant.
And forget her oh-so-clever excuses about not sending or receiving anything marked top secret
or any other level of classification including SAP. If you work programs like those you know that
anything generated related to that program is automatically classified, whether or not it's marked
as such. And such material is only shared on a need to know basis.
She's putting out a smokescreen to fool the majority of voters who have never or will never
have special access. She is a criminal and needs to be arrested. Period.
Commentator6 29 Jan 2016 17:00
It's a reckless arrogance combined with the belief that no-one can touch her. If she does
become the nominee Hillary will be an easy target for Trump. It'll be like "shooting fish in a
barrel".
DismayedPerplexed -> OnlyOneView 29 Jan 2016 16:40
Are you forgetting W and his administration's 5 million deleted emails?
Consider that email is an indispensable tool in doing one's job. Consider that in order to
effectively do her job, candidate Clinton -- as the Secretary of State -- had to be sending and
receiving Top Secret documents. Consider that all of her email was routed through a personal server.
Consider whether she released all of the relevant emails. Well, she claimed she did but the evidence
contradicts such a claim. Consider that this latest news release has -- like so many others --
been released late on a Friday.
It is obvious that the Secretary of State and the President should be communicating on
a secure network controlled by the federal government. It is obvious that virtually none of these
communications were done in a secure manner. Consider whether someone who contends this is irrelevant
has enough sense to come in out of the rain.
"... I said it before and I say it again: the Saudi's don't give a fricking damn about US fracking, it's Iran they're after. These "royals" are a nasty bunch, they won't stop at nothing and they couldn't care less about whatever consequences for whoever, them "royal" selves included. ..."
"... And don't forget that production in Ghawar Field is declining 13% a year, even with the most aggressive techniques in the world to bring oil to the surface (nitrogen/water combination). ..."
Its Aramco. They dont have to post any results, they are the blood in a
pool of sharks. Think about Syria, who is going to run that mess, theres
only one group capable, the house of Saud. Thats the deal with the Americans,
access to Aramco for most of Syria, the jihadi's will accept Saudi control
as long as Abu Bakr is gone, we or the yanks will see to that. Think about
it.
Saudis may be "playing a long game" - unfortunately they only have a short
time left! It remains to be seen how the new ISIS inheritors will move the
oil out.
I visited some Aramco facilities in the 1990s. The company retains much
of its American heritage - eg. pool tables in the staff lounges. I would
agree with the idea that it is well run. Its sheer size makes it something
of a state within a state. It has its own airline and does business all
over the world.
There is a phrase apparently along the lines of "God is great but not
as great as Aramco", indicating perhaps that when it comes to it, the geology/economy
trumps theology in the Kingdom.
Its revenues - which are massive, as it easily has the lowest cost of
production of any producer - largely shore up the Saudi state. But hence
the Saudi nervousness about attempts to tackle global warming by reducing
dependence on fossil fuels.
It will be interesting to see just how much of the stock is unloaded.
I am guessing no more than 25%. The prospectus will make interesting reading
and might put the Saudi's off. I mean is there enough money in the capital
markets to devote say $2.5tr to a company which is always, ALWAYS, going
to be controlled by a state. I'd say that's a figure based on today's oil
price. Put the price back to $100 and a 25% slice might be worth $10tr.
one to buy for the dividend though...
Saudi Aramco was previously named 'Aramco'. Aramco stands for Arabian American
Oil Company. U.S. interests (event the buts and bolts were U.S. standard
size), acceptance of decapitation, corrupt governance, and petrodollars.
What else do you need to know? How much the arms industry earns?
And how many refugees they have created through Western/Saudi greed?
arusenior
"a supply glut that Saudi Arabia and fellow Opec members have refused
to address in their determination to drive US fracking rivals out of business"
I said it before and I say it again: the Saudi's don't give a fricking
damn about US fracking, it's Iran they're after. These "royals" are a nasty
bunch, they won't stop at nothing and they couldn't care less about whatever
consequences for whoever, them "royal" selves included.
hashtagthat -> Markets_Observer
They might still be able to produce oil at a profit but that is not the
issue for the Saudis. They need circa $106 a bbl to balance the budget.
I can fill my tank up cheaply but if my wages don't cover my mortgage
I'm gonna burn through my savings ultimately.
Wow - when you put it like that, it's hard not to be persuaded by your well-informed
arguments and incisive analysis! And after all, what do I know - I just
read Wikipedia:
Volatile weather conditions in Europe's North Sea have made drilling
particularly hazardous, claiming many lives (see Oil platform). The
conditions also make extraction a costly process; by the 1980s, costs
for developing new methods and technologies to make the process both
efficient and safe, far exceeded NASA's budget to land a man on the
moon.
I mean, obviously you're right on one level, that if everyone was paid less,
then production costs would fall. But you don't have to buy an oil rig to
drill in Saudi; you don't have to haul it out into the middle of a very
rough sea; you don't have to fly every single ounce of kit out to the rig
by helicopter or on a supply boat, both vulnerable to the endless bad weather
out there; you don't have to use divers; and so on.
TettyBlaBla -> redwhine
Don't forget that Aramco was originally a Standard Oil (of California)
venture.
Look into the history of Standard Oil and how it was forced to break
into multiple separate corporations by the US government, one of these was
Standard Oil of California. It operated as Chevron in the US for a number
of years, acquired Union Oil of California (Union 76/Unocal) and is now
Exxon/Mobil, having acquired Mobil Oil (which used to use Pegasus as its
logo). It has learned well from its founder, Rockefeller and his minions.
Same can be said of AT&T and Verizon, spawn of the US government mandated
breakup of Ma Bell.
smed54235
and the rapid transformation of Saudi Arabia from desert kingdom
to modern nation state
Modern nation state. That's a laugh. They've barely left the Middle Ages.
semyorka
"My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive
a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover,
but his son will ride a camel."
Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques is going to have to worry about some
more earthly blow back from all that Takfiri Jihadism when they cannot pay
the bills.
The price of oil will rebound, but in the medium term they are likely
to begin to see steadily lower production and the world will begin to decarbonise.
ARAMCO does not look like a safe bet.
Eugenios
The cost of fracked oil is too high for it to be the target of this Saudi-engineered
glut. Quite obviously the target is Russia, and the Saudis are in league
with Britain, the US, and so forth in the move.
It is also possible that some of the Finance Capitalist imbeciles think
that lowering the price of oil will lead to an economic recovery. As a matter
of fact the high price of oil was a decisive element in the crash of 2008.
Consider the following prices for Brent crude, so:
January 2002 $19 per barrel
August 2008 $147 per barrel
That does not mean, however, that as oil prices decline the economies
involved will pick up again.
The only sure bet to benefit from low oil prices is China.
Noiseformind
Saudi Aramco is actually only possible in KSA, since it has a wasteland
with no environmental control. Any international company (other than a Chinese
one) will have a lot of issues operating with Saudi Aramco and keep up with
keeping Jubail such a wasteland. Check Google Maps to see how that trillion
dollars valuation is produced.
And don't forget that production in Ghawar Field is declining 13%
a year, even with the most aggressive techniques in the world to bring oil
to the surface (nitrogen/water combination).
So any valuation is subjected to a 13% devaluation every year. And if
the Saud monarchs even show a little flinching in gripping that oil they
will see many other tribes (yes, KSA is just a mix of semi-nomadic tribes
with Bugatti Veyrons) coming to grasp the power.
There are over 1600 "princes" in KSA. That position means they have over
10 million dollars coming from the King directly, plus other rents from
foreign companies that lease their "wasta". If they loose that power in
Saudi Aramco they will rebel very easily.
d1st1ngu1shed -> objectinspace
So do I get this right? The Saudis don't like the Turks. The Turks don't
like the Iranians. The Iranians do like the Russians mainly because the
Russians don't get on with the Turks. The Germans do get on with the Turks.
The US interferes with everybody, (for their own good, and because the Brits
and the French aren't any good at anything any more, except holidays in
Dubai)
Everybody else takes care.
I haven't forgotten anything have I? Syria Ooooo! Them.
Usedhankerchief
The sale of Aramco doesn't mean that much. Rumours of over-stated reserves
are one thing, production problems at Gharwar another. The problem for the
buyers of the shares is that the Saudi state is becoming dysfunctional,
and the assets are in Shia areas, so there will be a huge write-down because
of those risks. Its the worst possible time to sell, so they must really
have problems.
PSmd -> SirWillis
Well, a lot of work done by foreign people there, unemployed youth, the
public sector employs 60% of the Saudi population, they're masking what
unemployment might really be. Indeed, running 22% deficit, trying to find
a way to get prices back up, quite a balancing trick.
MacCosham -> redwhine
1. Fracking companies weren't making a profit at $100 oil, let alone
$50.
2. Fracking technology has existed for the past 30 years.
Let's face it, the main innovation that created the fracking boom was
7 years of 0% interest rates.
I did hear on the radio last week that there appears an economic war is being played out between
Saudi Arabia and Iran. Truth of this I don't know.
But, what does concern the world at these prices are major trading companies may go bust.
On derivatives and oil futures somewhere someone is carrying huge losses.
And, concerning the world economy derivatives are a markets of 70 or more trillions dollars
, enormous markets, as Warren Buffet once said derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction.
Somewhere in the world financial system huge losses on derivatives are sitting.
World Politicians shied away from the tough decisions under the guise of quantitative easing.
QE appears to have caused greater missallocation of resources.
2008 financial crisis is reemerging from its dormant position. 2008 was just push further down
the road.
Social Cohesion in Britain needs this time to really all be in this together.
" On derivatives and oil futures somewhere someone is carrying huge losses. "
The Big Lie - "zero sum game".
If that is true - play Monopoly in your own time with your own money.
That "zero sum game" pays billions in profits - so where does the money come from ?
Would love to know that myself.
This is a much too specific question for an economist - like asking for the winner of the 2-30
at Kempton.
Perspective is always a good thing -
This is what happens when central banks across the world inflate the biggest bubbles the world
has ever seen by keeping interest rates at near zero percent for 7 years. Let's make one thing
clear - China is not the only culprit for the latest fears over the global economy, to say that
many western economies such as the US or the UK have recovered or are on the road to recovery
would be disingenuous to say the least.
We have been scraping along at the lowest rate of so-called "recovery" (debt-fueled with ZIRP)
after a recession despite these interest rates - what would it have been like if rates were increased
a couple of years ago? One can only guess, but it would be fair to estimate that we would be back
in a recession.
So, here we are again, back at the latter stages of the next cycle in the boom-bust oscillations
of our global economy - and "is this time different"? Yes, but only by the measure that this time
there is little that central banks can do to mitigate or even slow the financial crisis. The 2008
crisis never really ended, this year we will undoubtedly see that the real part of that crisis
is about to unfold - capitalism should be allowed to take place this time, and if that means huge
corporations filing then so be it.
"if that means huge corporations filing then so be it."
I agree - but they are Ok, in fact loaded with cash.
"May 8, 2015 At the end of last year, U.S. non-financial companies held a staggering $1.73
trillion in cash, up 4% from the $1.67 trillion on hand at the end of 2013, found Moody's."
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome
/
So much of the debt has been loaded on sovereigns - what will they do - file for bankruptcy
?
OPEC should not allow members to sell oil at a financial loss. Oil is trading below its intrinsic
value and there are serious imbalances in the market. Member countries that sell oil below market
value lose money in two ways. They add supply to a depressed market and they lose money on the
transaction itself. It would make much more sense for OPEC to target minimum profitability as
their primary goal for all members rather than trying to use their market position to eliminate
producers in the United States.
Since most of the large energy companies in the United States
are publicly traded, it would be better for OPEC members to use their profits to purchase equity
in these companies rather than trying to make them unprofitable. I propose that OPEC target a
specific and stable price long term and then to adjust that price for inflation. For instance,
if it is determined that all members can profit at 70 dollar oil, then they should lower production
when the price is below that and increase it when it is above that. Member countries then use
a percentage of their profits to increase their reserves with share purchases of other non-opec
producers, thus increasing reserves long term.
Saudi Arabia has again badly miscalculated.
By pumping vast amount of Oil, KSA thought it could sink America, Russia and Iran oil companies
and Economies
Well it seems KSA is going broke! I am celebrating...
Current Saudi finance minster is Ibrahim Abdulaziz Al-Assaf
"After leaving academia, Ibrahim moved to Washington, DC where he represented Saudi Arabia
at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank
...
In addition to being finance minister, Ibrahim is a member of the board of directors of Saudi
Aramco (since 1996), the state-owned national oil company,
... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Abdulaziz_Al-Assaf
Is this history repeating itself?...but in China.
1998 Russian financial crisis.....Their stock market collapsed followed by a run on the ruble
which was devalued.
Most Russians suffered as their pensions, wages etc were severely devalued.
Same could be happening today in both China and Russia...
Financial war....Dinosaurs versus dinosaurs.
How to wreck a country....Trash it's markets and currency.
It's the law of the jungle.....The strongest survive.
However Russia and China will not take it lying down....Scary times indeed.
It seems that the Chinese market is under the greatest pressure...only to be propped up by
the government pumping money into it. (printing money)...result will be their currency devalues
and everybody in China suffers.
It has happened many times to many countries before...e.g. Germany, Argentina, Brazil, Russia
etc....
Two quick points.
First, OPEC has increased flow to destabilise Russian & Iranian profits. However, this situation
demonstrates that the price of oil should never have been much higher.
Second, China has a better approach to wealth re-distribution than OPEC nations and all advanced
economies. If a genuine desire to increase economic activity were expressed then wealth sitting
in secret accounts and held by the top 10% would be taxed & spread to the true wheel of economy:
ordinary people with poor purchasing power.
When the debt merchants, the money alchemists and voracious volatility vultures start panicking
(Hey, it's all relative. Don't worry, THEY'LL be fine) and looking for 'safe havens' (anything
deemed to have an intrinsic value, but still not gold as, 'we're not bloody savages, y'know...yet'),
when prices, particularly the golden goose commodities that kept them in (debt fertilised) speculative
clover in their (hopefully fitful) sleep, start to reflect genuine economic reality, then you
know it's probably squeaky bum time for the hapless cannon fodder that didn't cause this train
wreck, reaped little of its rewards, but nevertheless will bear the brunt of its consequences
yet again.
High rate temporary debt junk bonds are already failing. Those issued on the small oil drillers.
But it is a relatively small part of the junk bond market itself nevertheless financial institutions
overall.
Small companies are due to fail and will. the larger ones will pick up the pieces at rock bottom
prices and things will go on.
The numbers anywhere in developed economies don't support recession. China by the worst guesses
is still par on GDP. By most takes between 4 and 7 increasing GDP. With the looming effects of
el nino on India I would not say it could enter a recession in the next 6 months but that would
be a isolated event. The US no where close. People are taking the low oil prices as a read on
the economy. It is not this time global consumption is going up not down. It is a supply glut.
I live near KSA, and I see first-hand how corrupt and morally bankrupt the whole thing is. I also
see how incredibly subsidised EVERYTHING is. The people of these countries are little more than
spoiled children, with no incentive to work properly or even understand the businesses they are
in. Russia has a much more diverse economy, in KSA it is almost entirely oil. The rest of it is
industries that rely on oil money - such as the construction sector.
Offering an IPO on KSA's oil will expose the total incompetence and corruption behind the company,
I don't know how they hope to hide it all. So, you're right, all is far from well. I will be packing
my bags at the first sign of revolution, which I predict will be in 3-5 years. I don't think people
yet realise how bad things are going to get once KSA implodes and Iran and ISIS seek to take advantage.
It's going to be ugly, and I must admit, I'm a little scared.
the reason you have a collapsing global economy is because the idiots created one through a battery
of Free Trade Agreements that were aimed at over -riding local sovereignty and democracy and accessing
scab labour on an international scale
It didn't work did it - by dismantling local industry and exporting manufacture to countries
like China the middle class in the West made itself redundant
Welcome to the great unwashed guys - you are one of us now and with less skills to survive
- I don't think your economic and managerial skills will impress anyone
You did it all to yourselves ...Get in the queue for the welfare you denied others - and reflect:
"So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen."
People are confusing the stock market with the economy. The economy is ho humming along. The market
is artificially inflated in value by above stated factors. Not by a whole bunch but enough to
make a sell off of minor sort a probable.
Earnings will once again be real and not a thing of less stock per earning share.,
Report
I wish I could upvote this twice. It's not like e.g the dot.com crash, where a bunch of hopeless
money-losing pipe dreams fell apart. Facebook, Apple et al actually make a profit and have a niche,
it's just that with so many other investments offering desultory returns, the stock market has
been pumped up by desperate speculators.
I am not sure why people think the Saudis are in trouble.
Most of the shale is becoming uneconomical to recover if you believe the forward curve. $50
oil for 5+ years, they will need closer to $100 to go back to the capped wells. The frackers are
just taking the first 30% of the cheapest oil to produce (1st 18 months), capping and moving on.
They are churning through oil reserves at 3 times the rate to do it.
They can still do it until they get to debt repayment. Anyone thinking the industry got ultra
efficient over night is optimistic feller.
The reality is shale gas is not the primary concern. They want rid of artic, deep water and
tar sands. My guess is the Saudis would be more than happy to let the US be the swing producer
as shale is far more flexible. Shale was the trigger not the problem.
I'd be quite happy to see the whole stock market free fall. The current inequity and greed deserves
it's reward. Money for nothing investors and free loader corporations that don't pay their share
of taxation will be the ones who go down. A new system is required to break away from the old
established power and energy companies that have led us to the brink of devastating our planet.
The capitalists are the victims of themselves. Fortunately for them, they own the wealthiest states
on the planet. And therefore, can always expect welfare, social assistance and
bail-outs whenever they burst another bubble. Socialism for the rich.
We are a stupid species to put up with this casino scam. If you disagree with the ponzy scheme,
start by supporting Sanders in the U.S. and Corbyn in the U.K. At least it's a modest beginning
to opposing these criminals.
China stock piling oil is a good idea, may help explain recent capital outflows , of which
the article does not explain the opaque /nebulous financial details of these movements. It maybe
China shuffling pieces on a board.
"The country's global trade surplus widened by 21% to $60bn in December. Over the whole
year it was $594bn. The country's trade surplus in December with the European Union, its biggest
trading partner, increased 36.8% to $15.6bn. The surplus with the US contracted 6% to $19.4bn."
No doubt the figures need to treated like all PRC figures.
That said it is undeniable that China had another huge trade surplus.
Yet despite this they manage to cheat on their exchange rate and devalue the Yuan.
The Currency/Trade Wars are in full swing..
By then then most of the oil residues, waste and plastic products will reside in the Worlds Seas
and Oceans. I've not seen much movement to remove the plastic gyres floating around the Southern
Pacific Ocean. Land waste management has serious flaws as well. The only 'waste management ' in
the UK that is booming is all the junk that motorists chuck out of their cars when mobile - they
must think that plastic bags hanging from tree branches 'adds' to natures wonders. In a resturant
car park the other day were 2 used babies nappies left in a parking bay - some people are scum
and these couldn't have been poor.
Incredible how low the West in cahoots with Saudi Arabia will stoop, and all in an attempt to
crush Russia economically and politically. And the media continues the deceptive narrative about
troubles everywhere, brought on by 'competition' among oil producers, except pointing to the true
and only reason behind the low oil price. The public in general swallows the 'explanations' forgetting
that the ball started rolling downhill immediately after the USA twisted Germany's and other western
European countries to impose sanctions on Russia in retaliation for it's welcoming Crimea back
to the Motherland. In the name of this geopolitical game, the good people of USA, Canada and other
countries whose significant part of income derives from natural resources and related products,
are loosing their jobs by the thousands. All is well and according to the plan, as long as Russia
suffers more than the West, and will be the first to bite the dust. The world economy will then
be turned around to everyone's relief.
Seems the FED's recent interest rate rise was premature. If another 2008 does happen calls to
abolish it will grow ever louder, especially since economic chaos will smooth Trump's path to
the White House, and Trump has made FED abolition one of his campaign pledges. After repeated
failures catastrophes under Greenspan, Bernanke and now Yellen it seems the FED is surplus to
requirements.,
Report
What will they do after abolishing the Fed? Will they have a single national currency or allow
each bank (or any other entity) to issue its own currency and let these different currencies compete
with each other?
If they continue to have a single national currency, who will issue it and set the monetary
policy? Another Central Bank or the government? If it is going to be another Central Bank what
exactly is the point of abolishing the Fed? Why not change the law to allow the government to
remove the Fed's board of governors and appoint those they think are more competent than Janet
Yellen and other governors, since abolishing the Fed will anyway require the repeal of the law
establishing it i.e. it too needs Congressional approval. If the government is going to be issuing
the currency and set the monetary policy, in what way would it be superior to the Fed doing the
same?
If they allow any entity to issue its own currency, what currency will the taxes be denominated
in?
Well the predictions were for four rate hikes in the year. Now perhaps we see two. The one already
and another. Things get better and it is up to four. The dow only dropped three hundred or so
and the S and P is above its support level, which is about 1857 to my dim recollection.
So till we exceed that support to the downside, really things are not bad. A wash out was probably
a necessary thing.
I think people are overdoing this thing. The media seems to be hyping the decline which may
account for all the sell side prognostications.
Earning are just beginning. If I see indications that earming are the mover behind the sell off
I would have concern. Alcoa all things considered was not that bad. Certainly not as bad as the
tape today. OIl by my guess is the real mover as the new lows have people spooked.
I am not to worried it can flip up or down but it really is only a small part of the market nowadays
not what it was in yesteryear.
So I repeat this is overdone, that is my opinion. Those calling gloom and doom on this action,
no offense but this little resembles any major sell off of a lasting duration spiral down. What
is the mover….low oil prices? The rest of the market benefits from low oil prices.
Sentiment can drive things lower but really only for so long. Chinas last numbers reported
were better than expected. Me being cynical and seeing the talking heads talking things down anticipate
it is the big money movers trying to create some action on the short side. How long they keep
this up is a guess. But it requires someone to keep pressure on to move it down. Without new bad
news on China, what is the precipitive factor….nothing new here.
Unfair market system, Complete waste of time, energy and resources. Destroy all the stock markets
along with corporations and Banks. It is time we stop playing this ridiculous economic game and
start concentrating on the real issues that we are facing. Poverty, Conflicts in the middle east,
environmental degradation, climate change, and many more. What is the root cause of all of these
problems? Yes it the socioeconomic system capitalism with its flawed monetary system owned by
the corporations and the Banks that does not care about the well being of planet or nature and
the well being of all human beings but only care about their own wealth, power, fame, egos. Such
idiots!!!!! stop playing their game and move to a new fair game called RBE and other similar systems.
It is very stupid of us to base our economy on something as unstable and selfish as the Stock
Market, as well as something as unstable as governments, democratic and otherwise. It is about
time we became as intelligent and clever as all these whizz kids who invent amazing technology
and make amazing discoveries. It is about time we became whizz kids at organising an intelligent
and reliable economy. For us.
Why do banks charge an interest on loans? If the function of money is to get the economy started
and running, then the work done and the profits made should be a sufficient reward. Banks could
actually give money away on a non-return basis, so long as the money goes to people who will spend
it, this spending lending to more spending.
Perhaps the private owners of the current private currencies want more than a sound economy,
perhaps they want power, and want to exercise this power just to know for real that they have
it? Perhaps they are not fully-fledged human being animals but suffer some form of genetic or
social affliction that makes them behave in dangerous anti-social ways? Perhaps they don´t give
a fig about other human being animals - other than those who serve their biological wants and
needs? Perhaps shareholders are afflicted in the same way?
Perhaps we could form our bank to issue our non-returnable money, and even decide what work
is worthwhile and is done and what work is not worthwhile and so will not be done?
Millions of years ago, so we are told, some fish came out of the sea and survived. What I am
suggesting is a work and economy evolution of a similar scale. Current economic theory has us
all drowning in the quagmire of self-interest-driven chaos, self-styled as a "social science".
Perhaps we could come out into fresh air and create a diversity of human activity on a par with
the diversity of living things on land and in the air that came from those first brave fish that
ventured beyond known limits?
Columbus did not go over the edge of the world but discovered a whole New World.
Perhaps we need to go beyond even the "thinking outside the box" box?
Who funds international terrorism try the oil rich countries in the Middle East so let's assume
the Yanks have got smart for once and are flooding oil market to bring down these economys .
The end game is destabilise them then pick up their oil industries for a song and influence just
who makes Middle Eastern policys by economic means .
Bit of a dream but hey nothing falls down in price to this extent without a hidden reason given
its a fossil fuel that should be rising to maintain supplies for the long term .
The economy is like a super tanker and these results are still the effect of the ripples of the
economic crash almost a decade ago. The result of lower oil prices will be that ordinary people
will start to realise they have more disposable income than they did a year ago and start spending
that money on more shit they don't need and the economy will swing back with a vengeance.
Well surely all those neoliberal economists can't be wrong....it must be the fault of that evil
Mr corbyn and his army of trotskyists.....HA HA we are on the slippery slide to another global
crash folks ...
Sigh....the stock market....virtual money and speculation...Worst thing ever created causing insane
chain effects in economies. Although....why were economies booming before when Oil price was low?
Cause sure oil companies profits go down, but every other business that uses the oil increases
their profit. Isn't this also a good reason to start doing something about being so oil dependant?
Once in a lifetime chance for the USA to escape from the strangle whole of the Saudi oil grip.
Fracking gives them a chance to break with the Saudi s or even break them for good.
Failure doesn't t bear thinking about, and we all know where Obama s sympathies lie - but in modern
America who cares.. the battle is between the giant bureaucracies, not the democratic froth on
top of the cake.
Always remember America in you hour of destiny there were Americans long before there was the
USA . And will be long after it is gone. And for the love of God .. COLUMBUS did not discover
America. Which ironically is named after a Welch sheep farmer.?
Americo FrontHoovesintheWellies was his full name. Knew a thing or two about sex and sheep.,
Report
Most US oil comes from Canada and Mexico, a very small percentage from Saudi Arabia. But they
have enormous financial influence through bonds, obviously, and buying media and politicians.
Also Israel and Saudi Arabia have been working together under the table for some time, as was
obvious during the Gulf War, and now in their efforts to begin a war against Iran. Fracking has
never been any threat to the Saudis--the cost is too high. Their present lowering of oil prices
is directed against Russia, surely in cahoots with the US.
Oil and US share prices tumble over fears for global economy.
The economists have been telling us that there is little danger for the US economy to be pushed
into recession by a slow-down in the Chinese economy - referred to here as "global economy". More
importantly, in election years the US Markets have never been good indicators of the US economy,
anyway.
The real reasons for the US market plunge are the trades conducted on behalf of the Wall Street
tycoons and the Saudi Royal Family. Both are doing their best to push the markets down, because
they are deeply worried of having another Democrat in the White House, come January 2017.
The Wall Street tycoons are apprehensive about getting dragged into courts for their financial
mischiefs during the last decade. The Saudis are concerned that the US leaning further toward
Iran, which will encourage their internal oppositions to demand reforms, which could include getting
rid of the Royal Family. So, both the Saudis and the Wall Street tycoons have a common cause.
They will "keep at it", until they can be sure that the next US president will be a Republican.
"National debts, i.e., the alienation of the state – whether despotic, constitutional or republican
– marked with its stamp the capitalistic era. The only part of the so-called national wealth that
actually enters into the collective possessions of modern peoples is their national debt. Hence,
as a necessary consequence, the modern doctrine that a nation becomes the richer the more deeply
it is in debt. Public credit becomes the credo of capital. And with the rise of national debt-making,
want of faith in the national debt takes the place of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which
may not be forgiven.
The public debt becomes one of the most powerful levers of primitive accumulation. As with
the stroke of an enchanter's wand, it endows barren money with the power of breeding and thus
turns it into capital, without the necessity of its exposing itself to the troubles and risks
inseparable from its employment in industry or even in usury. The state creditors actually give
nothing away, for the sum lent is transformed into public bonds, easily negotiable, which go on
functioning in their hands just as so much hard cash would. But further, apart from the class
of lazy annuitants thus created, and from the improvised wealth of the financiers, middlemen between
the government and the nation – as also apart from the tax-farmers, merchants, private manufacturers,
to whom a good part of every national loan renders the service of a capital fallen from heaven
– the national debt has given rise to joint-stock companies, to dealings in negotiable effects
of all kinds, and to agiotage, in a word to stock-exchange gambling and the modern bankocracy."
"... America threatened Russia some time ago about meddling in the affairs of
Syria ..."
"... The US is really going for broke on crashing the oil price ..."
"... All of this to try to contain Russias military rearmament made possible
by sky high oil prices ..."
"... Has the west finally gotten wise to the Saudi money that flows into extremist
groups? Would seem so. West seems to be doing everything it can to contain the Saudis.
eems to be doing everything it can to contain the Saudis. ..."
"... Yes because of millions of refuges that Arab countries caused by supporting
ISIS it is completely natural for west to go after Saudi Arabia and its allies sponsor
of ISIS. So they got what they deserved. Today I also read that the markets in Saudi
Arabia, Qatar and Emirates collapsed and I think this a beginning of an end for
them. ..."
"... The Iranians deciding that their revolution has matured sufficiently for
them to plainly state we dont wish death on anybody, our religion is about peace,
and to demonstrate our sincerity well urge our people to stop such rhetoric would
contribute to Irans rehabilitation as a more or less normal member of the global
community of nations. ..."
"... This has to be the beginning of the end for the Saudis and Qataris and
their utter crapulence, all at the expense of the rest of the World. OPEC has no
answer for this and is completely impotent to do anything about it. The cartel is
busted. ..."
"... And so it seems with oil. There has to be a base production cost which
doesnt vary and I doubt that the Saudis or Iranians are selling it at under that
cost - they both need a modest profit - so, one wonders, if they can make that modest
profit at $30 a barrel, think how much they were making at $100 ..."
"... The U.S and Iranians are using each other against their own allies. U.S
is using Iran to put pressure on Saudi so that they keep producing more oil to bankrupt
Russia, despite it destroying Saudi economy. Iran is using USA as a counterbalance
to Russia because as much as they want Russias help, they dont want Russia to become
too strong in the region. ..."
"... In my view Iran was never quite the bad guy that the western governments
portrayed it to be. We certainly have differences. But if you compare Iran and Saudi
Arabia there is no contest - Iran is far less a bogeyman. ..."
The funny thing is that the sanctions have probably helped Iran as it had
to survive with less. Iran now gets access to it's foreign banking about
50billion net and can start exporting again.
Saudi is burning through its reserve cash and it's populace are used
to getting things for free, will they survive low oil revenues like Iran
or is the House of Said on the brink of annihilation? Talk about shooting
yourself in the foot!
It's amazing how detrimental oil has been to the middle east. If only
they could have gone down a similar path to Norway....
Seeing Iran to go into economical slow down was a depressing sight. OPEC
definitely took a huge share of IRAN'S oil fortune and that time can not
come back. PART of it was Iran's fault agreed, but since Iran's sanctions
are lifted you cant blame it.
It's just taking a share of what it has lost in years. This will indeed
afftect gulf region and other oil exporting countries but HEY BACK TO REALITY!!!
Indeed its bad time since oil is already record low thanks to Fracking.
This time is like dubstep for environmentalists who are dancing on oil price
beats. No one is actually explaining the actual picture behind the scene
as hundred of thousands of jobs are being slashed. Its like a death sentence
for oil workers like me. 1 year since graduation as a petroleum engineer
still no job worried to pay debts and there are countles like me. In short
low oil prices won't make things better but worse.
"The French-listed aircraft maker Airbus also looks set for a significant
boost from the sanctions ending"
It is the first time, a British newspaper says "French aircraft maker Airbus".
Yes Airbus is principaly a French company and not a European one contrary
to what British newspaper often say.
Indeed...the magic answer is interesting to say the least. America threatened
Russia some time ago about meddling in the affairs of Syria and other
cooperative business tactics. This manipulation is more about the benefits
beneath mainstream media...plus, it is an election year...of course, oil
is welcome and plentiful...somehow...it always is election time...though
the added incentive does make Russia cringe a bit...these United States
knew the only way to allow Russia to feel pinched was this way...so her
and her cohorts have combined efforts to achieve their goals. Hmmm...
Hammond is such a prostitute with his comments. They have been sucking up
to Saudi/Qatar and UAE for decades, but now they are all on the slippery
slope, he says 'dump them all and start courting Iran'. The man has no shame
whatsoever.
The US is really going for broke on crashing the oil price:-
1 Deal with Iran (to increase supply)
2 Saudis pumping as much as they can (favour to US who turn a blind eye
or help their regional aspirations by financing ISIS and AQ)(note the price
was going nowhere until Ukraine/Crimea appeared then suddenly it started
going down whilst Saudi currency actually appreciated)
3 Letting the US export oil (more supply)
4 Letting Turkey take oil from ISIS (more supply)
All of this to try to contain Russia's military rearmament made possible
by sky high oil prices.
May the terrorist funding by Saudi and Qatar comes to halt by cheap oil
prices. They had made the decision to make it cheap but it is not Iran's
decision to make it expensive again. Which believe me Iran doesn't like
to do so especially that through the sanction years Saudis, Qatar, Emirates
played a nasty role in OPEC by getting rid of production sluts(it was to
do by limiting each member to a certain production level but as Iran was
sanctioned they thought it is the best way to hurt Iran's share of OPEC
by getting rid of it) now this is the only reason they cannot increase the
oil price as well as they cannot control Iran's production . Iran will produce
even more and has a fresh supply of Cash and its economy is more robust
to be only based on Oil so what I want to tell the Saudis, Qatari, Emirates
and their allies is to fuck off . Because through these years you were sponsors
of ISIS, Cause hundreds of thousands of death tolls and millions of refuges
in the world that you have not taken a single refugee and the whole EU and
North Americas must pay for it now. YOU GOT WHAT YOU DESERVED ARABS. Hope
Iran become friend with Israel too and teach Arabs another lesson.
Recent events with Saudi princes assaulting maids in the US (then claiming
'diplomatic immunity' and skipping the country before charges could be laid
against them) could also be a factor, as it has woken people up as to what
the Saudis are really like.
The highway between Bahrain and Saudi/UAE is like the M25 at weekends,
with Wahhabi hypocrites rushing to Bahrain to get pissed and laid. It's
been like that for decades. They claim to be pious and expect their subjects,
contractors and ex-pats working out there to do as they say, not as they
do.
Saudi Arabia is therefore finished as a regional power. Economy crippled
by low oil prices. Iran meanwhile has had to endure an embargo for a decade,
resulting in a tougher economy that is far more diverse.
Has the west finally gotten wise to the Saudi money that flows into
extremist groups? Would seem so. West seems to be doing everything it can
to contain the Saudi's. eems to be doing everything it can to contain the
Saudi's.
Yes because of millions of refuges that Arab countries caused by supporting
ISIS it is completely natural for west to go after Saudi Arabia and its
allies sponsor of ISIS. So they got what they deserved. Today I also read
that the markets in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Emirates collapsed and I think
this a beginning of an end for them.
It really brings David Cameron and the Tories' sucking up to the Saudis
into clear perspective, doesn't it, as their credit rating for buying arms
will be taking a nosedive. Watch BAE Systems shares start to wobble this
coming week.
It also leaves the Royal family in somewhat of a quandry, as who is Price
Charles going to sword dance with now?
Iran adding to the current supply glut in oil was an inevitable consequence
of the deal. Still, the timing is particularly bad, with the crash in commodities
feeding a gloomy mood in stock markets around the world.
A deflationary spiral for the global economy is now a little more likely,
with excess capacity in a range of manufactured goods, from steel to I-Phones,
in addition to the glut in oil and other commodities.
But, that glut is not Iran's fault. The prisoner exchange was good to
see.
Next I'd like to see a symbolic move by Iran: move on from the "Death
to America" (and Britain, and Israel) rhetoric. Islam needs some public
relations help. The Iranians deciding that their revolution has "matured"
sufficiently for them to plainly state "we don't wish death on anybody,
our religion is about peace, and to demonstrate our sincerity we'll urge
our people to stop such rhetoric" would contribute to Iran's rehabilitation
as a more or less "normal" member of the global community of nations.
This has to be the beginning of the end for the Saudis and Qataris and
their utter crapulence, all at the expense of the rest of the World. OPEC
has no answer for this and is completely impotent to do anything about it.
The cartel is busted.
I guess that nobody likes the Wahhabi hypocrites any more.
I suppose it all depends on how much Iranian oil is pumped into the system
as a proportion of the total, but then what is the 'right' price for oil
anyway?
It reminds me of a supermarket conundrum - 'What's the price of a packet
of Pringles?'. This comes from the notion that in one supermarket they're
£1 each or two for £1.50, in another they're £1.25 but one a 'buy one get
one free' deal, in another they're £1 each but buy two and get one free...
and so on. But not only this - all of these deals change weekly.
So you begin to wonder, given that a packet of Pringles costs the same
to make whatever price they're sold at - and the manufacturer wants to make
a modest profit - why can you never determine the true price?
And so it seems with oil. There has to be a base production cost
which doesn't vary and I doubt that the Saudis or Iranians are selling it
at under that cost - they both need a modest profit - so, one wonders, if
they can make that modest profit at $30 a barrel, think how much they were
making at $100
Apparently, according to reuters, Saudi Arabia paid Somalia a $50 million
bribe to break diplomatic relations with Iran. Iranians, themselves, would
have paid the Somalian government more to beak off diplomatic relations.
But hey, why complain? It's free! Cheers 'Salman the Barbarian'!
Saudi Arabia, Israel, Bahrain, Sudan, Somalia, United States, The Comoros
and Djibouti all do not have diplomatic relations with Iran. UAE recalled
its embassador in sympathy with Sheikh Salman the Barbarian. Iran needed
UAE before as it was used as a port for importing into Iran(a sanction busting
avenue) but since sanctions are lifted, middlemen are no longer required
which means UAE will lose an annual income of $11 billion and Iran will
gain. Very sad!
I hope that The Comoros and Djibouti will soon reestablish relations
because it is hurting Iran's economy.
'The UK has played a central role, and I hope British businesses seize the
opportunities available to them through the phased lifting of sanctions
on Iran. ' said Philip Hammond.
His department was instrumental in sanctions against Iran while other
countries, particularly Germany and France, were lukewarm. Which countries
will now benefit? Answers on a postcode, marked 'Clue', to Philip Hammond.
Iran is closer to a development [nations] like Turkey than to Saudi Arabia.
Saudis have always been unable to do anything else than watch oil go out
of pipelines into tankers, they have no agriculture, no industry.
Iranians
want to industrialize like Turkey, but that doesn't mean democracy and personal
freedom. Development gives more means of control and repression to autocrats
too, like we have seen in Russia, Turkey, continental China. Not all countries
are able to move to democracy like Taiwan and South Korea
It is hard to understand why the Guardian labels low oil as an actual woe
for the World. It mainly hurts countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia, while
in the West we all benefit from cheap fuel.
Doubt it. The news was already in the market and has been for some time.
No surprize.
Even if does go further south, it would be temporary and besides the
wahhabi regimes of Arabia are the ones who will suffer the most. Either
way, good news for Iran.
The U.S and Iranians are using each other against their own allies.
U.S is using Iran to put pressure on Saudi so that they keep producing more
oil to bankrupt Russia, despite it destroying Saudi 'economy'. Iran is using
USA as a counterbalance to Russia because as much as they want Russia's
help, they don't want Russia to become too strong in the region.
The (seemingly) more likely scenario is to make the excuse for war against
Iran this year.... "We really tried with these guys but now we have to 'regime-change'
them". That will result in a MASSIVE war.
A less likely scenario is that USA (at a shot to nothing) thinking they
might actually replace saudi oil-fields propping up the $ with IRanian ones.
And Iran (at a shot to nothing) thinking they might take the U.S out of
Israel's pocket. As unlikely as either of these scenarios are, all bets
are off this year. Both those latter plays could push Israel and Russia
closer together, resulting in a MASSIVE war which the U.S would lose.
Either way, a MASSIVE war is coming and this development is more significant
than people think.
In my view Iran was never quite the bad guy that the western governments
portrayed it to be. We certainly have differences. But if you compare Iran
and Saudi Arabia there is no contest - Iran is far less a bogeyman.
It is always worth remembering that nearly all the September 11 hijackers
were Saudis, none were Iranian. ISIS was funded and armed by Saudi Arabia,
not by Iran. You can draw a direct line from Saudi Arabia through the carnage
in Iraq and Syria directly to the terrorist attacks in Paris.
Whenever the west talks about 'Iran being a state sponsor of terrorism'
they mean one thing and one thing only: Hezbollah.
Disclosure: I have a low opinion of Saudi Arabia so my comments are biased.
"... Graun is difficult to navigate and very slow to load with the weight of all the spam. Ad blockers make it actually usable. You just have to get used to deleting the notice banners on every page. ..."
"... Use "https everywhere" to avoid the sticky at the top if it annoys you as it does me - tends to mess up the btl however.. ..."
"... Well, Guardian, I am using an ad blocker because your adware fucks up my browser. ..."
"... I cannot get even one word typed and my browser gets all fucked up. The screen does flips and all sorts of things as if someone else is controlling my mouse. I try to type a word and it takes a full minute for one letter to appear after I have typed it, and sometimes everything disappears. ..."
Agree with your post if a little off topic, but where else can we post about this.
Graun is
difficult to navigate and very slow to load with the weight of all the spam. Ad blockers make
it actually usable. You just have to get used to deleting the notice banners on every page.
Use "https everywhere" to avoid the sticky at the top if it annoys you as it does me - tends
to mess up the btl however..
We notice you're using an ad-blocker. Perhaps you'll support us another way? Become a
supporter for just 50 pounds per year.
WTF? How do they know I am using an ad blocker? I am Using Ublock by the way. Well, Guardian,
I am using an ad blocker because your adware fucks up my browser.
I cannot get even one word
typed and my browser gets all fucked up. The screen does flips and all sorts of things as if
someone else is controlling my mouse. I try to type a word and it takes a full minute for one
letter to appear after I have typed it, and sometimes everything disappears.
THIS is WHY I
use an ad-blocker, Guardian. Since I have been using an ad-blocker, I don't have those problems
anymore when I visit your site, and it only happens on your site. Your incessant use of automatic
videos and other tactics is not advertising.
It is ADWARE! Get it?! Adware! And why would I
want to support a paper that is just as biased as any other paper? Wow, you really pissed me
off just now when I saw that little banner at the bottom of my screen, Guardian. Of all the
nerve.
Spot on CP, I actually switched my adblocker off to accommodate the graun, I thought fair enough
they need to generate income. But as you said the browser goes haywire.
Another thing is the
ridiculous moderation I receive for expressing a viewpoint, without foul language, without racist
overtones, in fact just normal comments and like yesterday I commented on the fact that I do
not believe in religion in any form, I think it is fantasist nonsense, put their by the ruling
class elitist's in order to keep the plebs in place with angst, that gets moderated.
It is absolutely shameful how the graun operates these days.
"... Its great news for the people of Iran, business in Europe, not so great
for Israel and my country, Canada. Oil is going to be $30 a barrel forever now.
Our previous very stupid government put all our eggs in one basket, oil at $100
a barrel. ..."
"... Dear Moshe, You are not giving billions to Iran, It is Iranians money that
was for frozen by US banks . ..."
"... Most of the middle eastern countries such as Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi
Arabia, UAE, Libya and lebanon are tribes with flags. The exception is Iran which
has a long and establised sense of nationhood. It will never be a failed state.
..."
"... Iran is about to get their frozen assets back as part of the deal... lets
hope they put that $100 billion to some good use... Welfare, housing, hospitals
and education should all benefit... Unfortunately with so much trouble on their
doorstep, theyll probably but new fighter planes and lots of guns from the new American
buddies... ..."
"... Why do you think that US, UK, Israel, Saudi wants stability in Mid East
region ? All evidence suggests otherwise from regime change in Syria to Libya .from
emergence of Isis to Saudi demanding that US bombs Iran to state of oblivion. I
am very happy about the agreement, however, i am very cynical about tricky Americans
to uphold their part of bargain. ..."
"... If you dislike Iran maybe you must hate Saudi Arabia, a dubious country
we gave been allies with for years. Personally, I find Iran to be far more reasonable
than Saudi Arabia.. Perhaps you should open your eyes. ..."
"... They cant delay this. What they will do, is introduce different kinds of
US only sanctions, for other reasons (to appease their AIPAC donors). ..."
"... In addition to that, i should say that there is a perception fueled by
conservatives that all the bad stuff has been done by Iranians, but if I were an
Iranian citizen, it would be pretty hard to forget that the US supported Saddam
Hussein financially and militarily (with aid) during an eight-year, very bloody
Iran-Iraq war that left hundreds of thousand Iranians dead or wounded (and, incidentally,
thats when the US downed an Iranian airliner). ..."
"... Very true. How many Saudi terrorists are there, and how many Iranian ones?
Islamic terror is exported is large quantities by our friends in Saudi-Arabia, just
second to oil. ..."
"... Already Iran is looking at using barter with Europe exchanging oil for
various goods. ..."
"... Anyway, not to engage in moral relativism but my country, the USA, has
some human rights blemishes we need to recognize as well. Having President Obama
say we tortured some folks doesnt help.. The dismissive tone is not conducive to
addressing the situation. ..."
"... Germany had a great military, a modern industrialized society, and a history
of invading other countries. Iran, not. ..."
"... Note to Republicans: Peacemaking is a good thing. Carpet bombing is a bad
thing. ..."
"... Sounds like the Iranians are gradually emerging from xenophobic theocracy.
..."
"... Hopefully Iranians can build on this and continue to demand better relations
with the west. Surly, they have had their differences with the west but they shouldnt
let religious fundamentalists use Irans past history to create hate and pessimistic
attitude towards west ..."
"... And would you also observe that most of these people would likely still
be alive today if it werent for civilized Western nations bombing thier country,
disbanding their army and institutions and throwing their country into chaos? ..."
"... But a country that goes to war for nothing more than greed sending hundreds
of thousands to their deaths including their own sons and daughters ... would you
visit there ... oops you live in the UK? ..."
"... There were no sanctions against Israel, which has nuclear weapons. Saudi
Arabia is an Islamic fundamentalist state which sponsors terrorism. It is all hypocrisy.
..."
"... Vinculture: A disaster in the making thanks to 0bamas incompetence and
naivety. A disaster for Israels aggressive foreign policy, maybe. And a disaster
for the House of Saud. ..."
"... If the deal sticks on the US side, expect to see Iran make a number of
subtle shifts in a pro-US direction over the next few years. It will be a reflection
of the outcome of internal struggles within the Iranian clergy. The Supreme Leader
gave Rouhani the chance to prove that negotiations and concessions could get acceptable
results. The success of the negotiations will give Rouhanis faction greater clout
for similar actions until such time as either they stuff it up good and proper,
or somone crazy gets elected as US President. ..."
"... The USA has modified its attitude to Syria from Assad must go! to OK, he
can hang around for a while , simply because Syria, with Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah
assistance, is gaining the upper hand. Hence the willingness for the USA to negotiate.
We rarely hear the words regime change in Syria from our politicians any more. So
it is with Iran. Apart from Iranian involvement in Syria, Iran has managed to outlast
the sanctions regimes and has had to ratchet up its own development of medicines,
weaponry etc in anticipation of a possible Israeli or US attack. As a country of
some 80 million people, they wouldnt be a pushover in the military sense. And at
what cost? It doesnt bear thinking about. ..."
"... I dont believe for one second Iran will be able to bring that much oil
online so quickly. The issues which have come about through years of barely no maintenance,
cant just be reversed in a matter of months. Time will tell. But the mainstream
media has been pushing this for a long time to further suppress oil prices. ..."
"... Meanwhile the US and Britain are directing and supplying the bombs killing
innocent people in Yemen, none of which gets coverage in the press. It is a sad
bad world we live in these days. Iran is probably less of a threat than Saudi Arabia
which funds extremists who are so close to Isis and the likes yet do we care. It
seems not. ..."
"... If only we had strong leadership like W Bush neh? Hed have strongly Decidered
his way to victory just like the gleaming success next-door. Pass the bong. ..."
"... If we put aside sheer hypocrisy (always an important feature of foreign
policy!) then I think the usual argument is that, unlike we rational Westerners,
the Iranians are crazy religious maniacs who cant be trusted with a bomb. In reality,
though obviously the Iranian regime is a religiously-based one, they have shown
themselves to be quite pragmatic and cautious over the past 2 decades at least.
Which isnt to say the regime is benign, by any means, just that their foreign policy
is based on rational self-interest (or their perception thereof) - just like any
other country. ..."
"... Another reason given is Irans supposed support for terror organisaitons.
Putting aside the fact that defining what is a terror organisaiton is largely a
matter of ones political views, its hard to see what this has to do with the nuclear
issue specifically. Unless we buy the notion - straight from a 5th rate James Bond
knock-off - that Iran could give its (non-existent) nukes to a terrorist, as though
a nuclear bomb was equivalent to an AK-47. ..."
"... I dont back any country with Nukes, but I do back the balance off power,
if Iran is overthrown with Syria, it would be dangerous times for the rest off us.
It would be safer for Israel too disarm, followed by Pakistan, North Korea then
East + West Bilaterally, simutaniously. ..."
"... Iran isnt Nazi Germany, if you want to pursue that analogy then its closer
to Francos Spain and we got on well if occasionally frostily with them for 39 years
without having a war with them ..."
"... After a progressive Persian govt renationalized and booted British Petroleum
out of the country suffered a coup détat instigated with US aid in 1953. ..."
"... After the revolution we armed Saddam Hussein to start a war and killed
millions of Iranians. ..."
"... If I were Iranian Id be double wary now of USs intentions. It seems that
the working method of the West nowadays is to feign a warming of relations to draw
yourself closer before a fatal stab. Remember Libya? And I recall Syria having a
nice warm up period before the gates of hell opened. Take care, Iran. ..."
"... It looks to me that the west has to either start Armageddon to take Iran
out or start to build bridges. ..."
"... Iran has always denied seeking an atomic weapon, saying its activities
are only for peaceful purposes, such as power generation and medical research. The
annual reports of the CIA/Mossad/German BND and the IAEA supported this fact consistently
since 2004. It was only the despicable US/Israeli geopolitics enabled by their propaganda
arm the mainstream media that maintained the charade of a clandestine nuclear weapon
programme. ..."
"... there remains a lack of clarity with regards to the US. - as ever you never
know what the US is going to do, and I suspect the US itself does not know given
it dysfunctional political system. ..."
"... The far right in Israel, not for everyone. Saudi and far right wing Israel
have a symbiotic relationship. Saudi can push its agenda of Wahhabism that secures
its brutal regime and far right Israel profits from the bitter fruits of Saudi,
as it means that Israel is seen as the anti-muslim anchor of the West in the region.
Sadly, the political intervention of the US has been based around protecting and
supporting this symbiotic relationship with money, troops and bombs. ..."
"... Obama has already issued an order(today) lifting sanctions on the sale
of passenger airliners to Iran. Boeing Airbus are in intense competition as Iran
plans to purchase 500 airliners in the next 10 years worth billions of dollars.
..."
"... given that the Iranian government is still highly suspicious of the Brits
(for very good reason) I very much doubt theyll want to spend this much-needed cash
on overpriced pads in Blighty. ..."
"... George W Bush said he got his orders from God, and they were amazingly
similar to the ones he got from Big Oil. We know the results. ..."
"... It i amazing how western oriented news organization by default report the
talking point of the western regimes reflexively. Unlike the news bureaus in the
soviet era, they dont need minders and censors, those are just built in or plugged
in by interviews. ..."
"... He can do what he likes, the US have given Israel a free pass, human rights
abuses, extrajudicial killings, threats to Israeli Arabs, hidden nuclear weapons,
all have to be ignored while their neighbours are subjected to endless scrutiny.
While this continues the Middle East will never be at peace. Palestinians are humans
too. ..."
"... Lifting of Iran sanctions is a good day for the world Yet these gangsters
who control the finance industry(US/UK), and who can and do, impose sanctions at
will, are free, without sanction, to wage war against whoever they so choose with
impunity. Something is not quite right here, or are we too stupid, too compliant
to see it? ..."
"... Ok - so you're anti nuclear weapons. Fair enough, you're free view. For
me, much more importantly is the opportunity for trade. The Iranians are well educated
and still have a historical connection with our country. ..."
"... The sanctions are another kind of war. The tradesmen will win at the end
..."
"... When sanctions started, they were nowhere near as harsh. European countries
- as well as China and India - had long been growing tired of the extremely strict
sanctions imposed mostly by the Americans. ..."
"... All the nuclear nations should have banded together with Iran to help Iran
with their desire for peaceful nuclear power by helping Iran with expertise and
funding to develop Thorium reactors. ..."
"... British foreign policy is a selective and hypocrital joke. ..."
"... Yes, unfortunately neither the UK or the US think long-term, when selling
advanced weapons to the Saudis (or giving them to Israel). That may well come back
to bite them, when the House of Saud falls, as it must. ..."
"... Amazed this has gone through. The worlds biggest and most dangerous children,
Israel and Saudi Arabia, will NOT be pleased. These two are behind so much of the
worlds problems, far moreso than their parent the USA. ..."
"... where are Israels nukes pointing, out of interest? ..."
"... Welcome to the world community Iran. Not a perfect nation but which is.
No point demonizing people nations, it does more harm than good. ..."
"... Remind me, which country is currently levelling Yemen one building at a
time? Oh yes, a Sunni nation Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... Anything that stops the Saudis playing the big I am is fine by me. Theyve
already cut off their own nose over oil prices to stop US fracking and their economy
is suffering, lets hope Iran can keep it low when it doesnt suit Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... Good, let the US who started all this nonsense feel themselves for a while
what it is like to be outside trade with Iran. I bet it will not last long if companies
realize they are still not allowed to do business because of their own extortion
over the many years while the EU does commence trading. ..."
"... I really do hope you have an insurance policy Iran, I wouldnt trust these
liars as far as .. and Id advise using some of whats rightly coming your way to
insulate against future western blackmail. ..."
"... The US specializes in lack of clarity. Remember the two boats that Iran
detained the other day? The US initially said that they had a mechanical failure
and drifted into Iranian territorial waters. That version of events has become non-operative,
and now the US is saying that the boats were fully operational, but one of the sailors
accidentally punched the wrong GPS coordinates in. And then, of course, they failed
to notice that they were getting awfully close to that island where Iran maintained
a base. ..."
It's great news for the people of Iran, business in Europe, not so great
for Israel and my country, Canada. Oil is going to be $30 a barrel forever
now. Our previous very stupid government put all our eggs in one basket,
oil at $100 a barrel.
Israel was on the verge of nuking Iran. Ironically they stand to benefit
from this, doing business with Iran. Reports from Iran were mostly that
they were very western. They are Persian, not Arab, and if you look at historical
maps, that line in the sand has existed for thousands of years. It's a good
day. Iran is not North Korea, and it was the US supporting the Shah and
his solid gold toilet that caused this problem in the first place. Back
in 1978, it was obvious what was going to happen.
Dear Moshe, You are not giving billions to Iran, It is Iranians money
that was for frozen by US banks . Your religion says, Thy shall not
lie and I believe it is in ten commandment, so why are you doing it ?
Most of the middle eastern countries such as Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi
Arabia, UAE, Libya and lebanon are tribes with flags. The exception is Iran
which has a long and establised sense of nationhood. It will never be a
failed state.
A fatwa cannot be 'lifted' because it is the personal opinion of a cleric,
and the cleric involved - Ayatollah Khomeini - has been dead for 25 years.
However, 17 years ago the Iranian government said it was no longer pursuing
the fatwa and would not reward anyone for killing Rushdie. Which kind of
amounts to the same thing.
"There is no doubt that if today's weak western leaders had been
the ones having to deal with Hitler, in place of Winston Churchill,
the Third Reich would be ruling the world today."
For heaven's sake.... If the UK had remained neutral - how would that
have prevented the Red Army from defeating the Nazis? It would have made
the process slightly slower - that's all
Stalin had started to turn the tide against the Nazis even before the
US was involved in WW2 (Battle for Moscow) - and the Brits did little up
to then to help
him. The US did in fact help Stalin before it entered the war - by helping
with war materiel (Lend Lease included the Russians).
The Brits helped too, with the Murmansk convoys - but these only began
in August 1941. British strategic bombing of Germany had also hardy started
by then.
No wonder Stalin pressed for "a second front now"...
With a neutral Britain, the Russians would have got to Cuxhaven and Bremen.
As it was, the Russians got to Wismar (and only stopped due to British artillery
being in position to oppose them - Rossokovski's orders were to advance
to Lübeck..).
Well when it comes to the Iran v Saudi battle of religious fascist dogma
then I'm leaning towards Iran as the lesser of the evils... Iran is
about to get their frozen assets back as part of the deal... let's hope
they put that $100 billion to some good use... Welfare, housing, hospitals
and education should all benefit... Unfortunately with so much trouble on
their doorstep, they'll probably but new fighter planes and lots of guns
from the new American buddies...
Why do you think that US, UK, Israel, Saudi wants stability in Mid East
region ? All evidence suggests otherwise from regime change in Syria to
Libya .from emergence of Isis to Saudi demanding that US bombs Iran to state
of oblivion. I am very happy about the agreement, however, i am very cynical
about tricky Americans to uphold their part of bargain.
Hope for the best but i see Saudi and Israeli are heavily engaged in
sabotaging the agreement.
If you dislike Iran maybe you must hate Saudi Arabia, a dubious country
we gave been allies with for years. Personally, I find Iran to be far more
reasonable than Saudi Arabia.. Perhaps you should open your eyes.
i saw female protestors get beaten at occupy. i see fleeing unarmed guys
shot by cops. maybe the west isn't too pure either? in any case, going to
war over faked wmds doesn't work out well.
They can't delay this. What they will do, is introduce different kinds
of US only sanctions, for other reasons (to appease their AIPAC donors).
The terms of the nuclear deal are such, that they can't punish other countries
for trading with Iran, when the UN and EU lift their sanctions, probably
later today.
Iran can simply refrain from doing any business with the US.
In addition to that, i should say that there is a perception fueled
by conservatives that all the bad stuff has been done by Iranians, but if
I were an Iranian citizen, it would be pretty hard to forget that the US
supported Saddam Hussein financially and militarily (with aid) during an
eight-year, very bloody Iran-Iraq war that left hundreds of thousand Iranians
dead or wounded (and, incidentally, that's when the US downed an Iranian
airliner).
And the years of useless sanctions that only alienated Iranians. Let's
not forget that the Soviet Union, for example, did not fall at the peak
of the Cold War. It fell when the contacts with the West increased. It won't
be that we open the contacts today and tomorrow Iran is a nice Western democracy,
but judging from the splendid success of the 50+ years of US embargo of
Cuba, I would rather engage Iran than isolate it.
"It proved that we can solve important problems through diplomacy,
not threats and pressure, and thus today is definitely an important
day," [Zarif] said.
Is this guy Zarif in receipt of a backhander from Seamus Milne?
Very true. How many Saudi terrorists are there, and how many Iranian
ones? Islamic terror is exported is large quantities by our "friends" in
Saudi-Arabia, just second to oil.
No it won't. When Iran comes in from the cold, even the conservatives won't
want to go back there. They also want a prosperous future for their people.
BBC reporting that there has been a delay in the announcement of the end
of the sanctions - apparently they were expecting a statement 4 hours ago.
However, it's just been announced that 4 American-Iranian prisoners held
in Iran are to be released. Hopefully, that has resolved the 'hitch' that
has been holding up the announcement.
Unfortunately for Iran she is getting her freedom to sell oil on the open
markets right at a time when the oil market is in complete free fall.
Already Iran is looking at using barter with Europe exchanging oil for
various goods.
There will never be true freedom and prosperity for Iran until
they rid themselves from the awful theocracy that has ruined their society
and lives for the past 40 years.
So you think isolation, crippling sanctions and threat of war is better
for achieving peace in the Middle East? Do you have anything constructive
to say at all?
They were already there months ago, together with French politicians and
other businessmen, including the owners of a large chain of hotels. This
is about their 3rd or 4th visit. All embassies, apart from those of the
US and Canada, have reopened (most never closed in spite of sanctions).
The only way we can improve human rights is to first increase our ties between
nations. Gone are the days when you can isolate a country and demand they
improve human rights and expect it to work.
Anyway, not to engage in moral relativism but my country, the USA,
has some human rights blemishes we need to recognize as well. Having President
Obama say "we tortured some folks" doesn't help.. The dismissive tone is
not conducive to addressing the situation.
Iran is a major player in the region, and an unstable Iran means an unstable
Middle East. The sanctions relief will stabilize Iran's economy. An Iran
that is no longer threatened by war and regime change can start to play
a positive role in solving the region's many conflicts. At least that's
the theory, I hope Iran and the West seize this unique moment.
Sure, stick with your close ally and Daesh/IS supporter Saudi Arabia, who
the IMF think will probably become insolvent within 5-years. When that happens,
they'll no longer be able to afford all those advanced weapons and other
toys you keep selling them, which they then use to kill civilians in Yemen.
"But this post is about Iran, which had no business in Iraq or Afghanistan
either" --- Which part about Iran trying to make things difficult in Iraq
for the illegal US occupation forces in those countries, because Iran may
have been a possible target for a future US invasion don't you understand...??
The idea was to make a US occupation fail in Iraq to save their own country...And
it worked.
Fantastic news for the good citizens of Iran. Perhaps the day will come
when Iranians, Europeans, and Americans are flying freely back and forth
visiting each others countries without the horrendous bureaucracy, no fly
lists and such.....
Even if there is one, why to go to Tehran while our MSM will not fail to
provide us with a " Best of ", especially if Charlie Hebdo enters the festival
But this post is about Iran, which had no business in Iraq or
Afghanistan either.
Actually, they weren't in either country. But in any case, surely you'll
agree that Iran, which share borders and has a lot of cultural links with
the above mentioned countries, had a hell of a lot mroe right to be there
than countries on the other side of the world?Particularly as they could
be seen as defensive actions by Iran.
And I agree - let the worthless dump of a region stew in its own
squalor.
That's some hatred for hundreds of millions of people. It was really
terrible of them to force the civilsed west to bomb and invade them, and
create untenable nation states.
whose problems you blame entirely on the west -
No I don't. But I also don't adopt the idiotic stance of wailing over
British occupation soldiers rather than asking what the hell Britain was
doing invading a coutnry on the other side of the world.
ether than Gulf states or indeed Iran.
I guess your hatred prevents you from becoming informed. If you had,
you'd be aware that Iran has taken in huge numbers of Iraqi and Afghani
refugees.
As for the borders, don't they do multiculturalism in the Middle
East then?
You really haven't got a clue, have you? Maybe Iran should re-arrange
Europe's borders to suit itself? You'd be happy with that, no?
The fact that the Israelis and Republicans are keeping quiet is pretty strong
evidence that they have a tiny spark of realization that Obama and Kerry
were in the right. Not that they will ever ever admit it. Note to Republicans:
Peacemaking is a good thing. Carpet bombing is a bad thing.
Sounds like the Iranians are gradually emerging from xenophobic theocracy.
Hopefully other countries can also seek the path of moderation and
wisdom. Israel is among those with plenty of room for improvement. The USA
has the task of avoiding a lurch in the wrong direction in the next election.
It is hard to find much good news around the world these days.
But this post is about Iran, which had no business in Iraq or Afghanistan
either. And I agree - let the worthless dump of a region stew in its own
squalor. Strange isn't it how people from that region - whose problems you
blame entirely on the west - still choose to come to the west en mass, rather
than Gulf states or indeed Iran.
As for the borders, don't they do multiculturalism in the Middle East
then?
A great day. hopefully Iran's influence will finally break out from under
the malign shadow of Saudi Arabia which has held the western world in thrall
for so long
Hopefully Iranians can build on this and continue to demand better relations
with the west. Surly, they have had their differences with the west but
they shouldn't let religious fundamentalists use Iran's past history to
create hate and pessimistic attitude towards west.
As Iranians say: "There is much hope in hopelessness; for at the end
of the dark night, there is light."
I didn't support the invasion of Iraq, for the simple reason that
that region is a failure and a dead loss and should be left to its own
devices.
Yeah, but it never is left to its own devices, is it? The 'troops' you
weep over were part of an illegal occupation force, and therefore their
deaths were legitimate. The west has been bombing, invading and propping
up despots in the Middle EAst (often in countries whose borders were drawn
in London or Paris) for decades. So maybe think for a minute what Western
'civilisation' looks like to people in the Middle East.
I would observe though that far more Iraqi Muslims were killed
by other Iraqi Muslims than by western troops, over the usual ridiculous
sectarian nonsense.
And would you also observe that most of these people would likely
still be alive today if it weren't for civilized Western nations bombing
thier country, disbanding their army and institutions and throwing their
country into chaos?
Good! And may I say finally. This can only be a good thing in the long run,
regardless of any bumps that await them because there will be bumps, considering
certain parties are not too happy about this. But this can only be beneficial
to the country, its people and the world. That there're so many educated
people there is going to be so helpful in the future. Slowly removing the
fear will slowly remove the most important tool in the arsenal used by the
theocracy to govern and changes will occur. It won't be quick, a year or
two but it will happen while the stability should remain.
But a country that goes to war for nothing more than greed sending hundreds
of thousands to their deaths including their own sons and daughters ...
would you visit there ... oops you live in the UK?
Between the PRC and Pakistan, NK has the bomb. It's not clear
exactly how to apportion credit.
Not clear, when you just invent 'facts'. China was against the NK bomb,
and I doubt Pakistan - which btw also borders Iran - had anything to do
with it. Really daft argument.
I can't think why anyone with full grasp of the facts
Says the person who hasn't produced a single fact.
other than those heavily invested in Obama and for his legacy
to not be seen as a lame duck president who's accomplished sfa.
Please. I couldn't give a toss about Obama. I'm not a fan of his at all
(though likely for very differnet reasons than you) but credit where it's
due. Why do Yanks think everyone cares about their infantile politics? In
any case, this deal goes well beyond Yankistan. Enjoy it.
There were no sanctions against Israel, which has nuclear weapons. Saudi
Arabia is an Islamic fundamentalist state which sponsors terrorism. It is
all hypocrisy.
Vinculture: "A disaster in the making thanks to 0bama's incompetence
and naivety." A disaster for Israel's aggressive foreign policy, maybe.
And a disaster for the House of Saud.
If the deal sticks on the US side, expect to see Iran make a number
of subtle shifts in a pro-US direction over the next few years. It will
be a reflection of the outcome of internal struggles within the Iranian
clergy. The Supreme Leader gave Rouhani the chance to prove that negotiations
and concessions could get acceptable results. The success of the negotiations
will give Rouhani's faction greater clout for similar actions until such
time as either they stuff it up good and proper, or somone crazy gets elected
as US President.
This is more of an example of realpolitik coming from the USA (for
a change), despite whatever the nutters in Congress or the military may
say about it.
The USA has modified its attitude to Syria from "Assad must go!"
to "OK, he can hang around for a while", simply because Syria, with Russian,
Iranian and Hezbollah assistance, is gaining the upper hand. Hence the willingness
for the USA to negotiate. We rarely hear the words "regime change in Syria"
from our politicians any more. So it is with Iran. Apart from Iranian involvement
in Syria, Iran has managed to outlast the sanctions regimes and has had
to ratchet up its own development of medicines, weaponry etc in anticipation
of a possible Israeli or US attack. As a country of some 80 million people,
they wouldn't be a pushover in the military sense. And at what cost? It
doesn't bear thinking about.
On the other side of the coin, the US and others are now seeing the Saudi
regime for what it is and given a choice between the KSA and Iran, they've
now decided to plump with the latter - at least for the time being.
I don't believe for one second Iran will be able to bring that much
oil online so quickly. The issues which have come about through years of
barely no maintenance, can't just be reversed in a matter of months. Time
will tell. But the mainstream media has been pushing this for a long time
to further suppress oil prices.
Meanwhile the US and Britain are directing and supplying the bombs killing
innocent people in Yemen, none of which gets coverage in the press. It is
a sad bad world we live in these days. Iran is probably less of a threat
than Saudi Arabia which funds extremists who are so close to Isis and the
likes yet do we care. It seems not.
If only we had strong leadership like W Bush neh? He'd have strongly
Decidered his way to victory just like the gleaming success next-door. Pass
the bong.
I may have the state wrong but please don't tell me you think the USA is
a bastion of tolerance! Gays are beaten up, blacks are shot, muslims are
attacked. America is home to some of the world's best fed bigots.
Go read the IAEA reports over the years, they are the worlds experts that
know exactly what is required for civilian nuclear energy and what is used
for nuclear weapons = they know. What has been agreed is for Iran to curtail
their weapon development and export certain products to Russia and possibly
USA as part of the deal. Of course if you do not want to dig into the technical
details of years of IEAE reports you can chack out what is said on Facebook
and blogsville!
Honestly, I'm starting to almost feel sorry for the failed sanctioneers,
so pathetic are their arguments.
If North Korea, the world's most isolated country - which struggles to
feed its own people - could build a bomb, do you seriously think Iran couldn't?
And if they were determined to do so, why did they join the NPT in the first
place? And why didn't they later leave, something they were free to do at
any time? Then there's the fact that the world's foremost experts have said
that Iran is not pursuing a bomb, and has not done so for many years (if
it ever did).
But... what am I doing trying to discuss facts with you? You're obviously
way more comfortable with some bizarre scenario straight from Bibi's cartoon.
Best we leave you to it, and the rest of the world can get on with business.
Please let's try and be positive about this. Iran has been a pariah state
for far too long and I applaud Obama for extending the arm of friendship
to them during his presidency.
Obviously there are many aspects of the current Iranian regime that we
in the West don't like, but I would rather be taking small steps with them
diplomatically to try and improve the situation than have a hostile stand
off.
Also Iran is not more moderate or understanding with respect to
some American dingys going near a beach in the middle of the Persian
Golf!
That sounds nasty. I hope Rory McIlroy wasn't hurt.
Joking aside, it's been established that the Americans did indeed enter
Iranian waters, probably intentionally. And what you cutely describe as
a 'beach' was actually home to an important Iranian military facility. And
the 'dinghys' were well-equipped military vessels (shame the GPS was faulty
though.....) How do you think the Yanks would have reacted had Iranian vessels
'drifted' just off the shore of a US military facility? By treating them
well and releasing them, complete with 'dingys', the next day? I doubt it,
but we'll never know, as unlike the US, Iran doesn't tend to send its 'dingys'
11,500km away from their own territory.
But you seem to have missed the wider point here. Which is that Iran
is not on trial. There are considerable grievances on both sides (objectively,
the Iranian case against the US and 'west' is much more substantial than
the reverse), but these matters were deliberately left off the table in
these negotiations, which were aimed at solving the (non) issue of Iran's
nuclear programme. The other grievances can hopefully be worked out at a
later stage.
For now, however, let's celebrate what is without doubt the greatest
triumph of diplomacy in recent years.
A red letter day for Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's Revolutionary Guard, and
their mission to achieve a nuclear weapons capacity, where what's holding
them back most is lack of access to Western technology, currently blocked
under sanctions. They have already demonstrated to their own satisfaction,
and everyone else's, they can withdraw from the NPT, and run down to a fissile
mass of U235 in a matter of months. What they're missing is a bomb design.
There is no doubt that if today's weak western leaders had been the ones
having to deal with Hitler, in place of Winston Churchill, the Third Reich
would be ruling the world today.
The day will come when people will look back and ask what on earth were
people like Obama and John kerry thinking when they did this terrible deal
with Iran.
If only people were "informed" on the inner workings off it all politically/economically.
I am 100% For the American constitution and see the political corruption,
the US is being used, like many other nations, against each other.
"Your" troops were an illegal occupation force, and therefore legitimate
targets.
Besides, given that the thinking at the time was along the lines of ''Real
men go to Tehran'' and that coupled with Shrub's idiotic 'axis' speech,
then who could blame the Iranians for wanting to slow down the 'progress'
of an invading army who might well have had them in their sights too?
Oh, and what do you have to say on the West's support for Iraq in a war
which killed hundreds of thoussands of Iranians, many of them civilians?
Or the shooting down of an Iranian civilian jet, killing all 280 passengers
on board?
Good news indeed. For along time western trust in Saudis oil and money cost
the Middle East a massive fortune. I hope the world see how peaceful Iranians
are an those extremist in Iran are literally the minority. Today I feel
proud because diplomacy solved a very complicated issue which I wouldn't
see it coming. Thank you mr Zarif...
Win-Win
I just wanted to explore this idea of why any argument against
Iran, or anyone for that matter, having such weapons, irrespective of
whether they plan to or not, isn't applied to the debate about whether
or not we should get rid of our (UK) own.
If we put aside sheer hypocrisy (always an important feature of foreign
policy!) then I think the usual argument is that, unlike we rational Westerners,
the Iranians are crazy religious maniacs who can't be trusted with a bomb.
In reality, though obviously the Iranian regime is a religiously-based one,
they have shown themselves to be quite pragmatic and cautious over the past
2 decades at least. Which isn't to say the regime is benign, by any means,
just that their foreign policy is based on rational self-interest (or their
perception thereof) - just like any other country.
Another reason given is Iran's supposed 'support for terror organisaitons'.
Putting aside the fact that defining what is a 'terror organisaiton' is
largely a matter of one's political views, it's hard to see what this has
to do with the nuclear issue specifically. Unless we buy the notion - straight
from a 5th rate James Bond knock-off - that Iran could 'give' its (non-existent)
nukes to a 'terrorist', as though a nuclear bomb was equivalent to an AK-47.
So, having disposed of those 'arguments', I think we're back to hypocrisy
as the motivator.
If these coups continue, there will be no-one left to overthrow politically/economically,
once the political safety-net is gone and there is no more political buffer
zones, potentially those on the outskirts left opposing this, would backed
into a war.
I don't back any country with Nukes, but I do back the balance off
power, if Iran is overthrown with Syria, it would be dangerous times for
the rest off us. It would be "safer" for Israel too disarm, followed by
Pakistan, North Korea then East + West Bilaterally, simutaniously.
All under the helm off a Strong-Moral UN. A Free, Regional agreement.
Iran isn't Nazi Germany, if you want to pursue that analogy then its
closer to Franco's Spain and we got on well if occasionally frostily with
them for 39 years without having a war with them
Can anyone take the risk of allowing Iran to even play around with this
stuff in anyway shape or form ? The west started this fight years ago and
has
1. Up to 1953 robbed Iran of its oil.
2. After a progressive Persian govt renationalized and booted British
Petroleum out of the country suffered a coup d'état instigated with US aid
in 1953.
3. 1953 to 1979 Suffered a tyrannical US/UK regime under the Shah of Iran
which led to the Islamic Revolution , ie we radicalized them.
4. After the revolution we armed Saddam Hussein to start a war and killed
millions of Iranians.
5. Sanctions for the last 10 years.
If I were Iranian I'd be double wary now of US's intentions. It seems
that the working method of the "West" nowadays is to feign a warming of
relations to draw yourself closer before a fatal stab. Remember Libya? And
I recall Syria having a nice "warm up period" before the gates of hell opened.
Take care, Iran.
4th or 5th largest proven/unproven reserves on the planet. I'm delighted
sanctions are freeing up in Iran, but I can't be alone in thinking that
the USA were going to find some devil in the detail for it not to go ahead,
to be delayed. Still highly suspicious of USA motives here, but for now
rejoice Iranian people. :-)
The annula reports of the CIA/Mossad/German BND and the IAEA supported
this fact consitently since 2004. It was only the despicable US/Israeli
geopolitics enabled by their propaganda arm the mainstream media
I have always wondered on the conflicts off interest in this, doesn't
the Security services support the political agenda for the most part? Have
seen it over the last 100 years, on reading about it, maybe not entirely
but compartmentalized they seemingly do.
I know in Syria, the Pentagon is apparently completely split, some feeding
information around to Assad, while another faction supports the overthrow.
Difficult to discern what is true/false but much of it does play-out/check-out
logically.
However, what is with the conflict of interest in this case? I guess
one is suppressing religion on 1 side, yet supporting the end of times theme
on the other. Perhaps that is where the Military end this support on a Nuclear
scale.
I agree but China and Russia are a thorn in its side. The Russians are doing
arms deals with Iran. Also a CIA led coup 1953 style is unlikely to work
against a non liberal progressive govt. Iraq is in no position to be used
to attack it.
Before the deal all the sabre rattling was hollow. No amount of bombing
was going to stop an underground nuclear programme. Sanctions weren't working,
Iran diversified its economy.
It looks to me that the west has to either start Armageddon to take
Iran out or start to build bridges.
I don't think it is capable of succeeding now with either policy. This
is very bad news for the future security of Israel. All thought it should
be safe for 50 or so more years.
Iran has always denied seeking an atomic weapon, saying its activities
are only for peaceful purposes, such as power generation and medical research.
The annual reports of the CIA/Mossad/German BND and the IAEA supported this
fact consistently since 2004. It was only the despicable US/Israeli geopolitics
enabled by their propaganda arm the mainstream media that maintained the
charade of a clandestine nuclear weapon programme.
Maybe it is that the US cold warriors are finally dying out. When the wall
came down USSR dismantled its cold war power structure because they were
the losers. US cold war professionals were the winners and saw no reason
to fade themselves out - hence the often baffling aggressive and enemy-seeking
US foreign policy in the post cold war period.
The problem is that times have changed now and the US has managed to
rile others far enough to start their own mini-cold wars against US, particularly
Russia which does have its valid reasons to feel it's been cheated and played
for patsy.
President Obama did irritate me in his State of the Union Address
when he started bragging about how big and powerful the U.S. military
was and how much tax payer money was spent on it. In fact it pissed
me off when he said those things. It was the last thing I expected to
hear coming out of his mouth.
So you weren't watching what he was actually doing over the past seven
years?
According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the George W.
Bush administration ordered 50 drone attacks while the government of current
US President Barack Obama has already launched around 500 such strikes.
Obama primarily ordered assassination strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia
and Afghanistan.
The United States says the CIA-run drone strikes essentially kill
militants, although casualty figures show that civilians are often the victims
of the non-UN-sanctioned attacks.
I'm an American who just got back from a 10 day visit to Iran. Iranians
are among the nicest people on Earth. It is safe to visit. I had no issues
when I was there. The only thing you should be worried about is safely crossing
the busy streets, not terrorism or kidnapping. Don't believe the media fear
machine.
Israel are a clever country to arm, the entire middle east hates
them yet Israel clearly dominate their neighbours in any conflict. An
ally we Europeans need with how the middle east is going
And Iran, unlike the Gulf sheikhdoms, is a real country with educated
people. With sufficient investment and freedom to trade, Iran should easily
be able to develop an economy which is not entirely dependent on oil - or
gas, of which Iran has some of the largest deposits in the world. I'm not
sure the same could be said for the petrostates on the other side of the
Gulf.
" there remains a lack of clarity with regards to the US." - as ever
you never know what the US is going to do, and I suspect the US itself does
not know given it dysfunctional political system. Any system that could
even contemplate the likes of Donald Trump for the office of President cannot
be fit for purpose.
Except that Iran will secretly make a nuclear bomb anyway.
USA and the rest of the world have been duped.
In the end ordinary Iranians who just wanted peace will not get it . Will
not get it while they live under a mediaeval dictatorship that is
"Lifting of Iran sanctions is 'a good day for the world'"
Unless you are Venezuela, Russia, etc and dependent on oil prices.
In many ways, not much has improved for Iran either, they can sell oil but
at a very low price.
This is a good day as it allows freedom off the Market... Next moves shows
the world-stage who is motivated by Orwellian-double-speak (crying wolf)
or those who indeed are the aggressors....
It would be interesting if it wasn't morally evil and destructive. It
is a chess board.
Ho ho ho. This is a ceasefire. The whole project for the Middle East revolves
around it's Palestiniasation , ie leave it in tatters with no state or economic
infrastructure, eg Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq , Syria , Libya . All have suffered
through foreign intervention largely US sanctioned. For the last 40 years
since the west financed and armed Saddam Hussein to fight and destroy the
state of Iran after it deposed the Shah this has been policy. This ideal
I s like an unfinished course of anti-biotics , ultimately if you leave
Iran standing it will always be a power base which can fill the vacuum in
all these failed states.
There is no going back from the damage done...Iran has to be the West's
next horizon if there is never going to be a nuclear Islamic state this
century.
May a dead man say a few words to you, general, for your enlightenment?
You will never rule the world... because you are doomed. All of you who
demoralized and corrupted a nation are doomed. Tonight you will take the
first step along a dark road from which there is no turning back. You will
have to go on and on, from one madness to another, leaving behind you a
wilderness of misery and hatred. And still, you will have to go on... because
you will find no horizon... see no dawn... until at last you are lost and
destroyed. You are doomed, captain of murderers. And one day, sooner or
later, you will remember my words...
The far right in Israel, not for everyone. Saudi and far right wing
Israel have a symbiotic relationship. Saudi can push it's agenda of Wahhabism
that secures it's brutal regime and far right Israel profits from the bitter
fruits of Saudi, as it means that Israel is seen as the anti-muslim anchor
of the West in the region. Sadly, the political intervention of the US has
been based around protecting and supporting this symbiotic relationship
with money, troops and bombs.
Depends on the use off the word terrorist, if you mean fabricated terrorism
for aggression, to forward political goals/Land/Economic reasons, or if
you mean terrorism in defence of a Nation or a civilisation being oppressed....
It is based on perception, or rather delibrate ignorance. It is terrorism
if it is at the expense off another mans freedom.
It boils down to morality aswell, but since the various factions, possibly
even media are doing a good job too blur those lines, it makes it easier
for people who do not think for themselves, to be either delibrately obtuse/Ignorant.
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist
Obama has already issued an order(today) lifting sanctions on the sale
of passenger airliners to Iran. Boeing & Airbus are in intense competition
as Iran plans to purchase 500 airliners in the next 10 years worth billions
of dollars.
I'll take it with a pinch of salt given the lack of corroboration.
There are many confirmed stories of injustice from inside Iran but I
can see why you picked this one. True or not, it certainly makes a sensational
headline.
I suspect they were hoping that once Iran had 'complied', sanctions would
be dropped and everyone could get back to business.
They then, rather belatedly realised that for the Yanks, Bibi and the
Gulf sheikhdoms, sanctions weren't a means to an end. They were the
end. Happily, only one of the above three players really counts, and they
finally saw sense.
Th key point is that it is not only about the US and the EU. India, China
and Russia will also see both great opportunities both to export and in
general to develop trade. India has already talked about building a pipeline
to Chah Bahar.
100billion of unfrozen assets - how much is going to find its
way into London property making prices even more ridiculous.
Almost none, I expect. Iran is a country of about 80 million people,
with an economy which has been severely held back through years - even decades
- of sanctions. In that context, 100 billion isn't actually that much, and
I expect the Iranians will find no shortage of ways to use it at home. And
given that the Iranian government is still highly suspicious of the
Brits (for very good reason) I very much doubt they'll want to spend this
much-needed cash on overpriced pads in Blighty.
Apologies, I thought you were talking about Iran's extra income financing
its armed forces, or its fuller influence now sanctions will be soon lifted.
The 'now' in your comment lead me to believe you were commenting on the
recent events discussed in the article, how mistaken I surely am to think
you were being relevant.
It i amazing how western oriented news organization by default report
the talking point of the western regimes reflexively. Unlike the news bureaus
in the soviet era, they don't need minders and censors, those are just built
in or plugged in by interviews.
100billion of unfrozen assets - how much is going to find its way into London
property making prices even more ridiculous.
Unless we look at channel islands type restrictions for property market
in se england our youth will only own property with inheritance and even
then when the IHT threshold is well over a million if you project forward
six years. (price doubles every six years).
Good point, EU countries UK aside, very never comfortable with the position
the west took with regard to Iran. How as the big boss in Washington decided
what the policy was they had little choice.
Ha, ha, ha! US allies are never sanctioned, no matter how many International
Laws they break, they ignore UN resolutions against them no matter how cruel
and inhuman their actions. Where are the sanctions against US? Oh, can't
be sanctioned can it...
He can do what he likes, the US have given Israel a free pass, human
rights abuses, extrajudicial killings, threats to Israeli Arabs, 'hidden'
nuclear weapons, all have to be ignored while their neighbours are subjected
to endless scrutiny. While this continues the Middle East will never be
at peace. Palestinians are humans too.
Or those that funded the creation of Israel? in 1917 - Balflour declaration,
and what is currently going on today in Israel, still by dictionary definition,
genocide.
The hardliners in Iran "Delvapassan", most of whom work for hostile foreign
intelligence services, are also in trouble. In fact the arch spy, Naghdi
of Basij whose members stormed the Saudi embassy in return for petrodollars,
now says it was the monarchists who stormed the Saudi embassy. A ridiculous
claim as most people in Iran know that monarchists could not even organize
a birthday party.
It's scary to say the least and one wonders if it can even be brought back
from the brink if someone like Bernie Sanders was to be elected. President
Obama did irritate me in his State of the Union Address when he started
bragging about how big and powerful the U.S. military was and how much tax
payer money was spent on it. In fact it pissed me off when he said those
things. It was the last thing I expected to hear coming out of his mouth.
He sounded like a republican braggart. It really annoyed me. I do believe,
to his discredit, that he was trying to appease the Repulicans.
"Whoever though it was a good idea to become closely allied to the barbaric
sheikhs of Arabia whose petrodollars are fueling wahhabi barbarism, is a
complete idiot."......President Roosevelt
Really interesting article. Thanks for linking - I love Glenn Greenwald's
site.
I also loved this quote:
"A sailor may have punched the wrong coordinates into the GPS
and they wound up off course."
So what could be interpreted as an act of war is down to some dunderhead
'punching the wrong coordinates'? 4realz? And of course the fact that the
Yanks basically lied and did indeed intentionally violate Iranian territory
will not be covered by the media. And like I said before, where are all
those posters who accused several of us of being 'bots' because GPS imagery
would of course show the Yanks were in international waters and the Iranians
were fibbing, as always?
Surely this is the end of Saudi Arabia if they continue to keep the oil
prices low, bringing the rest of the market down with it, at the expense
of their own economy (& Nation) & ours. With this Iran will likely be able
to sustain an economical war with less reliance on oil as the Saudis.
No sympathy for them or their terrorist support. Still waiting on economic/weapon
sanctions and condemnation off them (and anyone else involved) by the UN
etc
This is good news, and it has to be hoped that the Iranian economy can now
start to grow. No doubt, the Saudi and Israel won't like it, but that's
though, if either of these two countries had professional leaders, then
their childish, spiteful and lying screams against Iran, would never exist.
Forrest also said ongoing human rights and terrorism related sanctions
in the US would have an effect. "Whilst the EU piece of the puzzle is clear,
as it has already published relevant legislation amending existing sanctions
measures to pave the way for early EU termination, there remains a lack
of clarity with regards to the US."
Arr .... the reason possibly is that the US knows it has already pissed
off Saudi and Israel, so won't push the boat out to far, thereby exasperating
an unnecessary situation further.
Lifting of Iran sanctions is 'a good day for the world' Yet these gangsters
who control the finance industry(US/UK), and who can and do, impose sanctions
at will, are free, without sanction, to wage war against whoever they so
choose with impunity. Something is not quite right here, or are we too stupid,
too compliant to see it?
If the US, Russia, Germany, France, Britain, Japan, and the EU say this
agreement is watertight, you can safely believe that it is. Except of course,
if you are smarter and better informed than all their diplomats and technical
experts. Are you?
Ok - so you're anti nuclear weapons. Fair enough, you're free view.
For me, much more importantly is the opportunity for trade. The Iranians
are well educated and still have a historical connection with our country.
I am a manufacturer of made in UK retail product and will see this as
a great opportunity to help build relationships and support the growth of
our sustainable employment in the UK.
If this technology is so promising, why didn't any the other nuclear nations
offer themselves "a testing bed for the much safer Thorium reactor solution"?
Iran isn't the world's guinea pig.
When sanctions started, they were nowhere near as harsh. European countries
- as well as China and India - had long been growing tired of the extremely
strict sanctions imposed mostly by the Americans. Though Kerry gets
a lot of the credit for the deal going through, according to some reports,
his European allies told him that they were going to stop abiding by the
sanctions whether he and Bibi liked it or not. So he could either accept
that reality or keep fighting the cartoon fight. Thankfully, he and his
boss chose the sensible option.
All the nuclear nations should have banded together with Iran to help
Iran with their desire for peaceful nuclear power by helping Iran with expertise
and funding to develop Thorium reactors. That would put the kibosh
on Iran's nuclear weapons program and work as a testing bed for the much
safer Thorium reactor
solution .
Unfortunately, those cooler heads, will be leaving the administration at
the end of this year, when there are elections in the US. After that anything
can happen.
It's been a rare pleasure to have diplomatic adults, not warmongers,
in both the White House and the State Department, for the past 8 years.
Europeans already had business interests at the time the sanctions started,
ten years ago. And yet they supported the sanctions. I don't see why it
should be different now.
Actually, it's never been that difficult for most European tourists to visit
Iran. Getting the visa can be a bit of a pain, but most people who apply
succeed in getting it quickly enough. And once you're in the country, you
can travel pretty much whereever you like. There has been a requirement
for British travellers to travel with an official guide, but I expect that
will be dropped very quickly.
Yes, unfortunately neither the UK or the US think long-term, when selling
advanced weapons to the Saudis (or giving them to Israel). That may well
come back to bite them, when the House of Saud falls, as it must.
Amazed this has gone through. The world's biggest and most dangerous
children, Israel and Saudi Arabia, will NOT be pleased. These two are behind
so much of the world's problems, far moreso than their parent the USA.
Yes I get that Laguerre, I don't think that's what they are doing either,
but that's not really the point I was trying to make. Considering that,
there are plenty of people around the world that think Iran does want nuclear
weapons, in spite of Iran's protestations to the contrary, I'm guessing
that there must be a ready argument for them not having such weapons. I'd
be interested to know what that argument is and why it doesn't apply to
us.
Welcome to the world community Iran. Not a perfect nation but which
is. No point demonizing people & nations, it does more harm than good.
They have said their Nuclear use for Civilian purposes and so it has
proved. Now how about those nations with Nuclear weapons and armed to the
teeth with getting rid some of them. Hypocrisy of nuclear issue like most
things around the world is stunning.
The Saudis are having to use Columbian mercenaries to supplement their usual
Pakistani rank and file "soldiers" in Yemen. No Saudis are ready to sacrifice
their lives to further their own royal families ambitions. This is an incredible
weakness but typical of a petrodollar state where all loyalties are based
on money. If Saudi Arabia were attacked by even a small but determined force
(such as ISIS) it would collapse like a house of cards.
The US has the largest prison population in the world. It also practices
torture at home and abroad. It carries out executions at home and extra
judicial (terror) killings abroad often using drones to do so. Compared
to any of this, Iran is just a beginner.
America is the best defended slum in the western world. A few facts: Huge
disparities of wealth and poverty, a rigid class system, massive unsustainable
military spending around the world, a weak education system that depends
on educated migrants to take skilled jobs, a declining manufacturing sector
due to dumb free trade deals that built up Chinese economic power. I could
go on indefinitely......but if America falls it will collapse from within
through its own internal contradictions - probably in typical American style
involving hubris, narcissism, blame shifting and of course lots of violence.
Real change must come from below and not from the Americans or Europeans
or Israeli lobby or sheikhdoms, or MEK or any other Iranian exile group,
but the Iranian masses themselves. History has shown this to be true time
and time again. Reforms were introduced in Germany, England, France, the
United States, etc. only because of pressure from below, from the organized
sections of the working classes and their trade union representatives and
not from 'enlightened governments' or 'generous employers'. The road to
reform is paved with struggle and defeats and victories.
German Chancellor Bismarck, the first statesman to introduce reforms
as a way to put down socialist agitation and mass disgruntlement, wrote
in 1889: "we must vigorously intervene for the betterment of the low
of the workmen. "
German Emperor William II cautioned in 1890: "For the maintenance
of peace between employers and workers…Such an institution will facilitate
the free and peaceful expression of their wishes and their grievances,
and furnish officials a regular means for keeping informed of the labor
situation and of continuing in contact with the workers"
In 1906, a French cabinet member cautioned: "we believe that it
is time to study seriously the means of preventing the return of conflicts
between capital and labor"
If you want to support the Iranians in their struggle, support the labour
movement there. Everything that is good about North America and Europe,
or rather, the things that make life tolerable there including a decent
standard of living, paid holidays, adequate working conditions, unemployment
insurance, pensions, etc. was struggled for and won by workers and trade
unions.
It's all true. The U.S. Military program is over bloated and needs a severe
diet. Billions of dollars wasted. Criticize the U.S. military all you like.
I do all the time. ;)
Did you know that the U.S. military is second in federal expenditures
only to social security? It is the second most expensive program in the
United States! This is wrong.
So when some apologist says "well the military only makes up 17 percent
of the budget," (which has been said to me on many occasions) tell them
they are full of it.
When will the civilized world see sanctions on US, UK and Saudi Arabia
for dropping bombs on the Yemenis?
After the UK(Cameron) gifted a seat on the Human rights council to the
Saudis?..
Anyone would think it was a thoroughly corrupt rigged game .. wouldn't they.
The west makes it up as they go along .. and you argue the toss at your
peril.
Ha, ha, ha. Priceless. Yes, no one has ever(as far as I'm aware) put forward
a reason why anyone would want to invade the UK. Why would they ..
it certainly wouldn't be for the benefits many here would have us believe.
Iran however?. yes, what a tasty treat, they have significantly more
to nick in terms of raw materials and other good stuff than we do .. Iran
would make a far better(and now easier) target. Oh.. Bibi, despite his protestations
to the contrary, must be rubbing his hands with glee, and now with the revelation
that US and UK personnel are ensconced(secretly) with the Saudi's .. If
I were an Iranian, I'd see myself surrounded by enemies. Would I give up
the potential to make a bomb?..
Hmm. Whatever the inducements were, they're certainly not enough to see
off a willful new US president with a finger on the trigger, especially
as almost all have voiced the desire to bomb.
But he said while all nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be
lifted, other sanctions such as those related to human rights and terrorism
will remain in place
Sanctions on Iran were illegal and the people of Iran were punished for
the nukes they never wanted to build. When will the civilized world see
sanctions on US, UK and Saudi Arabia for dropping bombs on the Yemenis?
I hear you on this. I heard that the American cost of the new F35 fighter
jet program is enough to buy every homeless American a $600,000 house. I'm
not criticizing the USA military program or anything just highlighting the
simple cost for America to help it's own poor. Especially in today world
were money created out of thin air. Even now that i have wrote this how
much QE did the Fed do but couldn't house the homeless.
But he said while all nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be lifted,
other sanctions such as those related to human rights and terrorism
will remain in place, most notably in the US, meaning that companies
would still have to comply with those restrictions.
Meanwhile the Telegraph is calling for an alliance with al Qaeda in Syria,
saying:
The reality that comes with the prolonging war might now mean that
it is time to think of widening who we support – and by working with
groups who would fight IS first over Assad, or indeed al-Qaida's Syrian
branch Al Nusra, but who might not necessarily have the moderate qualities
we would ideally like to support militarily in Syria, lest they too
enact the depravity of beheadings, torture and rape which the conflict
has seen too much of already.
That's before we get to Yemen, where the areas the UK has helped 'liberate'
from AQ's fiercest foe, has been taken over by ISIS.
What's that Netanyahu? I can't hear you. I still can't hear you. Yeah, maybe
you should set your dumb ass down and take a break for the rest of your
miserable life from your anti-Obama/anti-Iran rhetoric. You are already
soaking the American taxpayer for 3 billion a year, and now you are asking
for 4.2 to 4.5 billion a year for the next ten years. It disgusts me how
American tax payer money gets thrown around the world while people here
at home are in the streets starving. How does that work, Netanyahu? You
tell me, how does that work, you miserable fool.
Yes, but as we've seen previously under Bush Jnr, how long does it take
to start an illegal war and who will stop the US in an illegal war? .. it
certainly won't be us in the UK .. inexplicably we seem to love whatever
the US does be it legal or absolutely illegal.
I'm pleased sanctions are being lifted, but until we discuss as adults
the Palestinian/Israeli issue plus Israels nuclear arsenal - which quite
ludicrously seems immune even from being acknowledged, then tensions will
remain. We can't keep ignoring this issue and the injustices in Palestine
in the blaise fashion with which we apply sanctions to others. The west's
current hypocrisy stinks.
This is what I heard on the news earlier in the night. I heard that the
two navy boats did indeed purposely take a short cut through Iranian waters.
Then the Iranian guard took pursuit. Then, the Harry Truman aircraft carrier
group launched search helicopters into the area which did not help things
at all and only escalated things. Finally, the Iranians took the crew.
The U.S. lies all the time. They constantly lie and then the U.S. politicians
come calling for nothing short of a nuclear strike! They are insane. I can
say this much. Any country has the right to board and take a vessel if it
enters their waters, and that includes the stupid, arrogant U.S. This country
really needs to back their shit down and take a look at what they are doing
in the world. They have become very full of themselves and it stinks to
high heaven. It smells like shit.
A great privilege to witness such a rare occasion when common sense and
rationality prevail! Well done all the parties involved! Thanks for "giving
peace a chance"
PS. Wondering how Republicans (especially Tom Cotton), Bibi, king Salman,
n the rest of premium members of warmonger club are feeling now!
.
Anything that stops the Saudi's playing the big I am is fine by me.
They've already cut off their own nose over oil prices to stop US fracking
and their economy is suffering, lets hope Iran can keep it low when it doesn't
suit Saudi Arabia.
The one worry is ISIS getting a foothold if the Saudi government goes
tits up and getting their hands on some real shiny weapons.
"Whilst the EU piece of the puzzle is clear, as it has already published
relevant legislation amending existing sanctions measures to pave the way
for early EU termination, there remains a lack of clarity with regards to
the US."
Good, let the US who started all this nonsense feel themselves for
a while what it is like to be outside trade with Iran. I bet it will not
last long if companies realize they are still not allowed to do business
because of their own extortion over the many years while the EU does commence
trading.
That British troops are involved in Saudi's dirty war - and it seems very
dirty indeed, is nothing short of scandalous. Questions should be being
asked surely?..
But it's somewhat academic isn't it?.. Whichever sweetheart with the exception
of Bernie Sanders, who happens to con their way into the US hot seat, they've
all taken against Tehran in a big way haven't they. Almost all of them have
promised at some stage in their self-serving careers to bomb Iran back to
the stone age, even the occasionally economical with the truth Hilary Clinton
who tries so very hard to convince she's actually a human being has an issue
in that regard.
I really do hope you have an insurance policy Iran, I wouldn't trust
these liars as far as .. and I'd advise using some of what's rightly coming
your way to insulate against future western blackmail.
I'd buy a bloody big bomb .. but keep it quiet, you never know who's
listening .. Ha, yes we do!
Sanctions should never have been imposed. They are a form of collective
punishment that has stopped medicines coming into Iran and punished small
businesses. I know from experience. I had salmonella in Iran when I was
two, and medicines that would have been free under the NHS were so expensive
in Iran due to sanctions that my father had to sell his Mercedes Benz (not
sure he's ever quite forgiven me for that). Meanwhile, Israel's nuclear
arsenal goes unmentioned and unpunished, and we have British troops sitting
in the Saudi war rooms. British foreign policy is a selective and hypocrital
joke.
Well played to all those on both sides responsible for the recent progress,
though I am more than slightly concerned that the next US president will
see things rather differently. Let me also say that Louise Mensch's recent
tweets have been nothing short of disgusting and wholly inflammatory, exactly
the kind of rhetoric that the world community should be shunning.
I'm pleased that whoever it was in the US military command who tried to
use the sailors to provoke a clash with Iran and scupper the end of sanctions
did not succeed. There should be a full enquiry and the traitor exposed
and charged. Let's hope Seymour Hersh gets on the case as soon as possible!
The US specializes in lack of clarity. Remember the two boats that Iran
detained the other day? The US initially said that they had a mechanical
failure and drifted into Iranian territorial waters. That version of events
has become non-operative, and now the US is saying that the boats were fully
operational, but one of the sailors accidentally punched the wrong GPS coordinates
in. And then, of course, they failed to notice that they were getting awfully
close to that island where Iran maintained a base.
Fortunately, we didn't have Cruz in the White House, threatening to nuke
Iran for detaining American sailors for trespassing, even though it's clear
they were question, fed, fueled up and sent on their way. The Iranians,
at least, were civilized, albeit involuntary hosts.
This is Guardian article written just before imposition
of sanctions in 2012.
Notable quotes:
"... Pure colonial greed - Neo Cons get back in your boxes and stop lusting
after Iranian oil. Morally and financially bankrupt Western countries need to keep
out of other peoples affairs. ..."
The top destination for Iran's crude oil exports in the six months between
January and June 2011 was China, totaling 22% of Iran's crude oil exports. Japan
and India also make up a big proportion, taking 14% and 13% respectively of
the total exports of Iran. The European Union imports 18% of Iran's total exports
with Italy and Spain taking the largest amounts.
Sri Lanka and Turkey are the most dependent on Iran's crude exports with
it accounting for 100% and 51% of total crude imported, respectively. South
Africa also takes 25% of its total crude from Iran.
'The top destination for Iran's crude oil exports in the six months
between January and June 2011 was China, totalling 22% of Iran's crude
oil exports. Japan and India also make up a big proportion, taking 14%
and 13% respectively'
- I think even any common or garden moron can see the game plan here..
Time to plant the seeds of democracy...again
firstnamejames - The world should give thanks that you aren't in a position
of power!
Diplomacy and sanctions are time consuming? Not half as time consuming
as 'kicking ass' George Bush style. The Wikipedia entry for the War in Afghanistan
is dated (2001-Present)….. that's what you call quick, decisive action!
What was required post-911 was for the US to have a long, hard think
about its foreign policy, but instead they lived gloriously to stereotype
and played right into Bin Laden's hands.
Bali 02... Madrid 04... London 05... that's the price you pay for 'quick,
resolute' action.
We nuke Iran and the consequences will be life altering - not just for
the Iranian people either.
This report is wrong, like most of the scaremongering on this issue, Iran
did not threaten to close the strait of Hormuz in retaliation for the oil
embargo, they threatened it in retaliation for a strike on their entirely
legal nuclear facilities, the Western medias attempt to gin up a war with
Iran are both foolish and pathetic...
Pure colonial greed - Neo Cons get back in your boxes and stop lusting
after Iranian oil. Morally and financially bankrupt Western countries need
to keep out of other people's affairs.
The hypocrisy of the West is breath taking - attack Iraq over war crimes
vs the Iranians, non-existent WMD in Iraq just as in Iran now, swap sides
in Libya by funding militias led by so-called Al Qaeda men and the bleat
on about UN resolutions when the elephant in the room (Israel) continues
to abuse Palestine people and then continue to sell arms to other dictators
around the world.
Well I suppose anyday now there will be a nuclear test in Iran and that
will be that. Iran will be welcomed to the nuclear club with India and Pakistan
and North Korea.
I guess Russia or China would probably lend Iran a small nuke for the
undergrond test.....
That will be adios to the Israeli aggression in the region.
I might note that proven reserves are NOT the same as recoverable reserves,
the distinction is a quite huge difference. Also Saudi Arabian numbers are
only guesses as the true numbers are a closely guarded state secret. It
should also be noted that the north of Iran is on the Caspian Sea and any
regional conflict would impact those nations and their gas and oil development
too. Of course the Kurdish oil in Northern Iraq would also be at risk and
I doubt the Iraq government would care one jot if it came under fire. The
Strait of Hormuz isn't the only oil that would be effected should this all
blow up.
This might be not an end of S&P500 rally but this might well be the beginning of the end.
Notable quotes:
"... It's good: the less money the US will have the less wars it will wage in the world. My congrats! ..."
"... Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope. ..."
"... Be careful what you wish for. ..."
"... The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year." ..."
"... With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger. ..."
"... This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on "statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported. ..."
"... I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce. And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing. ..."
"... Well gosh no QE to save these bandits again, what will they do? ..."
"... they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up. ..."
"... The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property speculation because of that the economy is still not moving. ..."
"... If they given that money to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now. ..."
Things have a long way to fall before they're low. I hope it's 2008 all over again. I was laid
off in January 2009 with a generous severance packet. I invested it all in the US stock market
in Q1 09, when everyone was wailing and moaning. That was the bottom of the market. Over the next
few years it soared and I made a fortune. I sold most of it last year so I'm hoping for another
crash.
Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when
it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope.
"In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and
winter. And then we get spring and summer again." Chance the Gardener, mistakenly known as Chauncey
Gardiner.
The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures
don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year."
With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services
we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger.
These people are utterly stupid. All a load of chooks with missing heads running round causing
chaos and more stupidity.
But Wait. Are we the stupid ones for letting them have their greedy little comer of the world
to gamble away the lives of others?
We have no influence and are impotent against these chancers and thieves.
Markets get closed. Also during the Bush GFC we had futures, derivatives or whatever banned for
a while. The problem was letting them start up again.
So its just a case of finding some real honest politicians...........maybe your right.
The US has been de-industrialized. Most Americans are too poor to buy new gadgets. Many are homeless.
We have a 3d world economy. Of course the stock market etc is bad!
This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund
their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West
are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired
or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on
"statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated
numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported.
The governments have learned in the last 30-40 years how to "manage" the reported metrics by
changing definitions, adjustments and outright lying. You can only do it for so long before real
world catches up with you.
I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last
month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation
about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce.
And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable
for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing.
Yes, things could be better there and in many other places. (In Canada, we are truly screwed
for at least several years, fwiw.)
they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the
market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up.
The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property
speculation because of that the economy is still not moving.
\
If they given that money
to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the
real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now.
"... A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking . ..."
"... Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely her) way out the door. ..."
"... Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this. ..."
"... Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1% so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which would only end civilization. ..."
"... You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical change. ..."
"... TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations and nonsense conclusions. ..."
"... Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor. ..."
"... It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on a european airline! ..."
"... i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians. ..."
"... Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West Bank a few years back. ..."
"... Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese. ..."
"... The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now. ..."
"... What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor (used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training). ..."
"... Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done. ..."
"... Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops. ..."
"... US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia. ..."
A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the
missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another
type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any
sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking .
newpilgrim
9 Jan 2016 09:23
Just another example of collateral damage? These missiles seem to keep landing in the wrong
places, wedding parties etc. Are the military of any nation capable of managing dangerous
hi-tech military hardware responsibly?
Kevin Brent
9 Jan 2016 02:24
Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial
flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely
her) way out the door.
beermad -> CheaterA
8 Jan 2016 16:27
Ah, but without a large enemy bogeyman there would be no excuse for spending billions upon
billions on "defence". The government's paymasters in the weapons industry would never stand
for that.
BG Davis
8 Jan 2016 10:51
Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in
Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this.
lostinbago -> JoeP
8 Jan 2016 10:09
Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1%
so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons
even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and
enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which
would only end civilization.
lostinbago -> Al Lewis
8 Jan 2016 10:04
You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are
NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox
and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions
as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical
change.
TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over
nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations
and nonsense conclusions.
CheaterA
8 Jan 2016 09:59
What is wrong with our leadership (and often the press) for this persistence re retaining
Russia as a "potential" enemy?! NATO needs to be renamed, Turkey dumped, and Russia invited to
join. Russia would be the best ally the west will ever have against terrorism. Tons of money
would be saved (yes, tons) plus the ensuing safety and cultural exchange would be, well,
priceless.
Smallworld5
8 Jan 2016 09:11
Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a
deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no
operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor.
Basically it's a shell with the laser receiver part of the seeker package which tells the
weapons operator on the aircraft that the missile has acquired the laser designator (locked
on). No ground breaking technology there as just about everyone else has similar weapons.
trazer985 -> pretzelattack
8 Jan 2016 09:01
It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps
the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in
the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then
it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt
scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning
device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on
a european airline!
Next time they ask me if my bag has "any of the following" in it, I'll try not to think of
this story...
TommyGuardianReader
8 Jan 2016 08:34
"The official said the US did not want any defense technology to remain in a proscribed
country, whether that country can use it or not."
Lockheed Martin may have had their own commercial motives for allowing the equipment to be
accidentally sent to Havana, or they may have been acting under instruction.
However, if it was a simple fuck-up:
1. The easy short-term answer is to take Cuba off the list of proscribed countries.
2. The more difficult, long-term answer is to remove all the other unauthorised US defence
equipment that is currently in Cuba. Especially in and around the south-eastern area known as
Guantanamo Bay.
There can be no doubt that the continued existence of the unlawful, anachronistic foreign
naval facility makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve genuine consensus at the
United Nations.
While that may suit the interests of the shareholders in Lockheed Martin very nicely, it does
not suit the interests of most of humanity and the other living beings on the planet.
i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland
security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might
suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians.
mikedow -> toggy12
8 Jan 2016 07:50
They're used to losing weaponry. They even have a special name(Broken Arrow) for when they
lose a nuclear device. In 1950 the USAF jettisoned a nuclear bomb off the coast of BC, before
crashing a B-36 "Peacemaker".
Julie Lamin
8 Jan 2016 07:49
Another of the United States efforts to poison international opinion against Cuba? Perhaps
once the United States has returned Guatanamo to Cuba and paid for the fifty years of damage
they have caused to Cuban people through their acts of aggression, the US might get their
little bit of kit back.
TonyBistol
8 Jan 2016 05:39
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I wouldn't imagine that this drone would be able to teach the
Russians an awful lot, especially seeing as they have recently demonstrated that they have the
capability of being able to launch seaborne cruise missiles which can pinpoint targets 1800 Km
away.
jgbg Tradingman66
8 Jan 2016 05:24
They don't need to hand them to a freight forwarder to screw up. Whilst the Soviets had
some accidents with nuclear weapons and reactors, the US has had quite a few accidents
involving nuclear weapons, reactors and materials, including the permanent loss of some
nuclear weapons. One nuclear weapon that was lost over Georgia (the US state, not the country)
was armed and almost detonated.
tellyheads 8 Jan 2016 05:24
LOL, the US DoD is less competent than Amazon.
Lucky it wasn't a nuke.
jgbg Freddienerk
8 Jan 2016 05:11
I am sure the Russians and Chinese already have the know how to build a similar weapon.
Yes - but they might be interested in the specifics of this missile e.g. sensors and guidance
systems, so as to facilitate the development of effective countermeasures.
JaitcH 8 Jan 2016 05:06
What's to hide?
The target is painted with an infra-red signal, or infra-red markers, similar to torches, are
placed on or near a target. Whichever is used is encoded with a 4-digit code.
The pilot of the aircraft carrying the Hellfire weapon loads this 4-digit code into the
Hellfire before releasing it and it's ready to go hunting.
The Freedom Fighters know about this and use infra-red detectors to either locate the
hand-dropped markers or to sense infra-red markers projected in a site - then they move,
hopefully in time yo watch the explosion from a distance!
The information was published in a book devoted to modern warfare technology.
Doug_Niedermeyer
8 Jan 2016 04:52
Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the
globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I
recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West
Bank a few years back.
hogsback -> ID0728468
8 Jan 2016 04:47
I'm sure all munitions are shipped via the US Military themselves via the USAAF
So when Lockheed sells Hellfires to say Pakistan, or Egypt, or Saudi, you think they are
delivered in person by the USAAF with a little bow and ribbons? You realise that Hellfire has
been sold to over 25 countries, not all of them friendly to the US?
They're sent by air cargo or in a container on a ship like anything else.
SenseCir
8 Jan 2016 04:36
This is a tragedy. What if technical details reach poor farmers in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq
or Syria who are then able to avoid being killed by one of those missiles? Unthinkable. Cuba
must return the missile at once.
juster 8 Jan 2016 04:35
Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground
missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure
trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese.
The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious
however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now.
hogsback -> trazer985
8 Jan 2016 04:30
Probably in the cargo hold on a passenger flight. You would be surprised as to what is
sitting under you when you are off on your hols.
What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two
kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor
(used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training).
What the hell are they doing using ordinary freight services to send missiles around the
world, do they send live ones the same way. They should only be carried by military transport
regardless of cost because what is the cost of loosing it and it falling into the wrong hands
EpaminondasUSA
8 Jan 2016 04:25
Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to
develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done.
DThompson5 martinusher
8 Jan 2016 04:14
Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent
survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US
forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants
were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops.
2bveryFrank
8 Jan 2016 03:57
A Hellfire missile does the rounds in Europe, visiting Spain, Germany and France before
being sent to Havana, Cuba by mistake! And our security is supposed to be in these people's
hands! Idiots the lot of them!
Epivore
8 Jan 2016 03:57
"instead, it was loaded onto an Air France flight to Havana."
And it's not just dummy missiles that end up on civilian flights...
UncertainTrumpet
8 Jan 2016 03:26
US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and
sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia.
Dubhgaill -> Wendy Stolz
8 Jan 2016 03:15
The US military is virtually entirely run by private companies. Every single member of GW
Bush's cabinet, to a man or woman, were boardmembers and shareholders in either an oil company
or arms producer or a military logistics firm. Every single one of them. This is a minor
symtom of a far more insidious malaise.
siansim -> bemusedbyitall
8 Jan 2016 03:02
bemusedbyitall said:
No chance, from experience even if it was used against a hospital with numerous
medical staff and civilian deaths and casualties it would just be put down to a minor
clerical or communications error...
...And then you drive a tank into the hospital wards to destroy any evidence.
US Military: putting the FUBAR into high military spending
poplartree1 8 Jan 2016 02:58
Great! How wonderful they work like a charm...Yesterday I placed in comments how the US
government (who is totally inthe hands of contractors such a Lockheed Martin and other yahoos,
how they are corrupt. Today here is one more example of total ineptitude;
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/
"The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with
five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region,
increase Sarkozy's reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent
Gaddafi's influence in what is considered "Francophone Africa."
Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi's gold and
silver reserves, estimated at "143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver," posed to the
French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency. In place of the noble sounding
"Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this "confidential"
explanation of what was really driving the war [emphasis mine]:
This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to
establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to
provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is
valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly
after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President
Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)
Though this internal email aims to summarize the motivating factors driving France's (and
by implication NATO's) intervention in Libya, it is interesting to note that saving civilian
lives is conspicuously absent from the briefing.
Instead, the great fear reported is that Libya might lead North Africa into a high degree
of economic independence with a new pan-African currency.
French intelligence "discovered" a Libyan initiative to freely compete with European currency
through a local alternative, and this had to be subverted through military aggression."
Loosing a missile is not important...important is to increase hell on earth...and to make
people suffer like in Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Ukraine.
Havingalavrov
8 Jan 2016 02:50
Look who uses the Hellfire missile and they are making a fuss about Cuba having the
technology ???
The US stripped down a MIG27 Foxbat jet brought in by a defecting Soviet pilot and is now
complaining! Sauce for Soviet goose is sauce for American gander!
Long6fellow
8 Jan 2016 01:52
The Yanks are losing their grip on their delivery service, firstly, there was a drone
brought down by the Iranians, "can we have our drone back please", then the wrong delivery of
1Billion$ of war equipment to SISI, the latter being set up by the Pentagon, now the Hellfire
Missile sent to Cuba, and after all these years of dirty tricks on Cuba, it proves the Yanks
cannot be trust at all.
BudGreen -> Freddienerk
8 Jan 2016 00:47
Specific knowledge of the guidance systems could be valuable to someone interested in
developing electronic countermeasures. This much should be obvious. Personally, I would be
surprised that with the number of these used in combat (they've been in use since the early
80's) that there would not have been at least several unexploded units recovered by our
enemies. Having one that was never fired and probably undamaged might be a real prize, though.
synchronicfusion
8 Jan 2016 00:05
As an American, I am truly embarrassed and ashamed that my own government had a habit of
shipping weapons and technology into the wrong hands. I might be more forgiving if it only
happened once, but how many times now? This is the same government that insists on spying on
we innocent citizens as though we are in the wrong. Please! Dumb....., Da Dumb, Dumb, DUMB!
It's been said that every empire comes to an end, eventually.
Triangulation is the term given to the act of a political candidate presenting their ideology
as being above or between the left and right sides (or "wings") of a traditional (e.g. American or British)
democratic political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one's political
opponent. The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent's ideas, and insulates the
triangulator from attacks on that particular issue.
Notable quotes:
"... women's issues, LGBT issues, gun issues but anything that involves economics ..."
"... It's like having a serial killer come out in support of you. ..."
"... These pols have played very successfully on out-groups' fear that their hold on legitimacy and power is fragile. ..."
"... I understand that, but there is something in psychology called "shared distinctiveness". LGBT groups are uniquely distinctive just as corrupt politicians are uniquely distinctive. And the more I see corrupt politicians talking about the importance of LGBT issues, etc, the more the two are starting to go together in my head. ..."
"... As I said that's not a rational process, but it's real. The mental connections that are formed mean that whenever I see LGBT activities/people/whatever I immediately think of all the corrupt politicians they're in bed with, and a lot of that aura of corruption brushes off on them. ..."
"... Lindsey Graham is a fine example .. ..."
"... Feminist concerns are not in themselves corrupt, but what the Dem party peddles is tame, second wave weak sauce feminism of the Betty Friedan kind. Basically, "middle class housewives are oppressed by being withdrawn from equity within the workplace," which was even criticized at the time (notably by Germaine Greer) ..."
"... the DCCC's take that you can be liberal on "social" issues while hard right on political economy is not at all in line with contemporary feminist thinking, which holds, more or less, that the economy is a social issue just like reproductive rights, workplace equity, etc. ..."
"... Hillary is a woman despite Hillary losing young women in 2008. ..."
"... Your assessment is more spot on, perhaps, given we can't even get Dems to commit to something as broadly popular as paid family leave. ..."
"... Unfortunately, its become part of the professional centre-left playbook around the world – you see it in many countries. Genuflecting to identity politics has become like right wing politicians pretending to be religious. ..."
"... Its a classic bait and switch move, but it also reflects a professional political class who have completely lost contact with their supposed base. I've met left wing activists who genuinely saw it as something more important than, say, protecting benefits for the poor. ..."
"... Unfortunately, its become part of the professional centre-left playbook around the world – you see it in many countries. Genuflecting to identity politics has become like right wing politicians pretending to be religious. ..."
"... They crunched the polling numbers, and strategised that they could replace them with the one big cohort that pollsters said were 'unclaimed' by other parties – working educated females 25-45. So they quite deliberately refocused their policies from representing working class and poorer people, to focusing on progressive-lite policies. fortunately, it seems that most working educated females 25-45 are too smart to fall for the cynicism, most polls indicate they will be wiped out in the next election. ..."
"... I do see signs of political awakening around the Western world, including here in the epicenter of the neoliberal infestation. ..."
"... Bill Clinton proved how profitable triangulation can be, and Obama followed that model from even before taking his first oath as President in January, 2009. ..."
"... Bill Clinton proved how profitable triangulation can be, and Obama followed that model from even before taking his first oath as President in January, 2009. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders isn't perfect, but he's so much better than Hillary in every way. ..."
"... I don't think the the neolib Dems (aka DLC Dems) want to win full control of the federal government. They want the presidency and only one of the two houses of Congress. This allows them to remain on the money train while blaming the Republicans for their inability to pass progressive legislation which pisses off their paymasters. ..."
"... What drives me crazy about Hillary (though it can easily be extended to other Dems) is all her talk of women, children, gun control, and LGBT rights (remember her tweet when gay marriage was legalised) while as SofS she approved arms deals to Saudi Arabia and the Clinton Slush Foundation took donations from it - surely one of the most despotic, anti-women, anti-LGBT regimes in the world. Not to mention the ongoing US-supported Saudi genocide in Yemen. ..."
"... Hey Team Bernie, in the next debate, if HRC brings up control, just have Bernie quietly but clearly say something like: "Forgive me Madame Secretary, but HOW DARE YOU criticise me on gun control when you were responsible for blowing up Libya and shipping arms to ISIS?" ..."
"... Also re guns and politics, if he can win the nomination, Sanders' position will help him in rural states. I have never seen a national politician address the differing needs between working people who feed their families with the help of a deer or two vs urban people whose primary concern is gang violence. All we hear is pro or anti gun and people have trouble imagining each others circumstances. ..."
"... She keeps getting re-elected because of weak opposition and a complicit local media. ..."
"... And all that cash she gets from the people she sells out to. ..."
"... And if she loses in the primary, so what? As far as I can tell, the head of the DNC does not have to be an elected official still in office. She of course is a "superdelegate," and under DNC rules, wiki reports that "The chairperson is a superdelegate for life." ..."
"... Isn't a name missing from the above rogue's gallery: Nancy Pelosi. If I'm not mistaken DWS was a bit of a protege. ..."
"... Obama's name is missing. He's the one who picked her to head the DNC. ..."
"... Obama never gets blamed for anything. Keep your fingerprints off and find a villain to blame instead. That's Obama's modus operandi and it's worked his entire life. He is beyond Teflon. ..."
"... Great news! How do you get rid of neolib DLC-machine third-way triangulating Dems? One seat at a time. ..."
An Axis of Evil inside the Democratic Party is suddenly on the defensive. Steve Israel was
forced to announce an early retirement for reasons
that are still murky . Rahm Emanuel can barely show his face in Chicago and, with the exception
of Hillary Clinton, all his cronies and allies are
jumping off that sinking ship . And now it's
looking like Debbie Wasserman Schultz's rotten self-serving career is finally catching up with her.
As we mentioned, Tuesday, Roots Action has a petition
drive to force her out of the DNC - with over 30,000 signatures already. And then yesterday,
CREDO launched another petition
drive to get her out of a position she never should have been in in the first place. I don't
like signing petitions but I eagerly signed both of these. The Democratic Party will never be a force
for real progressive change with careerist power mongers like Steve Israel, Rahm Emanuel, Debbie
Wasserman Schultz and Chuck Schumer controlling it.
...There aren't that many Democrats as transactional as Debbie Wasserman Schultz when it comes
to serving the interests of the wealthy people who have financed her political rise, from the
sugar barons and
private prison industry to the
alcohol distillers .
...Wasserman Schultz's support for the dysfunctional corporate trade agreements like TPP very
much motivated Canova to make the difficult decision to take on one of the House's most vicious gutter
fighters. "People are just tired of being sold out by calculating and triangulating politicians,"
told us back in October when he was thinking about running. "Wasserman Schultz has become the ultimate
machine politician. While she stakes out liberal positions on culture war issues, when it comes to
economic and social issues, she's too often with the corporate elites. On too many crucial issues–
from fast-tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership to the war on drugs and medical marijuana and mass
incarceration, to her support for budget sequestrations and austerity– Wasserman Schultz votes down
the line with big corporate interests and cartels: Wall Street banks and hedge funds, Big Pharma,
the private health insurers, private prisons, Monsanto, it goes on and on."
women's issues, LGBT issues, gun issues but anything that involves economics
This is important. Initially I started out not having much of an opinion on LGBT and women's
issues. However, the more I saw corrupt neoliberal politicians advocating for these issues (wasn't
Obama trying to make Lloyd Blankfein the ambassador for LGBT issues or something a couple of years
ago?) the more I started associating them with corruption and evil.
This isn't rational at all, but whenever I see HRC or Obama advocating for some particular
culture war issue, the more I despise the groups and causes they're advocating for and the more
I want to fight against them. Why aren't these people in the LGBT and women communities vocally
and continually disowning these corrupt politicians? It's like having a serial killer come
out in support of you.
These pols have played very successfully on out-groups' fear that their hold on legitimacy
and power is fragile. That is particularly true with gay men, who outside a handful of big
cities, face open discrimination and risk of physical harm.
I understand that, but there is something in psychology called "shared distinctiveness".
LGBT groups are uniquely distinctive just as corrupt politicians are uniquely distinctive. And
the more I see corrupt politicians talking about the importance of LGBT issues, etc, the more
the two are starting to go together in my head.
As I said that's not a rational process, but it's real. The mental connections that are
formed mean that whenever I see LGBT activities/people/whatever I immediately think of all the
corrupt politicians they're in bed with, and a lot of that aura of corruption brushes off on them.
Feminist concerns are not in themselves corrupt, but what the Dem party peddles is tame,
second wave weak sauce feminism of the Betty Friedan kind. Basically, "middle class housewives
are oppressed by being withdrawn from equity within the workplace," which was even criticized
at the time (notably by Germaine Greer) .
bell hooks, on the other hand, doesn't mince words at all, when she shows how questions of
racial and gender oppression are expressly linked to economics/class and militarism. You can't
tackle any of them without tackling all of them, so the DCCC's take that you can be liberal
on "social" issues while hard right on political economy is not at all in line with contemporary
feminist thinking, which holds, more or less, that the economy is a social issue just like reproductive
rights, workplace equity, etc.
I wouldn't even say Team Blue is there. Pelosi and other prominent Team Blue women held a mock
panel to get to the bottom of why Rush Limbaugh was mean to a Georgetown Law school student who
was photogenic. This has been the sum total of Team Blue's defense of feminism since GDub except
to cynically conclude young women will rush to Team Blue because Hillary is a woman despite
Hillary losing young women in 2008.
Your assessment is more spot on, perhaps, given we can't even get Dems to commit to something
as broadly popular as paid family leave.
That said, I've noticed a denigrating tone directed toward what gets labeled as "identity politics"
of late, and I just wanted to make clear that current proponents of things like critical race
theory and what have you are more in line with the NC commentariat than I think people give them
credit for.
Unfortunately, its become part of the professional centre-left playbook around the world
– you see it in many countries. Genuflecting to identity politics has become like right wing politicians
pretending to be religious. Here in Ireland the Irish Labour party, in coalition with a centre
right party, used up every bit of political credit they had to push for gay marriage. Like most
people I was very happy it was legalised, but they were patting themselves on the back for this
while simultaneously supporting vicious austerity.
Its a classic bait and switch move, but it also reflects a professional political class
who have completely lost contact with their supposed base. I've met left wing activists who genuinely
saw it as something more important than, say, protecting benefits for the poor.
Unfortunately, its become part of the professional centre-left playbook around the world
– you see it in many countries. Genuflecting to identity politics has become like right wing politicians
pretending to be religious.
I think the explanation is quite simple, at least in the U.S. (which has effectively exported
its political dysfunction to other developed democracies). When the Washington Consenusus formed
around corporatism (neoliberalism for the Democrats, conservatism/economic libertarianism for
the Republicans), there was no longer meaningful economic distinction between the parties. So
culture war/identity politics issues are all that remain for brand differentiation. Obama's recent
Academy Award performance on guns is a harbinger of how the Democrats will run in 2016 if Clinton
is the nominee. Plus Planned Parenthood and gay marriage and a few additional poll-tested non-economic
issues that the professionals calculate will garner marginally more votes than they will cost.
If the Democrats here truly wanted to win they would nominate Bernie Sanders and run on the wildly-popular
platform of economic populism. (I'd say this is probably true in Britain with Corbyn and Labour
as well, and probably in France and Italy as well, where the nominal leftists parties have been
infected by neoliberalism.) It seems clear at this point that the Democratic Party is more committed
to Wall Street than it is to the middle class, and is quite prepared to lose political power to
keep its place at the financial trough. Obama's reign is solid evidence and the fact that Clinton
remains the frontrunner and the establishment's darling shows they are doubling down, not changing
course.
You are quite right in what you say, even if the processes are slightly different in every
country. In the UK in particular, I think there is a huge problem with the Labour Party in that
it was effectively taken over by middle class left wing student activist types who have only the
most theoretical notion how poor or working class people live. It is inevitable that they start
to reinterpret 'left wing' and 'liberal' in a manner which suits the people they socialise with.
I.e. seeing social progressivism as far more important than economic justice.
Back in the 1990's I shared a house in London with a lawyer who qualified in Oxford – many
of her friends were the first generation of Blairites. They were intelligent, enthusiastic and
genuinely passionate about change. But talking to them it was glaringly obvious the only connection
they had with 'ordinary' people was when they first had to canvass on the streets. I remember
one young woman expressing horror at the potential constituent who came and insisted that she
sort out her welfare entitlements, because thats what a politician is supposed to do. She had
simply never met someone from the 'underclass' if you want to put it that way. It was all too
obvious that people like her would shift rapidly to the right as soon as they achieved power,
they had no real empathy or feel for regular people.
In my own country, in Ireland, it is far more cynical. Its no secret that the traditional main
centre left party, Labour, realised it would lose its core working class base if it supported
austerity. They crunched the polling numbers, and strategised that they could replace them
with the one big cohort that pollsters said were 'unclaimed' by other parties – working educated
females 25-45. So they quite deliberately refocused their policies from representing working class
and poorer people, to focusing on progressive-lite policies. fortunately, it seems that most working
educated females 25-45 are too smart to fall for the cynicism, most polls indicate they will be
wiped out in the next election.
it seems that most working educated females 25-45 are too smart to fall for the cynicism,
most polls indicate they will be wiped out in the next election
I do see signs of political awakening around the Western world, including here in the epicenter
of the neoliberal infestation. Can the forces of reform win? Can the people take control
of the political systems back from the plutocrats? Can they do it in time to avoid catastrophic
global warming and socially-destructive wealth inequality? We'll see.
Bill Clinton proved how profitable triangulation can be, and Obama followed that model
from even before taking his first oath as President in January, 2009.
Bernie Sanders isn't perfect, but he's so much better than Hillary in every way.
Bill Clinton proved how profitable triangulation can be, and Obama followed that model
from even before taking his first oath as President in January, 2009.
True, but there is one glaring difference between the 90s and today. In the 90s one could make
a plausible if not persuasive case that the electorate did not want economic populism and was
content with the Third Way's neoliberal economic royalism. So, Bill Clinton's "triangulation"
was actually designed to secure votes and win elections (as well as pad Clinton's pockets, of
course.). Today, things are very different, with the people since 2007 overwhelmingly clamoring
for economic populism but the Democrats refusing to provide it and indeed castigating
those who want the party to turn left.
Bernie Sanders isn't perfect, but he's so much better than Hillary in every way.
No doubt. And I am very pleased to say that I appear to have been wrong in thinking that Sanders
was fading. I'm not saying Sanders will win, but it looks to me like he may stick around long
enough for Hillary to (very possibly) implode, since she is and always has been a bad politician.
"If the Democrats here truly wanted to win they would nominate Bernie Sanders and run on
the wildly-popular platform of economic populism."
I don't think the the neolib Dems (aka DLC Dems) want to win full control of the federal
government. They want the presidency and only one of the two houses of Congress. This allows them
to remain on the money train while blaming the Republicans for their inability to pass progressive
legislation which pisses off their paymasters.
What drives me crazy about Hillary (though it can easily be extended to other Dems) is
all her talk of women, children, gun control, and LGBT rights (remember her tweet when gay marriage
was legalised) while as SofS she approved arms deals to Saudi Arabia and the Clinton Slush Foundation
took donations from it - surely one of the most despotic, anti-women, anti-LGBT regimes in the
world. Not to mention the ongoing US-supported Saudi genocide in Yemen.
So I guess HRC and the others think Americans need all these rights but people in the Mideast
can just go stuff themselves. Because, you know, ISIS, and TERRORISM, and OIL and arms sales.
Why the fsck doesn't Bernie point out these contradictions? Hillary apparently is blaming him
for being "weak on gun control" while she has been a member of one of the most militaristic, bombing-and-droning
administrations since, well, George W. Bush's.
Hey Team Bernie, in the next debate, if HRC brings up control, just have Bernie quietly
but clearly say something like: "Forgive me Madame Secretary, but HOW DARE YOU criticise me on
gun control when you were responsible for blowing up Libya and shipping arms to ISIS?"
Also re guns and politics, if he can win the nomination, Sanders' position will help him
in rural states. I have never seen a national politician address the differing needs between working
people who feed their families with the help of a deer or two vs urban people whose primary concern
is gang violence. All we hear is pro or anti gun and people have trouble imagining each others
circumstances.
DWS is my Congressperson. She is adored by elderly Jewish women, reluctantly accepted by Democrats
(an overwhelming majority in her District), and loathed by all others. Whenever she appears on
local or national TV, she regurgitates an obvious rote memorized list of talking points that she
refuses to stray from. She will never engage in a true debate, and avoids answering any substantive
questions. She keeps getting re-elected because of weak opposition and a complicit local media.
I'm thrilled that there is a candidate that could derail her.
Readers should be aware that some years back a local politician used her picture as a target
at a local gun range. There was considerable uproar in the media, somewhat offset by a cottage
industry providing actual pictures of her superimposed over a standard target.
when she says it's more important for her to be in a leadership position fighting for
a public plan than it is to make a commitment to vote against a bill that doesn't have one,
I think that's a luxury she can afford:
DWS: I'm planning to reform for a health care reform plan that includes a robust public
option.
Mike Stark: Those are we're calling them "weasel words" over at FDL just because it does
give you a huge loophole to back out of .
DWS: Well I'm not someone who draws lines in the sand.
And if she loses in the primary, so what? As far as I can tell, the head of the DNC does
not have to be an elected official still in office. She of course is a "superdelegate," and under
DNC rules, wiki reports that "The chairperson is a superdelegate for life."
Wiki also reports that the DNC plays no role in "policy." Just writes the platform every so
often. Really?
While they live, they rule, and to re-coin an old legal chestnut, we have buried the Rulers
we unelect, but they rule us from their graves
Obama never gets blamed for anything. Keep your fingerprints off and find a villain to
blame instead. That's Obama's modus operandi and it's worked his entire life. He is beyond Teflon.
Part of that strategy seems to be a definite preference for staying ignorant and uninformed.
How many times has he claimed not to be aware of something going on until it's in the MSM? Of
course hard to keep up when one is on the golf course so much of the time.
Was Shaun Walket "under influence" when he wrote this article. Renaming Soviet Champaign is necessary
due to EU laws that prohibit infringement on French brand name, so "decommunization" is only part of
the story.
Of course history is written by winners and so far Galician nationalists are the winners, so they
rewrite history according to their own ideology and preferences. But money for that will be paid by
impoverished Ukrainians. In reality Ukraine is victim of US neoliberal push against Russia. Of course
US neocons does not want to pay for the damage it inflicted. Now they own the country. Might makes
right.
Notable quotes:
"... The achievements in a relatively short space of time once all the wars related to 1917 had ended, then in the 25 year period after the catastrophic loss following WW2 were incredible. ..."
"... ....and it is impossible to answer if Britain would have recovered as quickly from WW2 as the Soviets if they had suffered the equivalent (10 million) or the US (25 million ) deaths during this time. ..."
"... I'm beginning to recognise a familiar "Guardian euphmenism" touch there. Just like Syrian "moderate rebels" cause "controversy", as "some" of them call for jihad and eat people's hearts, and may have involved a massacre or two. ..."
"... The East Ukrainians were disenfranchised with the Regime change in their country but instead of sending in negotiators, the Kiev government sent in tanks and armored personnel carriers. What a way to run a country, they must have been inspired ( or instructed) by the best Regime changers in the business, the USA. ..."
"... Seeing as the Ukrainians hate the Communists and Lenin, I trust we can expect them to reverse measures enacted by the Communists e.g. return to Russia the regions moved into the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Lenin in the 1920s. By the same token, they should probably give Galicia back to Poland. ..."
"... And denounce the Communists gifting of Crimea to Ukraine in the 1950s... ..."
"... Ukraine is a bit of the loosers aren't they.. borrow money from the EU to pay some relative or friend of those in Kyiv.. who just happens to own a sign, monument or statue company.. to bring about this ridiculously stupid change.. of 108 towns? They haven't got better things to do with whatever money they have?.. like take care of the needs of the people? ..."
"... The old adage "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" comes readily to mind. Although perhaps "scoundrel" is too mild a word in this instance. ..."
"... The subtle irony is that without suitable Stalinist role models, the mafia power-brokers running Ukraine in cahoots with their morally bankrupt western puppeteers haven't an ideological leg to stand on. Instead, Walker blathers on about how Dnipropetrovsk has, ahem, been re-branded as Dnipropetrovsk. Thanks Shaun. ..."
"... Irrespective of whether or not its a good idea, there must be an EU grant somewhere that would compensate for the damage caused ..."
"... ......EU does NOT want Ukraine, we can NOT afford yet another poverty stricken ex soviet country !! If our utterly useless leaders would ever consider this insanity because USA tells us to, and if EU pretends to be a democracy, there should at least be a European referendum on this matter; ..."
"... obliterate the past and ideas by erasing the visible remnants will have the opposite effect to that desired particulary with the inquisitive youth and is so Talibanesque it's ludicrous. ..."
"... What exactly is "the Soviet worldview"? If it means not accepting Fackelzug (torch parade) in your cities Nazi-style, then most people Russia definitely have it, and a good proportion of people in Ukraine, too. ..."
"... If having the Soviet worldview means not accepting erasing history and collective memory and replacing it with some glorious but, unfortunately, fictitious history of the Ukrainian nation - yes, we certainly do have it. There are real achievements Ukrainians could be proud of - oh, Gosh, I forgot, they all involve Russian in one way or another, and that is, of course, unacceptable - otherwise that would be another manifestation of the Soviet worldview. Like we did it together, Russians and Ukrainians - can't get more Soviet than that. ..."
"... The USSR and Soviet history and the Russian language no more belong to the post soviet Russian Federation than they do to Ukraine. Each country can keep or reject what it likes. ..."
"... You want to claim the achievements - then you also claim the responsibilities as well. Ones don't go without the others. Either Ukraine, like Belorussia, is a part of the Russian/Soviet empires and is entitles to all their achievements as well as to all the faults or it is a long suffered colony of both and then it is entitled to none. Can't have it both ways. ..."
"... In the entrance lobby to the Kiev RADA there was a portrait of Stephen Bandera - that was covered with a black silk shroud when Americans visited. Bandera was not a hero as he actively aided the NAZI in Auschwitz , Poles, Jews and Russians were his favourites. The Ukraine Government hasn't left its past behind, it's only trying to camouflage it, trying to appear civilized. ..."
"... Ukrainian say farewall to Soviet things, but welcome Nazi stuff. Lovely. ..."
"... Dishonest? In my visits to Ukraine after the US-instigated Nazi putsch I saw more and more Nazi symbolism sprayed all over the city. There was even a shrine to the fascist Bandera on Independence Square. ..."
"... There is always a heavy paramilitary presence around main administrative buildings in Kiev - surprising that a regime that claims it came to power through a popular revolution should be scared of that same population. ..."
"... It is totally bizarre that Ukrainian vandals would deface a statue of Lenin with with the motto, "I am the butcher of Ukraine" since he was the one who had made the Ukraine an independent political entity. ..."
"... Allright democracy on the march. Overthrow elected governments with foreign backing (remember McCain at Maidan). Now you ban one of the largest opposition parties (in 2012 they got 6 percennt of the vote or 2.7 million votes) because they are traitors (that's the language they use) to the revolutionary Maidan government. While banning symbols and names they don't agree with by order of thought police and proclaiming Nazi collaborators as heroes. Just wait for the statues of Stepan Bandera to replace Lenin. The e.u and the rest of the west says nothing cause this is the kind of "democracy" they are fine with get bent hypocrites ..."
"... In that poor retched shrinking country local street names is all the Coup Crowd in Kyiv can actually control. So they have campaigns, led by fascists, for changing the names of things. Meanwhile it has become impossible to find out if the nitwits still claim to be at war with Russia or not. ..."
"... The author of this article neglects to mention that the Ukrainian laws are targeted both at Soviet and Nazi symbols. ..."
"... As for the ww2 Ukrainian nationalists, most Ukrainians think of these groups poorly. The vast majority of Ukrainians fought on the Soviet side, and indeed made up more than one third of the Soviet army in ww2. Until recently, this was the source of pride and sorrow, just as in Russia. ..."
"... I don't see anyone is stopping this, that guy on that transparent there is a nazi collaborator. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weg-QnsTPs0 ..."
"... The WWII history of the Ukraine is full of eye witness accounts of how the German armed forces had to step in to save Jews from Ukrainian savagery because they preferred to eliminate Jews systematically rather than by anarchistic savagery. And incidentally in Western Ukraine a greater proportion of people volunteered for Hitler's armed forces than in Germany proper. ..."
"... You are wrong. There are numerous monuments dedicated to Stepan Bandera in Western Ukraine (at least in 20 towns). There are also numerous streets named after him. ..."
"... Ukraine has bigger problems than street name changes! The IMF own the country it has lost it's sovereignty and has outsiders in its government as well as debts it cannot pay. ..."
"... Ukraine wants to get rid of the Soviet past - well, then it has to be happy that Crimea is gone, for Crimea is the clearest vestige of the Soviet past having been "gifted" to Ukraine by the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev over the objections of Crimea itself. Another vestige is as good as gone - Donbass, which agrees well with the removal of Lenin statutes, for it was Lenin himself who added Donbass to Ukraine in 1919. Stalin's legacy is next, which includes Western Ukraine and Transcarpathia. ..."
"... Western media needs to address the economic mess in Ukraine. The name changing, marching and fist fights in Rada are a distraction. What happened in two years is an economic collapse. When is Guardian going to notice? ..."
"... Who cares what they call their champagne----the Ukraine is dead, economically---- ..."
"... The real issue with Ukrainian champagne is that as of Jan 1 it cannot be called "champagne". With EU Association Agreement, the word "champagne" is reserved for the French stuff. That is by far more important than some "soviet" name games. ..."
"... Unfortunately there are many Ukrainians who think that 'restitution' will make them better off. They think that if Western people get rich (even Poles) that will be somehow good for Ukrainians as workers. It is low self-esteem combined with what can only be called servant mentality. The shouting and marching is there just to amuse, deep inside they all can't wait to serve. ..."
The Guardian is politely silent about of hundreds productions, level of education, population
(52 millions in 1991, 42 in 2015), infrastructure and other "products from glorifying communism"
which have heard "farewell" too...
Like if there wasn't for communism then there wouldn't be productions, educated population or
infrastructure? How did they manage do build all of that in Western Europe even without communism
i am wondering...
Communism f*cked up all natural relations and development and consequences are felt until these
days.
Also, Ukraine was Russian vassal until two years ago, so almost everything that happened after
1991 in Ukraine is in the responsibility of the same bolshevik-KGB cronies that were in power
during official communism.
Maybe it is a time to try to be a normal country like e.g. Czech republic or Slovenia are now
(also ex-Bolshevik Moscow´s vassals) finally, even 25 years later, but better later than never.
There is only little problem. Ukraine is not a Czech republic or Slovenia and even is not a Poland...
Did you ever wondered why some countries live good as Germany, France, Poland, for example but
some countries live bad? As South Africa when Europeans left it, Nigeria, Sudan... Why part of
Ukraine was a captured by Poland but part of Poland never was captured by Ukraine? And why a you
thinking that communism worse than capitalism, you even don't know how many was build in that
time of communism.
Most of western Europe had about a 1000 year head start....so that is a nonsense comparison.
The achievements in a relatively short space of time once all the wars related to 1917
had ended, then in the 25 year period after the catastrophic loss following WW2 were incredible.
....and it is impossible to answer if Britain would have recovered as quickly from WW2
as the Soviets if they had suffered the equivalent (10 million) or the US (25 million ) deaths
during this time.
Years from the end of ww2 to early 70s were golden ages of world economy and development. Almost
all countries heavily affected by ww2 recovered very quickly (Northern France, Germany, Holland,
Italy, Poland, Soviet union, Japan, South Korea (not North Korea though), because those were simply
very good times (economically and technologically). That has nothing to do with ruling ideology.
However, it was still much more done in capitalist countries (Japan, Germany, South Korea,
Netherlands, Italy) than in communist. Just look at economically and culturally similar countries
- look how much more developed was (and still is) Western Germany than Eastern Germany, Austria
than Hungary, Finland than Estonia, South Korea than North Korea, Capitalist China (Taiwan) than
Communist China...
I think from just these comparisations you can conclude all. Communism (or rather bolshevik
cronyism) was the break on general development. The fact that under bolshevism there were some
dams constructed in Ukraine doesn't change anything.
I'll give a simple explanation. Ukraine defaulted on Russian loan. No one would invest any monies
there except IMF and they are also reluctant because they stopped their investments because of
corruption
Good luck.
law has caused controversy, with many criticising an addendum which states that Ukrainian
independence movements during the second world war some of which collaborated with the Nazis
and were involved in massacres of Jews and Poles should be respected as "fighters for Ukrainian
independence".
I'm beginning to recognise a familiar "Guardian euphmenism" touch there. Just like Syrian
"moderate rebels" cause "controversy", as "some" of them call for jihad and eat people's hearts,
and may have involved a massacre or two.
This rejection of the cultural and political heritage of the Soviet Union (and its flavour of
communism) is understandable, many former soviet states have gone through a similar process. However
both the timing (amidst a civil war) and the extent (banning peaceful political movements and
expression) are questionable. However, I assume some nuances have been lost in translation. What
is the Russian word they use for "decommunisation"? Do they say this or "desovietisation"? As
for the temptation to compare with post WW2
denazification
in Germany, didn't the Soviet
Union undergo an equivalent process in rejection of Stalin's heritage (trial and execution of
Beria for example) in the late 50s and early 60s?
A civil war does not preclude Russian interference. Apologies if you are offended at my ignorance
of the subtle differences between Ukrainian and Russian.
Instead you follow events through dubious sources!!
I only have the Guardian as my source, dubious indeed.
How Poroshenko wished that Russia had invaded but it never happened.
The East Ukrainians were disenfranchised with the Regime change in their country but instead
of sending in negotiators, the Kiev government sent in tanks and armored personnel carriers. What
a way to run a country, they must have been inspired ( or instructed) by the best Regime changers
in the business, the USA.
Seeing as the Ukrainians hate the Communists and Lenin, I trust we can expect them to reverse
measures enacted by the Communists e.g. return to Russia the regions moved into the Ukrainian
Soviet Republic by Lenin in the 1920s. By the same token, they should probably give Galicia back
to Poland.
Ukraine is a bit of the loosers aren't they.. borrow money from the EU to pay some relative
or friend of those in Kyiv.. who just happens to own a sign, monument or statue company.. to bring
about this ridiculously stupid change.. of 108 towns? They haven't got better things to do with
whatever money they have?.. like take care of the needs of the people?
An incredibly weak article by one of the usual suspects. Walker confuses capitalist re-branding
and renaming with de-communisation, a bizarre term he has dreamt up, just like de-nazification.
Presumably, when the Marathon brand of chocolate bars were re-baptised Snickers, they were
"de-communised" in the process.
The subtle irony is that without suitable Stalinist role models,
the mafia power-brokers running Ukraine in cahoots with their morally bankrupt western puppeteers
haven't an ideological leg to stand on. Instead, Walker blathers on about how Dnipropetrovsk has,
ahem, been re-branded as Dnipropetrovsk. Thanks Shaun.
Irrespective of whether or not its a good idea, there must be an EU grant somewhere that would
compensate for the damage caused
. The Kiev government simply do not understand that in becoming
members of the EU it is no good holding out the begging bowl. They need to become far more creative
and hire in some experts to advise on the trillions of Euro's Ukraine could receive in grant aid.
New railways, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, are all simply a few forms away from becoming
a reality.
......EU does NOT want Ukraine, we can NOT afford yet another poverty stricken ex soviet country
!! If our utterly useless leaders would ever consider this insanity because USA tells us to, and
if EU pretends to be a democracy, there should at least be a European referendum on this matter;
the answer would be clear : NO WAY jose --
The same coat Baroness Ashton wore in February 2014 contains the same belt that now chokes the
Kiev puppet government to death. "Glory to Ukraine", yeah ? Oki Doki. No problem. Good luck --
I can only imagine the destruction and/or defacement of many beautiful buildings and structures
that will be occurring throughout Ukraine. Many of the metro stations in Kiev will be butchered.
obliterate the past and ideas by erasing the visible remnants will have the opposite effect
to that desired particulary with the inquisitive youth and is so Talibanesque it's ludicrous.
In Spain, Italy, etc, taking down the dictators' statues, renaming streets, etc has not
got rid of fascists and their thinking at all. Besides, the Ukies can't afford it and have they
never heard of the sex pistols et al?
They are just using the same methods to get rid of the Soviet names as were used to impose them
in the first place, except without the shootings, torture, deportations and mass-starvation.
Ersatz champagne with the "Soviet" brand name has been produced since 1937 . . . It is
a popular drink on New Year's Eve and at other celebrations, and comes in sweet, semi-sweet
and dry versions – and at a fraction of the price of real champagne.
It is not ersatz at all - it is perfectly real and is made in the real
methode champenoise
. The best champaign is made, of course, in Crimea. There is place there, Novyi Svet (New
World) where the Champaign factory makes collection Bruts that can compete with the best of them
and are still inexpensive by comparison with the French stuff.
the younger generation who were born after the Soviet Union collapsed, but they are absolutely
Soviet and have a totally Soviet world view."
What exactly is "the Soviet worldview"? If it means not accepting Fackelzug (torch parade)
in your cities Nazi-style, then most people Russia definitely have it, and a good proportion of
people in Ukraine, too.
If having the Soviet worldview means not accepting erasing history and collective memory
and replacing it with some glorious but, unfortunately, fictitious history of the Ukrainian nation
- yes, we certainly do have it. There are real achievements Ukrainians could be proud of - oh,
Gosh, I forgot, they all involve Russian in one way or another, and that is, of course, unacceptable
- otherwise that would be another manifestation of the Soviet worldview. Like we did it together,
Russians and Ukrainians - can't get more Soviet than that.
The USSR and Soviet history and the Russian language no more belong to the post soviet Russian
Federation than they do to Ukraine. Each country can keep or reject what it likes.
But to claim all tsarist and Soviet achievements as somehow the property of today's Russian
Federation, is nothing more than lies and theft.
The Russian Federation is, like Ukraine, Belarus and Tajikistan, only25 years old, and just
another splinter of the tsarist and Soviet empires.
The history is the history - it's not for anybody to chose it. What happened happened, and there
is nothing anybody can do about it.
Like Germany, for example, can say that the Nazi past never happened - just reject it like
that, and that it? Say, Holocaust never happened because we don't like it? It doesn't work that
way, my dear.
But to claim all tsarist and Soviet achievements as somehow the property of today's Russian
Federation, is nothing more than lies and theft
You want to claim the achievements - then you also claim the responsibilities as well. Ones
don't go without the others. Either Ukraine, like Belorussia, is a part of the Russian/Soviet
empires and is entitles to all their achievements as well as to all the faults or it is a long
suffered colony of both and then it is entitled to none. Can't have it both ways.
In the entrance lobby to the Kiev RADA there was a portrait of Stephen Bandera - that was
covered with a black silk shroud when Americans visited. Bandera was not a hero as he actively
aided the NAZI in Auschwitz , Poles, Jews and Russians were his favourites. The Ukraine Government
hasn't left its past behind, it's only trying to camouflage it, trying to appear civilized.
You are rehashing the contemporary Russian propaganda line. The political parties supporting Bandera
erc are less popular in Ukraine than UKIP in the UK and the National Front in France.
There may well have been, for a narrow period of time a photo of Bandera during the Maidan.
So what? People have been carting around portraits of Stalin for the last 25 years.
Are you seriously suggesting Bandera is worse than Stalin, or that the current Ukrainian govt
is run by Nazis? If you are, then I respectfully suggest you are doing so in a conscious effort
to discredit Ukraine in Western media.
Dishonest? In my visits to Ukraine after the US-instigated Nazi putsch I saw more and more
Nazi symbolism sprayed all over the city. There was even a shrine to the fascist Bandera on Independence
Square.
There is always a heavy paramilitary presence around main administrative buildings in Kiev
- surprising that a regime that claims it came to power through a popular revolution should be
scared of that same population.
Probably passed the laws after "a good old book burning", nothing like the rewriting of history.
Next they will be rehabilitating the Ukrainians who fought for the Nazis and staffed the concentration
camps.
It is totally bizarre that Ukrainian vandals would deface a statue of Lenin with with the
motto, "I am the butcher of Ukraine" since he was the one who had made the Ukraine an independent
political entity.
Allright democracy on the march. Overthrow elected governments with foreign backing (remember
McCain at Maidan). Now you ban one of the largest opposition parties (in 2012 they got 6 percennt
of the vote or 2.7 million votes) because they are traitors (that's the language they use) to
the revolutionary Maidan government. While banning symbols and names they don't agree with by
order of thought police and proclaiming Nazi collaborators as heroes. Just wait for the statues
of Stepan Bandera to replace Lenin. The e.u and the rest of the west says nothing cause this is
the kind of "democracy" they are fine with get bent hypocrites
In that poor retched shrinking country local street names is all the Coup Crowd in Kyiv can
actually control. So they have campaigns, led by fascists, for changing the names of things. Meanwhile
it has become impossible to find out if the nitwits still claim to be at war with Russia or not.
As for the ww2 Ukrainian nationalists, most Ukrainians think of these groups poorly. The
vast majority of Ukrainians fought on the Soviet side, and indeed made up more than one third
of the Soviet army in ww2. Until recently, this was the source of pride and sorrow, just as in
Russia.
So, It is wrong to think of Soviet past as being somehow foreign to Ukraine. But that
is now all ancient history. And the Soviet past is also Ukraine's to reject.
There is a military invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Communist symbols are actively used to mobilise
Russian fighters and domestic terrorists on Ukrainian territory. with the aim of destroying the
territorial integrity of Ukraine.
I note in this regard that ISIS symbols are similarly banned in many high income liberal democracies.
The WWII history of the Ukraine is full of eye witness accounts of how the German armed forces
had to step in to save Jews from Ukrainian savagery because they preferred to eliminate Jews systematically
rather than by anarchistic savagery. And incidentally in Western Ukraine a greater proportion
of people volunteered for Hitler's armed forces than in Germany proper.
You are wrong. There are numerous monuments dedicated to Stepan Bandera in Western Ukraine
(at least in 20 towns). There are also numerous streets named after him.
Quite a different situation is in Eastern Ukraine which hates Bandera and which has always
weighed toward Russia - that's why that country cannot exist as one entity.
Ukraine has bigger problems than street name changes! The IMF own the country it has lost
it's sovereignty and has outsiders in its government as well as debts it cannot pay.
Nothing about the expiration of the deadline to fulfill the Minsk agreement compromises? The Ukranian
government has failed to implement two very important ones: dialogue with the rebel leaders and
giving some degree of autonomy to Donetsk and Lugansk. I think that's rather more serious than
the champagne news but I have hardly seen any reflection on that subject in the Press.
Flip, I just spent ages writing something and my computer crashed. Bloody computers.
Haven't they got anything better to do?
The Ukranian Communists are meant to be a small and marginalised grouping of pensioners. Why
pick on them?
Anti-Stalinism. Now, that would be much better. Anti right wing militias, that would be just
as good. Saying goodbye to existing despots, that gets my vote.
Free social health care, now that would be even better still.
If Holly Old Dog is online, not that I've actually checked, I'm not American.
Don't like UKIP don't like Le Penn but do like the EU.
Ukraine wants to get rid of the Soviet past - well, then it has to be happy that Crimea is
gone, for Crimea is the clearest vestige of the Soviet past having been "gifted" to Ukraine by
the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev over the objections of Crimea itself. Another vestige is as
good as gone - Donbass, which agrees well with the removal of Lenin statutes, for it was Lenin
himself who added Donbass to Ukraine in 1919. Stalin's legacy is next, which includes Western
Ukraine and Transcarpathia.
Many of those in eastern cities who are pro-Kiev are uneasy about Ukrainian nationalist
heroes
Trust the Guardian to find a very delicate turn of phrase -
uneasy
. Come on, those in
Easter Ukraine hate their guts. Easter Ukraine hates Bandera and "banderovtsi" much more than
Russia does. And for a good reason: they did not operate much in Russia but a lot in Ukraine,
Belorussia and eastern Europe, where they killed thousands.
This past New Year's Eve marked the last time Ukrainians could pop open "Soviet champagne"
Poor Ukrainians. Now they are told what to drink, what language to speak, what songs to sing,
what movies to watch, what holidays to celebrate, what fairy tales to tell their children. True
European freedom finally has arrived as opposed to the Soviet totalitarian regime that somehow
in Ukraine alone lasted 25 years past the existence of the Soviet Union.
BTW Artemovsk they want to rename so much is the site of a Champaign factory that used to make
famous "Artemovsky" Champaign. I am not sure it's still operational but if it is, what would it
be called now? The factory is yet another soviet "vestige" and did not exist in the "Bakhmut"
times.
The Guardian is politely silent about of hundreds productions, level of education, population
(52 millions in 1991, 42 in 2015), infrastructure and other "products from glorifying communism"
which have heard "farewell" too
Western media needs to address the economic mess in Ukraine. The name changing, marching and
fist fights in Rada are a distraction. What happened in two years is an economic collapse. When
is Guardian going to notice?
The real issue with Ukrainian champagne is that as of Jan 1 it cannot be called "champagne".
With EU Association Agreement, the word "champagne" is reserved for the French stuff. That is
by far more important than some "soviet" name games.
In the same way Ukrainian "cognac" cannot use the term cognac. There are hundreds of others.
EU AA means following the EU rules. It also means that EU can export to Ukraine at will. Given
that Ukraine doesn't have much to sell to EU this will mean additional collapse in Ukr economy.
The current markets in Russia are now closed.
Who is running Kiev? Do these people know math and have map? Or is there knowledge limited
to knowing where to find a ticket to get out?
Unfortunately there are many Ukrainians who think that 'restitution' will make them better
off. They think that if Western people get rich (even Poles) that will be somehow good for Ukrainians
as workers. It is low self-esteem combined with what can only be called servant mentality. The
shouting and marching is there just to amuse, deep inside they all can't wait to serve.
How does a one party state get so close to the EU? It relies on massive loans from the IMF and
EU but by all accounts is regarded, not least by its own citizens, to be getting more corrupt
not less. A million are seeking Nationality in Poland to escape inflation set to be 44% this year
as wages and jobs crash. Visa free travel to the EU in October might ease the internal pressure.
The trade agreement with the EU is another blow to European agriculture, this time in grain, as
surplus products flood the market along with even cheaper Turkish fruit and vegetables following
their exclusion from the Russian market. One wonders whether the EU ever regrets putting this
government in power?
Ukraine's De-communization laws were made by people with their own agenda and they are arguably
a dark spot on Ukraine's striving towards some form of functional democracy. Saying that, when
it comes to phony parties like the "Communist Party" of Ukraine, it is pretty hard to give a crap.
On the plus side, this anti-Communist law will put an end to corrupt, phony parties using the
Communist name and symbols for their own benefit. Any Communist-style party that exists in Ukraine
now will have to be genuine.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
While we would be the first
to admit that Jeffrey Sachs was the godfather of "shock therapy" (aka "the economic rape of Russia"
and several other xUSSR republics), he is right as for the ongoing Syria bloodbath which has come to
define the geopolitical situation for the past 3 years. And how this is an event that would "surely
rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment" if the truth were fully known, we
agree 100 percent. 