This is almost two year old discussion. Still relevant...
Notable quotes:
"... Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs. ... ..."
"... I am very happy that the Republican con is starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are beginning to see that the elites in the Republican Party do not have their best interests at heart. I am not pleased at all, however, that people are still being led to believe that there are simple answers to budget problems that do not require raising taxes, or, alternatively, reducing their hard-earned benefits from programs such as Social Security or Medicare. ... ..."
"... And the next GOP President will immediately give away those hard earned surpluses generated by President Clinton or Sanders to their plutocratic donors - just as W did. ..."
"... The collapse and subsequent economic rape of the USSR region in 1991-1998 was a huge stimulus for the US economy. Something like 300 millions of new customers overnight for many products and huge expansion of the dollar zone, which partially compensates for the loss of EU to euro. ..."
"... Actually, Bill Clinton put a solid fundament for subsequent deterioration relations with Russia. His semi-successful attempt to colonize Russia (under Yeltsin Russia was a semi-colony and definitely a vassal state of the USA) backfired. ..."
"... Now the teeth of dragon planted by Slick Bill (of Kosovo war fame) are visible in full glory. Russian elite no longer trusts the US elite and feels threatened. ..."
"... Series of female sociopath (or borderline personalities) in the role of Secretaries of State did not help either. The last one, "We came, we saw, he died" Hillary and her protégé Victoria Nuland (which actually was a close associate of Dick Cheney http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2005/11/president_cheney.html ) are actually replay of unforgettable Madeleine Albright with her famous a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."[ ..."
"... "Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs. ..." ..."
"... I think you have identified the potential roots of a movement. The unwrapping and critical analysis of the demagoguery that has defined the lives of the baby boom generation. The quote below from Dan Baum's Harper's article, Legalize It All", seems particularly poignant: ..."
"... Much Republican elites would love to raise sales taxes, payroll taxes, or any tax that the "little people" pay. This would allow them to cut taxes for rich people even more. This is their game. Take from the poor and give to the rich. DOOH NIBOR economics! ..."
"... Excellent piece, but I would point out that the GOP would likely sacrifice their own mothers for upper class tax cuts. ..."
"... Rachel Maddow pointed out last night that the GOP *leadership* is vehemently opposed to Trump, because he threatens their authority, but the rank-and-file seem to be pretty happy with him. ..."
"... The idea seems to be that Trump, if elected, will obviously 'reconstitute' the GOP, re-making it totally, casting out old people, bringing in New Blood. ..."
"... This would be 'yuuugely' more cataclysmic than what happened between Teddy Roosevelt and the anti-progressives of the GOP back in 1912. ..."
"... [I am very happy that the Republican con is starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are beginning to see that the elites in the Republican Party do not have their best interests at heart.] ..."
Why Republican Elites are Threatened, by Mark Thoma : ... Donald Trump's tax plan will result in a fall in revenue of 9.5
trillion dollars over the next ten years, yet somehow he will fulfill his promise to protect Social Security and Medicare and
balance the budget? When push comes to shove (or worse – this is Trump after all), who do you think he will protect, social insurance
programs the working class relies upon for economic security or his own and his party's wealthy interests? Ted Cruz has proposed
an 8.6 trillion dollar tax cut. How, exactly, will that be financed without large cuts to social insurance programs or huge increases
in the budget deficit?
Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud
in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs.
...
I am very happy that the
Republican con is
starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are beginning to see that the elites in the Republican
Party do not have their best interests at heart. I am not pleased at all, however, that people are still being led to believe
that there are simple answers to budget problems that do not require raising taxes, or, alternatively, reducing their hard-earned
benefits from programs such as Social Security or Medicare. ...
And the next GOP President will immediately give away those hard earned surpluses generated by President Clinton or Sanders
to their plutocratic donors - just as W did.
Hence my support for a *countercyclical* Balanced Budget Amendment.
Peter K. -> New Deal democrat...
My point was that Sanders or Clinton would be getting the surprise surpluses as W. did.
My hope is that Clinton would do the right thing, but I wouldn't bet money on it. I could see her do tax cuts for
corporations and finance. Summers recently had a piece arguing for tax cuts as incentives for private investment.
sanjait -> Peter K....
If we consider that there is probably some pent up business investment demand that could drive above average productivity
growth for a few years ... then it plausibly is possible for the country to achieve late 90s style growth.
likbez -> Peter K....
The collapse and subsequent economic rape of the USSR region in 1991-1998 was a huge stimulus for the US economy. Something
like 300 millions of new customers overnight for many products and huge expansion of the dollar zone, which partially compensates
for the loss of EU to euro.
Even if we count just the cash absorbed by the region, it will be a major economic stimulus. All-it-all it was Bernanke size
if we add buying assets for pennies on the dollar.
Actually, Bill Clinton put a solid fundament for subsequent deterioration relations with Russia. His semi-successful attempt
to colonize Russia (under Yeltsin Russia was a semi-colony and definitely a vassal state of the USA) backfired.
Now the teeth of dragon planted by Slick Bill (of Kosovo war fame) are visible in full glory. Russian elite no longer trusts
the US elite and feels threatened.
Series of female sociopath (or borderline personalities) in the role of Secretaries of State did not help either. The last
one, "We came, we saw, he died" Hillary and her protégé Victoria Nuland (which actually was a close associate of Dick Cheney
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2005/11/president_cheney.html
) are actually replay of unforgettable Madeleine Albright with her famous a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked
her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know,
is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."[
pgl :
All well said! The notion that Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump lie a lot is as established as the fact that the earth is
not flat.
Jerry Brown -> pgl...
True that!
Paul Mathis :
"[T]here are simple answers to budget problems that do not require raising taxes, or, alternatively, reducing their hard-earned
benefits from programs such as Social Security or Medicare."
As every legitimate economist knows, stimulus spending to increase the GDP growth rate would raise tax revenues without raising
tax rates. This phenomenon is well-known to Keynesians and has been demonstrated many times.
Thanks to the disinformation campaign run by Republicans, however, stimulus spending has been taken off the table of economic
choices except in China where minimum GDP growth is 6.5%. China is "killing us" economically because we are stupid.
Jerry Brown -> Paul Mathis...
Instead, the Trumps and Cruzes and Ryans believe in giant tax cuts for the very wealthy. This might provide a weak stimulus for
the economy, but it is a very poor way to go about it. More likely in my mind is that it would lead to increased pressure to cut
government spending on things that actually do help the economy.
Paul Mathis -> Jerry Brown...
Tax cuts for the wealthy do not increase demand. Trickle down is a false economic doctrine that exacerbates inequality and therefore
reduces demand. Keynes established this principle decades ago but his wisdom has been ignored.
pgl -> Paul Mathis...
You'll love this bit of honesty from right wing Joe Scarborough:
Job losses began the month Reagan signed the tax cuts. Job creation began the month Reagan hiked taxes to pay workers to fix the
roads and bridges. Reagan and his job killing tax cuts caused the recession, not the Fed and monetary policy. Monetary policy
was steady from 1980 to 1983.
Reagan's tax cuts struck fear into would be lenders. How much debt was the government going to need if it intentionally cuts
it's incomes? On the other hand, if the government stops spending, that's millions of workers who will be forced to stop spending.
For Nixon, the Fed monetized the smaller deficits from repealling the war tax surcharge that balanced the budget in 1969. Just
as the Fed monetized all government debt once FDR and his bankers took over, especially Eccles at the Fed.
But Volcker was not going to monetize the debt caused by Reagan's adoption of intentional deficit spending.
But even Reagan eventually understood what FDR did: gdp growth requires workers getting paid more, and government can take
the money from people who have it but won't spend it paying workers, but tax and spend, and create jobs.
If only economists today understood it, and called for tax and spend to create jobs to grow gdp.
anne :
Really nice essay.
Mr. Bill :
"Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud
in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs.
..."
I think you have identified the potential roots of a movement. The unwrapping and critical analysis of the demagoguery
that has defined the lives of the baby boom generation. The quote below from Dan Baum's Harper's article, Legalize It All", seems
particularly poignant:
"At the time, I was writing a book about the politics of drug prohibition. I started to ask Ehrlichman a series of earnest,
wonky questions that he impatiently waved away. "You want to know what this was really all about?" he asked with the bluntness
of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. "The Nixon campaign in 1968,
and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We
knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies
with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest
their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know
we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
I'm pretty sure that the Trumpists would be thrilled to raise taxes...on someone else. It's only the elites that are interested
in lowering taxes on the rich. Trump's followers don't care.
I'm also pretty sure that Trump will turn on the donor class rather than reduce anything for his own base - but I could be
wrong.
Much Republican elites would love to raise sales taxes, payroll taxes, or any tax that the "little people" pay. This would
allow them to cut taxes for rich people even more. This is their game. Take from the poor and give to the rich. DOOH NIBOR economics!
All this liberal hand wringing about Trump's tax plan. Yet when Bernie introduces a major tax plan, it doesn't get noticed!!!
Not a single 'attaboy' from these supposedly liberal economists.
"With the most progressive tax policy of any candidate, Sanders would dramatically increase taxes for the very wealthy and
high-income earners (as well as moderate increases for the middle- and upper-middle classes) in order to pay for key planks of
his social agenda including tuition-free public college, a Medicare for All healthcare program, massive infrastructure spending,
and paid family leave for all workers."
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/03/21/tax-plan-sanders-beats-both-clinton-and-trump-double-digits
"Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders proposes significant increases in federal income, payroll, business, and estate taxes,
and new excise taxes on financial transactions and carbon. New revenues would pay for universal health care, education, family
leave, rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, and more. TPC estimates the tax proposals would raise $15.3 trillion over the next
decade. All income groups would pay some additional tax, but most would come from high-income households, particularly those with
the very highest income. His proposals would raise taxes on work, saving, and investment, in some cases to rates well beyond recent
historical experience in the US."
http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000639-an-analysis-of-senator-bernie-sanderss-tax-proposals.pdf
As I've said many times, most 'liberal' economists simply to not want increased taxes to be put on the table as a viable alternative
for funding stimulus. Else, why would they go silent when a major candidate makes such an economically significant proposal? Why
is it that they are eager to promote ever more debt but refuse to support more taxes?
pgl -> JohnH...
You are pushing this which is fine. But
"Yet when Bernie introduces a major tax plan, it doesn't get noticed!!"
I noticed this a long time ago. And I applauded Bernie's proposal. I guess I have to resign as a "liberal economist".
Question is, why are all those 'liberal' economists running from Bernie's progressive tax plan like the plague?
pgl -> JohnH...
I have supported tax increases on the rich many times. Pay attention. Also - read the latest column from Mark Thoma which is what
this thread is supposed to be about. I guess Mark must not be a liberal economists either. DUH!
Eric377 -> JohnH...
Because they can always run back to something like it if a Democrat is elected, but not so if Trump or Cruz are and they have
convinced themselves that supporting Sanders is a big risk of getting a Republican. And they are right about that.
JohnH -> Eric377...
LOL!!! Democrats will NOT endorse support anything like Bernie's tax pan EVER! Just like 'liberal" economists will never endorse
it either...in fact, they have every opportunity to endorse it now but refuse to even talk about it, apparently hoping it will
just go away.
But the real benefit of high tax rates on people with lots of money is they will work really hard to not pay taxes by investing
in new capital assets even if the bean counters think building more assets will only slash returns on capital.
The result is no increase in tax revenue, but lots of jobs created if the tax dodges are designed to create jobs.
The best example is a carbon tax. The correct carbon tax schedule of increases will raise virtually no tax revenue, but will
result in trillions of dollars in labor costs building productive capital, which will ironically make the rich far wealthier.
But if millions of people are employed for a lifetime and the burning of fossil fuels ends, only Bernie will be angry that
those responsible end up worth hundreds of billions, or maybe become trillionaires. Their businesses will not be profitable, just
like Amazon, Tesla, SpaceX are worth tens of billions but are unprofitable.
pgl :
GOP elite Peter Schiff babbling even worse lies than our excellent host has documented:
Every year Schiff predicts a recession. Once every 6-8 years, he's right. Schiff then claims he's predicted every recession for
the last three dozen years. Everyone is amazed. "How does he do it?" the crowd gasps.
Why does anyone even mention Schiff? He's a grifter with an angle to part rich people from their money. Nothing more.
pgl :
From the day job - filed under fun with Microsoft Excel. Math nerds will get this right away. I'm reading a report from some expert
witness that claims some loan guarantee is worth only 22 basis points when my client has charged 55 basis points. Think of x =
1.005 and take the natural log. Yes, the right answer is 50 basis points. This clown uses Excel and types in log(x).
OK - I hate Microsoft Excel as it took me a while. But the log function assumes base 10. The correct syntax is ln(x).
Somehow I think the right wing elite will start doing similar things in their Soc. Sec. analyzes.
William -> pgl...
Somehow, I think the right wing elite don't know the difference between a basis point and a percentage point, let alone between
a base 10 or a base e logarithm.
pgl -> William...
I know Stephen Moore certainly does not know the difference!
DrDick :
Excellent piece, but I would point out that the GOP would likely sacrifice their own mothers for upper class tax cuts.
pgl :
Politics down under (New Zealand). The Green Party is campaigning on transfer pricing enforcement in order to make the multinationals
pay their fair share of taxes:
Rachel Maddow pointed out last night that the GOP *leadership* is vehemently opposed to Trump, because he threatens their
authority, but the rank-and-file seem to be pretty happy with him.
pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs...
I was tired and fell asleep by 9PM missing Rachel's show. Thanks for filling me in. She's awesome!
Fred C. Dobbs -> pgl...
The idea seems to be that Trump, if elected, will obviously 'reconstitute' the GOP, re-making it totally, casting out old
people, bringing in New Blood.
This would be 'yuuugely' more cataclysmic than what happened between Teddy Roosevelt and the anti-progressives of the GOP
back in 1912.
eudaimonia :
[I am very happy that the Republican con is starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are
beginning to see that the elites in the Republican Party do not have their best interests at heart.]
I disagree here. I don't see Trump as exposing the Republican economic agenda to be a fraud. Instead, Trump is exposing that
the main driver in conservatism is not policy, but racism.
The Republican base is not "waking up" per say, but Trump rather erased away the policy veneer and has shown the heart of the
conservative base.
For decades, the RW economic and social agenda was based off of racism and bigotry - fictional Cadillac mothers, how blacks
just vote Democrat since they are lazy, increased voting restrictions for a non-problem, Willie Horton, opposing the CRA in the
name of "freedom" and states' rights, etc.
The argument now has simply shifted away from slashing taxes on white rich males since it creates an underclass of dependent
minorities, to blaming Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims, etc.
If you look at the heart of Trump supporters, they are high school dropouts who have also dropped out of the labor force since
they were dependent on the old economy, live in mobile houses and have not moved around much, with a history of voting for segregationists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/upshot/the-geography-of-Trump_vs_deep_state.html?_r=0
As their economy breaks down around them, like it has in various parts of the country, we are seeing the same social ills emerge
- suicide, drug use, depression, rise of divorce, etc.
What Trump has shown them is that it is not their fault. It is not the fault of policy. It is not the fault of globalization.
It is not the fault of technological change. It is the fault of the Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims, etc.
The core of conservatism is still there: racism, and Trump has simply shown this. Conservatism is not about policy, but an
emotional reactionary ideology based on fear and ignorance that looks for minorities to be scapegoats.
pgl :
US Supreme Court splits 4-4 in Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore:
Appeals Court had ruled in favor of the bank so the bank prevails. OK - we know Scalia would have voted in favor of the bank
but now the standard is how would have Garland ruled. The Senate needs to act on his nomination.
sanjait :
Maybe the simplest way to dissect it is to note that the GOP has been running multiple overlapping cons. They tell the base that
tax cuts will improve their lives, and then passes tax cuts that go mostly to the rich.
They tell the base that regulations are killing jobs, and then block or remove any government protection or program that makes
the country livable so some industrialist can avoid having to deal with externalities. They tell the base that "those people"
are taking their stuff, and then shred the safety net that helps almost everyone except the rich.
What Trump has done is expose how these cons don't really fit together logically, but he hasn't really gone strongly against
any of them. He's been on both sides of the first two, and tripled down on the third.
"... We don't lock ourselves in an echo chamber, where we take comfort in the dogmas and opinions we already hold. ..."
"... Republicans like to say that massive growth followed the Reagan tax cut. But average real GDP growth during Reagan's eight years in the White House was only slightly above the rate of the previous eight years: 3.4 percent per year vs. 2.9 percent. The average unemployment rate was actually higher under Reagan than it was during the previous eight years: 7.5 percent vs. 6.6 percent. ... ..."
"... In his first economic text Greg Mankiw (pre Bush Kool Aid) laid this out nicely. Inward shift of the national savings schedule, higher real interest rates, and the crowding-out of investment. Which lowers long-term growth in the standard Solow model. QED! ..."
"... Responding to the increasingly inane behavior of the two parties, Robert Reich envisions a third party win in 2020: http://robertreich.org/post/141437490885 ..."
"... Bratton is the best police commissioner in the nation! My only regret is that the NYPD did not arrest Cruz and toss him in jail for a few days. ..."
"... (i) It implies that high taxation was responsible for the stagnant economy. Therefore, reducing taxes would unleash growth. The early 80's recessions was not caused by high taxation and growth was just as strong before. ..."
"... (ii) Reagan actually passed a significant tax increase in 1982; TERFA. Some have actually called it the largest peacetime tax increase in history. ..."
"... (iii) Supply-siders completely ignore interest rates. The federal funds rate fell from 19% in July 1981 to 8.5% in February 1983. That looks like good ol' fashion Keynesianism at work. ..."
... I was the staff economist for Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) in 1977, and it was my job to draft what came to be the Kemp-Roth tax
bill, which Reagan endorsed in 1980 and enacted the following year. ...
Republicans like to say that massive growth followed the Reagan tax cut. But average real GDP growth during Reagan's eight
years in the White House was only slightly above the rate of the previous eight years: 3.4 percent per year vs. 2.9 percent. The
average unemployment rate was actually higher under Reagan than it was during the previous eight years: 7.5 percent vs. 6.6 percent.
...
PAUL MATHIS :
Lyin' Ryan
"In 1981 the Kemp-Roth bill was signed into law, lowering tax rates, spurring growth, and putting millions of Americans back
to work."
So the tax cuts reduced growth and increased unemployment. Those are FACTS
PAUL MATHIS -> pgl...
The Question Was the Effect of the 1981 Tax Cuts
Ryan says they were positive for growth and jobs. They were not based on the ensuing facts.
Obviously many other things were happening but Ryan made a clear statement that was a lie and that needs to be called out.
pgl -> PAUL MATHIS...
In his first economic text Greg Mankiw (pre Bush Kool Aid) laid this out nicely. Inward shift of the national savings schedule,
higher real interest rates, and the crowding-out of investment. Which lowers long-term growth in the standard Solow model. QED!
"Politics abhors a vacuum. In 2019, the People's Party filled it.
Its platform called for getting big money out of politics, ending "crony capitalism," abolishing corporate welfare, stopping
the revolving door between government and the private sector, and busting up the big Wall Street banks and corporate monopolies.
The People's Party also pledged to revoke the Trans Pacific Partnership, hike taxes on the rich to pay for a wage subsidy (a
vastly expanded Earned Income Tax Credit) for everyone earning below the median, and raise taxes on corporations that outsource
jobs abroad or pay their executives more than 100 times the pay of typical Americans.
Americans rallied to the cause. Millions who called themselves conservatives and Tea Partiers joined with millions who called
themselves liberals and progressives against a political establishment that had shown itself incapable of hearing what they had
been demanding for years."
Will Democrats and Republicans becoming out of touch with voters and illegitimate representatives of the will of the people,
it's time to register your disgust--vote third party!
[Not voting only communicates apathy, which is fine with the elites.]
Ben Groves :
Boomers were driving up the labor force, driving up unemployment.
If you want to be clear, this happened to Jimmy Carter in the late 70's when that expansion was peaking.
The bigger the growth rate of total population, the faster GDP must grow.........and vice versa. Why do you think the classical
liberals hated Malthus so much?
pgl :
Bruce may be right here but this includes business cycle effects:
"Republicans like to say that massive growth followed the Reagan tax cut. But average real GDP growth during Reagan's
eight years in the White House was only slightly above the rate of the previous eight years: 3.4 percent per year vs. 2.9 percent."
Using the typical measure of potential output, we can do this on the terms that supply-siders preach. Long-term growth. This
growth was around 3.5% before 1981. It was also 3.5% after 1992. But during the Reagan-Bush41 years, it was only 3%. You see -
this tax cut raised real interest rates and crowded out investment.
Paul Ryan wants to pretend he's a smart guy. If he is - then he knows this. Which means he is lying to us.
Yesterday when Brussels was attacked – my police department went into action to insure my subway rides were safe. My mayor
took a subway ride to Times Square which showed courage. So what does the slime ball Cruz do?
'Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz swooped into Manhattan Wednesday and promptly hit Mayor de Blasio below the belt
when he said cops who turned their backs on him were speaking for all Americans." When heroes of NYPD stood up and turned their
backs on Mayor de Blasio, they spoke not just for the men and women of New York, but for Americans all across this nation," said
Cruz at the GOP Party & Women's National Republican Club in Midtown.'
There has been tension as our police have to patrol as we march against how the police that murdered Eric Garner got off from
prosecution. And then the horror of two of them murdered in cold blood by some crazed person from Baltimore. A few cops did turn
their backs as the mayor honored these two brave cops. Most of the NYPD, however, was appalled at this garbage. Had I known Cruz
was coming here to insult my city – I would have been there protesting. But my mayor handled this the right way:
'De Blasio and NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton were two of the most vocal critics, with Bratton saying it was so out of line
it showed why he'd never win the White House race. He doesn't know the hell what he is talking about, to be frank with you," Bratton
said. "While he's running around here, he probably has some Muslim officers guarding him." Later, during an radio interview, Bratton
went after the Texas senator again on the monitoring." He is maligning a whole population group. A religion. That's not the American
way," Bratton said on "The John Gambling Show" on AM970. "Mr. Cruz showed his naivete of the police department. I don't recall
Mr. Cruz in uniform at any time fighting for his country. This election campaign is painting everyone with the broad brush. We
focus on people committing the crime the disorder, not the population."'
Bratton is the best police commissioner in the nation! My only regret is that the NYPD did not arrest Cruz and toss him
in jail for a few days.
eudaimonia :
Except the tax cut story does not hold up for a couple of reason.
(i) It implies that high taxation was responsible for the stagnant economy. Therefore, reducing taxes would unleash growth.
The early 80's recessions was not caused by high taxation and growth was just as strong before.
(ii) Reagan actually passed a significant tax increase in 1982; TERFA. Some have actually called it the largest peacetime
tax increase in history.
(iii) Supply-siders completely ignore interest rates. The federal funds rate fell from 19% in July 1981 to 8.5% in February
1983. That looks like good ol' fashion Keynesianism at work.
It is simply a comfortable story that conservatives tell themselves in order to validate slashing taxes on the rich, cut discretionary
non-military spending, and explode military spending and our deficits.
However, like in an echo-chamber for 3-4 decades, they will not come to terms with this.
Replace Technocrats with Neoliberals. Somewhat stupid laments of a neoliberal economist, who feels that his plush position might be soon
engaged... Under the smoke screen of identity politics (exemplified by gay and lesbian rights
and "gay marriage" gambit desired to distract from important economic processes in the country )
neoliberals destroyed unions, outsourced manufacturing and now are outsourcing service sector,
and lowered the standard living of the US middle class, while top 1% became filthy rich...
they behave like the occupiers of the country so "Occupy Wall Street" movement should actually be
called "liberation of the country from Wall Street occupation" movement.
Notable quotes:
"... This is most obvious in the case of Trump, who devoted a large share of his presidential campaign not just to attacking democratic norms but also to attacking the technocratic experts who have come to symbolize democracy in the United States. ..."
"... Technocrats do not even have a good answer for technocratic-sounding attacks on democracy. ..."
"... Whether because of the incompetence of experts or just a string of bad luck, democracies haven't been performing very well lately. ..."
"... The foreign-policy experts guided wars on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq that seemingly made terrorism worse. Domestic economists gave us the 2008 financial crisis - and a response afterward that bailed out banks too big to fail but treated families losing homes as too small to care about. Dictator-run China is taking over ever larger chunks of the world economy while U.S. wages stagnate. ..."
"... Experts often cannot agree on "what works" or even what already happened. Some experts could still credibly argue that in the long run democracies worldwide outperform dictatorships on average, but there is disagreement, and few have the patience to wait for long-run world averages to reassert themselves. ..."
"... As the economist John Stuart Mill said almost 150 years ago, the true test of freedom is not whether we care about our own rights but whether we care about "the rights of others." ..."
This is most obvious in the case of Trump, who devoted a large share of his presidential campaign
not just to attacking democratic norms but also to attacking the technocratic experts who have come
to symbolize democracy in the United States.
...the technocrats who now monopolize the country's political elite would be incapable of fighting
back.
Technocrats have always shown little interest in fights over fundamental values. ...So when technocrats
are all we have to defend democracy, fights over fundamental values become embarrassingly one-sided.
Technocrats do not even have a good answer for technocratic-sounding attacks on democracy.
Technocrats'
defense of democracy on the basis of "what works" was always vulnerable because the anti-democratic
side was not going to be maximally scrupulous about the evidence in any case. It also makes liberal
values hostages to fortune.
Whether because of the incompetence of experts or just a string of bad
luck, democracies haven't been performing very well lately.
The foreign-policy experts guided wars
on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq that seemingly made terrorism worse. Domestic economists gave us
the 2008 financial crisis - and a response afterward that bailed out banks too big to fail but treated
families losing homes as too small to care about. Dictator-run China is taking over ever larger chunks
of the world economy while U.S. wages stagnate.
Experts often cannot agree on "what works" or even what already happened. Some experts could still
credibly argue that in the long run democracies worldwide outperform dictatorships on average, but
there is disagreement, and few have the patience to wait for long-run world averages to reassert
themselves. Which is why the principal defense of democratic values must be that they are desirable
in themselves as values - something technocrats are not trained to do Which is not to suggest they
don't have any resources at their disposal. My own field of economics can be so technical that whenever
I give a talk mentioning values, I feel like I have to apologize.
Yet economics is better equipped
to defend values than usually believed. At the core of models of economic behavior is individual
choice. Hidden in plain sight is the assumption that all individuals - whether male, female, white,
black, gay, Muslim, or Latino - should indeed have equal rights to make decisions for themselves.
The assumptions that guide analysis of what makes people better off embody the same respect for individual
choice - we infer A is better than B for an individual if they voluntarily selected A over B. And
if an individual chose something for himself or herself that did not make anyone else worse off,
we say that overall well-being improved.
Although these principles are more than a century old in economics and are still at the core of
our textbooks, they get sporadic attacks and less attention than they should due to our infatuation
with evidence-based policy. Yet as Harvard University economist Edward Glaeser
argued along the same lines in 2011, economics still has a "moral spine" beneath all the technocracy:
"That spine is a fundamental belief in freedom."
As the economist John Stuart Mill said almost 150
years ago, the true test of freedom is not whether we care about our own rights but whether we care
about "the rights of others."
But can economics provide a conception of democracy that truly protects the "rights of others"?
The field does indeed offer a potential defense against one of the core democratic dangers - the
possibility that a tyrannical majority might vote to violate the rights of some minority group. Economists
teach that it's in a majority party's interest to conduct a simple thought experiment before making
political decisions: Since it's impossible to know for sure that they will always be in the majority,
and they could always wind up as part of some minority that some future majority decides to tyrannize,
they should make political decisions behind a so-called "veil of ignorance" that sets aside their
personal status and group affiliations. And anyone running that thought experiment faithfully would
join a coalition to protect all future minority and individual rights.
Needless to say, the "veil of ignorance" thought experiment is ultimately a voluntary exercise.
This year's U.S. election tore the veil of ignorance to shreds and not for the first time. Many white
men apparently did not perceive, or consider, this "ignorance" about the future, feeling confident
that they will always have enough power to protect themselves and thus are free not to vote to protect
the rights of others.
The long campaign for equal rights, by mixing eloquent moral appeals with "veil of ignorance"
warnings, has nevertheless tried to make us all care just enough about other groups to forge a broad
coalition in favor of democracy. Our technocratic age often sees such appeals as sentimentalism -
more suitable for refrigerator magnets than serious debates. But Trump's attack on core values required
a response of such universal moral appeals - to white people as well as to minorities - instead of
Clinton's coalition of minorities and the 41-point plan of measurable outcomes on her website.
Democratic values have never been capable of defending themselves - equal rights require eloquent
defenses capable of building broad alliances on their behalf. History offers plenty of inspiration.
Abraham Lincoln: "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just
God, can not long retain it." Martin Luther King Jr.: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere." Elie Wiesel: "Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion,
or political views, that place must - at that moment - become the center of the universe."
Replace Technocrats with Neoliberals. Somewhat stupid laments of a neoliberal economist, who feels that his plush position might be soon
engaged... Under the smoke screen of identity politics (exemplified by gay and lesbian rights
and "gay marriage" gambit desired to distract from important economic processes in the country )
neoliberals destroyed unions, outsourced manufacturing and now are outsourcing service sector,
and lowered the standard living of the US middle class, while top 1% became filthy rich...
they behave like the occupiers of the country so "Occupy Wall Street" movement should actually be
called "liberation of the country from Wall Street occupation" movement.
Notable quotes:
"... This is most obvious in the case of Trump, who devoted a large share of his presidential campaign not just to attacking democratic norms but also to attacking the technocratic experts who have come to symbolize democracy in the United States. ..."
"... Technocrats do not even have a good answer for technocratic-sounding attacks on democracy. ..."
"... Whether because of the incompetence of experts or just a string of bad luck, democracies haven't been performing very well lately. ..."
"... The foreign-policy experts guided wars on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq that seemingly made terrorism worse. Domestic economists gave us the 2008 financial crisis - and a response afterward that bailed out banks too big to fail but treated families losing homes as too small to care about. Dictator-run China is taking over ever larger chunks of the world economy while U.S. wages stagnate. ..."
"... Experts often cannot agree on "what works" or even what already happened. Some experts could still credibly argue that in the long run democracies worldwide outperform dictatorships on average, but there is disagreement, and few have the patience to wait for long-run world averages to reassert themselves. ..."
"... As the economist John Stuart Mill said almost 150 years ago, the true test of freedom is not whether we care about our own rights but whether we care about "the rights of others." ..."
This is most obvious in the case of Trump, who devoted a large share of his presidential campaign
not just to attacking democratic norms but also to attacking the technocratic experts who have come
to symbolize democracy in the United States.
...the technocrats who now monopolize the country's political elite would be incapable of fighting
back.
Technocrats have always shown little interest in fights over fundamental values. ...So when technocrats
are all we have to defend democracy, fights over fundamental values become embarrassingly one-sided.
Technocrats do not even have a good answer for technocratic-sounding attacks on democracy.
Technocrats'
defense of democracy on the basis of "what works" was always vulnerable because the anti-democratic
side was not going to be maximally scrupulous about the evidence in any case. It also makes liberal
values hostages to fortune.
Whether because of the incompetence of experts or just a string of bad
luck, democracies haven't been performing very well lately.
The foreign-policy experts guided wars
on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq that seemingly made terrorism worse. Domestic economists gave us
the 2008 financial crisis - and a response afterward that bailed out banks too big to fail but treated
families losing homes as too small to care about. Dictator-run China is taking over ever larger chunks
of the world economy while U.S. wages stagnate.
Experts often cannot agree on "what works" or even what already happened. Some experts could still
credibly argue that in the long run democracies worldwide outperform dictatorships on average, but
there is disagreement, and few have the patience to wait for long-run world averages to reassert
themselves. Which is why the principal defense of democratic values must be that they are desirable
in themselves as values - something technocrats are not trained to do Which is not to suggest they
don't have any resources at their disposal. My own field of economics can be so technical that whenever
I give a talk mentioning values, I feel like I have to apologize.
Yet economics is better equipped
to defend values than usually believed. At the core of models of economic behavior is individual
choice. Hidden in plain sight is the assumption that all individuals - whether male, female, white,
black, gay, Muslim, or Latino - should indeed have equal rights to make decisions for themselves.
The assumptions that guide analysis of what makes people better off embody the same respect for individual
choice - we infer A is better than B for an individual if they voluntarily selected A over B. And
if an individual chose something for himself or herself that did not make anyone else worse off,
we say that overall well-being improved.
Although these principles are more than a century old in economics and are still at the core of
our textbooks, they get sporadic attacks and less attention than they should due to our infatuation
with evidence-based policy. Yet as Harvard University economist Edward Glaeser
argued along the same lines in 2011, economics still has a "moral spine" beneath all the technocracy:
"That spine is a fundamental belief in freedom."
As the economist John Stuart Mill said almost 150
years ago, the true test of freedom is not whether we care about our own rights but whether we care
about "the rights of others."
But can economics provide a conception of democracy that truly protects the "rights of others"?
The field does indeed offer a potential defense against one of the core democratic dangers - the
possibility that a tyrannical majority might vote to violate the rights of some minority group. Economists
teach that it's in a majority party's interest to conduct a simple thought experiment before making
political decisions: Since it's impossible to know for sure that they will always be in the majority,
and they could always wind up as part of some minority that some future majority decides to tyrannize,
they should make political decisions behind a so-called "veil of ignorance" that sets aside their
personal status and group affiliations. And anyone running that thought experiment faithfully would
join a coalition to protect all future minority and individual rights.
Needless to say, the "veil of ignorance" thought experiment is ultimately a voluntary exercise.
This year's U.S. election tore the veil of ignorance to shreds and not for the first time. Many white
men apparently did not perceive, or consider, this "ignorance" about the future, feeling confident
that they will always have enough power to protect themselves and thus are free not to vote to protect
the rights of others.
The long campaign for equal rights, by mixing eloquent moral appeals with "veil of ignorance"
warnings, has nevertheless tried to make us all care just enough about other groups to forge a broad
coalition in favor of democracy. Our technocratic age often sees such appeals as sentimentalism -
more suitable for refrigerator magnets than serious debates. But Trump's attack on core values required
a response of such universal moral appeals - to white people as well as to minorities - instead of
Clinton's coalition of minorities and the 41-point plan of measurable outcomes on her website.
Democratic values have never been capable of defending themselves - equal rights require eloquent
defenses capable of building broad alliances on their behalf. History offers plenty of inspiration.
Abraham Lincoln: "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just
God, can not long retain it." Martin Luther King Jr.: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere." Elie Wiesel: "Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion,
or political views, that place must - at that moment - become the center of the universe."
Fred C. Dobbs -> Peter K....
December 26, 2016 at 07:15 AM neopopulism: A cultural and political movement, mainly in Latin
American countries, distinct from twentieth-century populism in radically combining classically opposed
left-wing and right-wing attitudes and using electronic media as a means of dissemination. (Wiktionary)
(facebook.com)
286
Posted by msmash
on Thursday November 24, 2016 @01:01PM
from the
stranger-things
dept.
On Wednesday, J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan's
Center for Computer Security & Society and a respected voice in computer
science and information society, said that the Clinton Campaign
should ask for a recount of the vote for the U.S. Presidential election
.
Later he wrote, "Were this year's deviations from pre-election polls the
results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation
is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was
hacked. But I don't believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely
explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other." The Outline, a new
publication by a dozen of respected journalists, has published a post (on
Facebook for now, since their website is still in the works), in which former
Motherboard's reporter Adrianne Jeffries makes it clear that we
still don't have concrete evidence that the vote was tampered with, but why
still the case for paper ballots is strong
. From the article:
Halderman
also repeats the erroneous claim that federal agencies have publicly said that
senior officials in Russia commissioned attacks on voter registration databases
in Arizona and Illinois. In October, federal agencies attributed the Democratic
National Committee email hack to Russia, but specifically said they could not
attribute the state hacks. Claims to the contrary seem to have spread due to
anonymous sourcing and the conflation of Russian hackers with Russian
state-sponsored hackers. Unfortunately, the Russia-hacked-us meme is spreading
fast on social media and among disaffected Clinton voters. "It's just
ignorance," said the cybersecurity consultant Jeffrey Carr, who published his
own response to Halderman on Medium. "It's fear and ignorance that's fueling
that." The urgency comes from deadlines for recount petitions, which start
kicking in on Friday in Wisconsin, Monday in Pennsylvania, and the following
Wednesday in Michigan. There is disagreement about how likely it is that the
Russian government interfered with election results. There is little
disagreement, however, that our voting system could be more robust -- namely,
by requiring paper ballot backups for electronic voting and mandating that all
results be audited, as they already are in some states including California.
Despite the 150,000 signatures collected on a Change.org petition, what happens
next really comes down to the Clinton team's decision.
"You control the message, and the facts do not matter. "
Notable quotes:
"... That's funny. Neoliberals are closet Trotskyites and they will let you talk only is specially
designated reservations, which are irrelevant (or, more correctly, as long as they are irrelevant) for
swaying the public opinion. ..."
"... If you think they are for freedom of the press, you are simply delusional. They are for freedom
of the press for those who own it. ..."
"... Try to get dissenting views to MSM or academic magazines. Yes, they will not send you to GULAG,
but the problem is that ostracism works no less effectively. That the essence of "inverted totalitarism"
(another nickname for neoliberalism). You can substitute physical repression used in classic totalitarism
with indirect suppression of dissenting opinions with the same, or even better results. Note that even
the term "neoliberalism" is effectively censored and not used by MSM. ..."
"... And the resulting level of suppressing of opposition (which is the essence of censorship) is
on the level that would make the USSR censors blush. And if EconomistView gets too close to anti-neoliberal
platform it will instantly find itself in the lists like PropOrNot ..."
"Then of course, it is easy to attack the neoliberals, they'll actually let you talk."
That's funny. Neoliberals are closet Trotskyites and they will let you talk only is specially
designated reservations, which are irrelevant (or, more correctly, as long as they are irrelevant)
for swaying the public opinion.
They are all adamant neo-McCarthyists, if you wish and will label you Putin stooge in no time
[, if you try to escape the reservation].
If you think they are for freedom of the press, you are simply delusional. They are for
freedom of the press for those who own it.
Try to get dissenting views to MSM or academic magazines. Yes, they will not send you to
GULAG, but the problem is that ostracism works no less effectively. That the essence of "inverted
totalitarism" (another nickname for neoliberalism). You can substitute physical repression used
in classic totalitarism with indirect suppression of dissenting opinions with the same, or even
better results. Note that even the term "neoliberalism" is effectively censored and not used by
MSM.
See Sheldon Wolin writings about this.
And the resulting level of suppressing of opposition (which is the essence of censorship)
is on the level that would make the USSR censors blush. And if EconomistView gets too close to
anti-neoliberal platform it will instantly find itself in the lists like PropOrNot
"... "Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids – all while the very rich become much richer. ..."
"... "To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him." ..."
This is inspiring, but I hope they realise that opposing Trump is just
one side of a two-front battle. Trump needs to be opposed when (as seems
very likely) he will start to drive a very right wing pro-billionaire set of
policies. But its increasingly obvious that there is an equally difficult
battle to be fought against the 'centrists' in the Dems and elsewhere. If
all the focus is on Trump, then there is the danger they just become the
useful idiots of the Dem mainstream.
I would go so far to say that their greatest opponent and biggest
danger is not Trump and the Republicans at all. It is the Democratic
Party and pretty much every significant office holding Democrat and their
staffs.
Revolution starts at home. Fighting with Republicans will not
accomplish much when the fifth columnists from the Democratic Party are
going to sabotage every effort they make which shows promise of having an
effect. They need to show their power by hamstringing targeted Democrats
and thus herding the rest into line through fear. You do what we say and
how we say it or we replace you. They have to own the left. No more
liberal's in name only. You are against us or you are with us.
I agree - they must be opposed in the primaries. That's tough to
do, and will take real dedication and money. The deplorable Debbie
Wasserman Schultz won against Tim Canova in the 2016 primary, and the
equally deplorable Chuck Schumer won reelection in 2016, so he won't
be facing a primary opponent until the 2022 election season. Pelosi,
of course is vulnerable every two years.
Please need to be willing to do more than just post comments on
blogs. And lets not have any more of those comments bewailing the
impossibility of overthrowing the status quo - it's difficult, but
it's not impossible. (This paragraph isn't directed specifically to
you, JohnnyGL or PlutoniumKun. I'm just concerned that some other
commenters seem to try to prevent people from taking an active role in
politics, and that is just plain wrong.)
uh why fight against a party with NO federal power? (state power in a
few states so maybe relevant there)
Even if you get unanimous Dem opposition how much does it matter? Ok
the Rs don't quite have a super-majority yet I guess but it is Rs who
will be passing legislation. Fighting Dems is about like fighting WWII
after it's all over. They have mouthpieces and foundations it is true,
but no power.
Better message is to be pro a set of policies:
1. Medicare for all
2. SS are a real retirement system
3. Job Guarantee
4. College for all – student debt
5. Taxes as social and business policy
6. No permanent standing military
Irritated by the identity politics of the main article. That and
would they have opened an office if Hillary had won? If not, I fear
they don't understand and are doomed to repeat the same mistakes of
their elders.
Sanders is always on point moving toward the goal with minimal time
spent talking about moving away from what Is opposed. Here's a sometime
humorous case in point–
A candid conversation: Bernie Sanders and Sara Silverman
Waaaaay too many bullet points already, and I see that others are
adding more. Not that I'm saying any of those are unimportant, but when
you have a dozen goals you actually have none at all. My ideal
progressive movement would hammer relentlessly on 3 major initiatives:
– Medicare for all
– $15 minimum wage
– Post office banking
All 3 provide tangible benefits to the majority of Americans, with the
added bonus of poking a sharp stick in the eye of the oligarchs.
I definitely agree about keeping the list of priorities short, but
I feel that these two areas are foundational and systemically
corrupting, and little else is likely to be accomplished without major
reforms of both
– MIC/"Defense" spending (mostly spent on offense, not defending
the borders of the USA from invasion)
– Campaign Finance – big money in politics
9. Lifelong job education and skills-building for all unemployed and
under-employed, paid for directly from corporate taxes.
10. Universal two-year commitment to the military or a full-time volunteer
public service program.
11. Rewilding and reforesting polluted and abandoned land.
12. Anti-trust! More trust-busting needed!
13. Agricultural reform to ban feedlots, fertilizers and pesticides and
reorganize farms to restore and rebuild soil. And yes, this will create
jobs.
"9. Lifelong job education and skills-building for all unemployed and
under-employed, paid for directly from corporate taxes."
people don't know what a nightmare such scenarios are, ok it sucks if
you are underemployed and have no way to retrain because finances, but it
also sucks big league if you have to spend your entire life working full
time AND pursuing more and more formal education, forever until you die.
Is any of our utopias going to care about human beings being able to BE
human beings? We are so so much more than just useful labor machines
forever aquiring labor market useful skills.
Ok course a basic income guarantee or a labor market tilted for labor
not capital (including government job creation sure – and sure there's
other things that can tilt it for labor – lower Social Security age,
unionization etc.) would nullify this objection as the competition for
jobs would lessen enough perhaps.
"10. Universal two-year commitment to the military or a full-time
volunteer public service program."
well this is even more self-evidently nightmarish but it hardly needs
unpacking. 2 years of becoming hired killers for the imperialist murder
machine. Yea I know you didn't specify military as mandatory, I'm just
saying what is being encouraged.
jrs: Agreed. Points 9 and 10 are non-starters. They will not lessen
class warfare. Only a jobs policy and a commitment to full employment
will. And this idea that U.S. citizens have to be drafted into some
regimented public-service program isn't helpful.
But let's talk about reopening the Civilian Conservation Corps, as
in point 11. Now that is a genuinely good idea. And people would
gladly join–without feeling regimented.
There was an interesting debate around the water cooler links on
Festivus. I would like to recap and extend it here because I want to know
more. First about how you, Lambert, see the take over of a single state
Democratic party office breaking open a path to reform the party from
within. I would like to hear what scenarios you feel are possible.
Walden pond wrote
"The elite control the D party (which is nothing but a criminal organization
at this point). They will allow outsiders to have dog-catcher, but get
uppity and run for a state position and that person will be out in an
instant. The Ds are factually/legally a private club and they can select
their membership and candidates in any way they choose or get a court to
back them on every petty legal change they make to block outsiders. They
change rules (legal contract) retroactively, they violate their own rules
repeatedly and someone thinks they are going to get any farther than a few
school board positions or city council is going to fail.
Taking over the D party is similar to proposing infiltrating gangs (fully
backed by the legal system) with 13 year olds to 'save the neighborhood'."
I whole heartedly agree. I think it's important that people understand
that the party is not just a "machine" waiting for someone new to guide it.
It is not a set of empty offices and poster printing machines with helpful
local people waiting for guidance. At the top, it is much more like an
exclusive country club whose membership passes down through wealthy families
who think they know what's best for the nation.
Anyhow, if you have a strategy on how to break it, I would like to
support that discussion. I would like to hear more.
I'm glad you carried this discussion over to today. People hear have
heard my sad tales of woe when I decided in 2004 to stop being
inattentive and to actually try "to change the party from within" that
talk show hosts like Thom Hartmann and "The Nation" gang call for every 4
years. Yes, I discovered what Walden Pond wrote; that there is an "elite"
control of the state parties. They are almost hereditary positions. Yes,
they will get excited by a newbie like me who was articulate, worked in
Hollywood, married to a rancher for conservative creeds. But then I
started to challenge their positions by advocating for single payer;
stronger labor stances that they all paId lip service to but didn't
really seem to care about. So no longer was I allowed to talk to the
press at the DNC Convention. As I recall in 2006 or 2007 they changed a
rule to make it harder to challenge Jon Tester in a primary.
Affairs like "Campaign for America's Future" conventions were always in
D.C. And during the 2nd one I went to, I confirmed by observations that
they were just big job fairs for people wanting jobs in the next
administration or becoming lobbyists. That was actually what the
convention in 2004 was too that I attended as a delegate. "Agriculture
Salutes Tom Harking"; brought to you not by The Grange but by Monsanto
and Carroll. Lavish party with handsome young men shucking tons of
oysters. Ick.
I went in naive as I suspect many well meaning millennials will do now to
this "house". But boy did I start to wake up and finally by 2009 after
the failed single payer health care movement, I quit this dead donkey.
There's a lot of contentious debate on whether to fight in the
Democrat Party or build a 3rd one. The answer is both, always and
constantly.
1) Start the fight within the Party, as seen in MI. What happened
there is important to expose and embarrass the local party officials. I
consider the incident an encouraging sign and hope there are more like it
around the country (not happy with the guy getting assaulted, of course,
but if it shows 'they are who we thought they were', then that's progress
of a sort).
2) If you can fight within the party and the party leadership at the
state level understands the need to change and gets on board (getting on
board as defined by fighting for specific policies, organizing and party
building, and going against the wishes of big donors), then work with
them.
3) if the big donors and dinosaur party leaders don't get on board,
then then need to be A) removed, if possible. Or, if not possible, B)
they should be isolated. If Schumer and Pelosi can't be primary-ed out of
existence (a-la Eric Cantor) then they should be stripped of leadership
positions and isolated. Primary all of their allies in congress. Pelosi
still got around 2/3 of the vote. Let's get it below 1/2. We're not
starting from scratch, there's a base of opposition to work with.
4) Part of the contention between points 2) and 3) is protests like
those seen recently protesting at Schumer's office by BLM and Occupy
folks. Again, make them come to us on policy. Life should get
increasingly uncomfortable for Party leaders and members that don't play
ball. It should be clear that their current attitudes and policies are
untenable and they need to get with the new program. Hassle them in their
offices, at their public events. Anti-fracking protestors who harassed
Cuomo over several years showed what to do. I think one of his kids joked
that when they got lost on the way to an event, they could always find
where they were going because the anti-fracking protestors were there
waiting for them.
People like Pelosi and Schumer will cave to public pressure, they've
done it in the past. Pelosi said no to medicare changes when Obama wanted
to put entitlement reform on the table. These people are different than
ideologues who will push their agenda regardless of public opinion.
They're snakes, but they'll play ball under pressure.
5) Now in the case where we can't with the fight within the party, go
outside. Socialist Alternative, Working Families and other 3rd parties
that are built up at the local level can threaten and do real damage.
Does anyone think Seattle gets a $15/hr min. wage without Sawant and
Socialist Alternative? Working Families Party demonstrated exactly what
NOT to do during NY Governor election. If Cuomo won't come to us and meet
our demands, bring him down. Suck it up, deal with a Republican for a few
years, if necessary. While the Republican is in charge, pressure them,
too. Don't think about the election right now .that's short termism.
Let's think 2, 3, 4 elections out. If you're not winning now, clear out
the deadwood to win later.
6) Now, to face up to the 'lesser evil' arguments regarding 5). It's
over, there's no more 'lesser evilism'. It's dead. Hillary Clinton and
the elite Dems killed it. They put it all on display for all to see. They
were willing to crush the left (again), squash voting rights through a
variety of means, and risk Trump or another whacky 'Pied Piper' candidate
in order to get their anointed candidate put in charge. THAT should tell
you EXACTLY who we're dealing with here. They were perfectly willing to
risk Trump to win, so that means if a 3rd party can get 3%-5% in a close
election and play a spoiler role, then that 3rd party should DO it. Every
time. Again, keep doing it until the Democrats adopt the platform of a
3rd party (which, presumably includes fight for $15, medicare for all, no
wars, etc). Again, until the Dems come to us on policy, they will be
opposed.
But, but Nader brought us Bush who brought us Iraq War! You cannot
take risks like that! Must vote lesser evil!!! Oh really? Dems voted for
Patriot Act, Dems voted for AUMF over and over again. Dems voted to keep
funding the war, too. When Dems don't win the Presidency they want to sit
back and wait for Repubs to do awful stuff so that Dems will be back in
charge as seen in 2006-8. Pelosi and Reid did NOTHING to deserve a win,
they just waited it out until people voted for change again. They want to
do this again. We can't let them. Make them do their job. Make them act
in opposition. Make them earn their next win, otherwise we'll get the
same group and the same policies that have just been discredited.
7) From the article, I like Ahmed's strategy/tactics, but the concept
of attacking Trump the person, seems flawed. Remember, policy is what
matters!
Nixon passed an amendment that created the EPA. That doesn't happen if
you oppose Nixon for who he is. Also, wikipedia reveals that the Clean
Water Act got passed in spite of Nixon's veto! If Trump wants to move in
the right direction, he should be praised for doing so. If he doesn't, go
around him!
Trump is a guy that just slapped the Repub establishment silly and
clearly is running at least partially out of vanity more than he wants to
collect fat checks when he leaves office (like the Clintons, and probably
Obama soon enough). There's value in this, by itself, and there's value
on policy grounds, too.
Okay, I'm done. I hope anyone who bothers to read found this
enjoyable. Happy for comments. Also, to be clear, I've got no experience
in organizing or any kind of playbook to carry this plan out. :) So, feel
free to mock my credentials, because they don't exist!
Sigh. We millennials might be smart about policy and pragmatic, but if
this is our moonshot, we don't know jack about how to organize a successful
social movement. Protesting "Trump" is stupid. Trump is not a policy. He is
a person. Is our goal to make him feel bad about himself? And he did win the
election. So his administration is, in fact, "legitimate" in any meaningful
sense of the word.
I'd have slightly different lists, but I entirely agree that a pro-policy
platform is an essential starting point. That said, protests basically
always fail, and more often then not IMO, strengthen the opposition. When
they succeed, or even make headway like NODAPL, they always share a common
set of features.
1) One very specific policy. Today, if I were in charge, I'd choose
Federally funded Medicare for all. Never mind details for protesting
purposes.
2) A simple, clear message that appeals to values that most people in a
body politic can agree on "Health Care is a Civil Right!"
3) A symbol that presents a clear, binary, moral choice. Sorry people, it
makes me feel icky too, but this is where we go hunting for a dying grandma
or kid with cancer who can't get medical care and make him/her our mascot
(ideally, in a purely strategic realm, such person would refuse any care
until it was guaranteed to all, then die at a decisive moment, thus becoming
a martyr).
4) The ability to bring different folks together to agree on ONE thing.
Organized bitch sessions about Obamacare in Trump country might work here,
but we'd have to throw shit at the wall and see what stuck. I know for a
fact that most Trump supporters, if pressed, will say that a family should
not have to choose between impoverishment and treating mom's cancer. But
protesting "Trump" is protesting them too, with the main goal of feeling
like you are a better person because you know that gender is socially
constructed or whatever (as if there is something magical in who you are
that is the reason you got to go to a private liberal arts college, and you
totally never would have been racist no matter what life circumstances you
were born into).
It's not that I'm a single issue person, it's just protesting lots of
things at once just makes a lot of noise, and a bunch of people trying to
work together with competing agendas (lack of shared vision, in corporate
speak), makes all human organizations dysfunctional. Basically, I support
many issues, but think mixing them all together is not a good recipe for
success.
Didn't read the article. Seems like a misdirected effort to me. You don't
win voters by being against something. You win them by being for something.
I am getting tired of the "Ain't It Awful" game. Give me a vision to be for.
There is something called target fixation. When you concentrate on what
you want to avoid, you end up going right toward it. Concentrate on where
you want to go rather than spend all your time thinking about where you
don't want to go.
This can be demonstrated by asking someone to follow your instructions
and then issuing a number of imperative sentences:
Don't think of blue
Don't think about your left earlobe
Don't think about what Crazyman will do with this
Don't think of Trump
Etc
One has to think of those things in order to make sense of the words.
Moving away from can be a powerful motivator but only toward will get you
there. Sorry, clarifying the obvious again.
This effort is not about winning voters but about blocking really bad
policy changes that will hurt millions of people. Organizing for an
election campaign and organizing for issue-based activism are not the
same. If Barb Mikulski forty-odd years ago had just gone around the city
talking about her vision of good communities and good transportation
policy, a lot of Baltimore neighborhoods would have been wiped out as the
city was cut apart by an ill-placed interstate. She stopped it by
organizing a fight against it. More recently, Destiny Watford, still in
high school at the time, was the prime mover in the successful fight
against an incinerator in her Curtis Bay neighborhood in south Baltimore.
There is a time and a place for everything. There are at least two
other organizations focusing on electoral politics. This one has a
different purpose.
Yes to be opposed to Trump is because they think a bunch of bad
policies will come from his administration and they are likely not
wrong. It doesn't need to be about Trump the person at all, though for
some deluded people it may be. Now they could broaden it to opposing
Paul Ryans congress etc. since they are hardly better but if any
legistlaton is actually going to be passed a Republican congress and
Trump will be working together.
A single issue focus, say it was Medicare for all, even if it was
sucessful, would have let all the other issues a Trump administration
will represent slide. Ok so if Trump passes tax cuts say that further
enrich the plutocrats, an ever more unequal society might even destroy
Medicare for all (the rich will just buy their way out). If Trump
passes even more obviously anti-environmental legistlation, the fact
Medicare for all was achieved would be a goal of it's own but would
not change this. Maybe there are people enough for all movements, I
don't know.
It'll never work & for good reason. It's a form of ideation contrary to
gnostic principles and therefore to the highest spiritual values on this
plane of existence.
Sad to see hopeful inspired people get lost in that maze of misery. Trust
your perceptions in the silence of your mind without looking to anybody else
for affirmation. People are people. That's what everybody who can figure
things out figures out when they grow up.
Grow up & Merry Christmas. LOL
I'm wishing Trump well & am somewhat hopeful that - through the odd
feedback loops in complex systems - the provocations of his originality will
shape things in a direction even progressives will find appealing. Maybe
I'll be wrong, I admit. But I'm usually not wrong. LOL. (Although I am
sometimes, no lie.)
Firecracker puppies professional trainer who isists she knows about how
people of color feel..hmmm a bunch of photos of ms nadine and her fellow
associates something about dc that tells me the demographics are not the
same as iowa does not look as she thinks there are any people of color who
can train on what "she" calls "non violence" and her "famous" black female
puppet to represent and protest against the military because the military is
so black and female seems a bit tone deaf
Same old same old chameleons bending to the new hot button funding to
keep the lights on
"As the international director of the committee to make noise and get
nothing done, we strive to "
And ms bangladeshi her nov 27 tweet that anyone right of the democrats is
a fascist does this child have an idea what that word means, or is it
something she picked up at one of the "people" conventions she attended or
spoke at
Not looking to be hyper cynical on this of all days but seems moumita has
spent her entire adult life posing with her megaphone and for someone who is
so "out there" mekantz find much about her except her self proclaimed
relevance and for a person who claims this large network somewhat smallish
set of followers on her chyrping account
The Washington police will now have to use a search warrant or a
battering ram unlike Zuccotti park where night sticks and pepper spray were
used. I don't see a problem getting those. Especially after agents have
infiltrated. Well at least it is a start which I hope snowballs!
enter the sans coullottes! I am thrilled and will try to get in contact
with them. depend upon it, the American people will turn to those who
demonstrate the best ability to push back against Trump. Which is why Bernie
has been doing that since the election.
No, I disagree. Bernie does not push back against Trump. No identity
politics, no focus on personalities. Bernie pushes back against
wrong-headed policies. Bernie wants policies that benefit the majority.
Let's pray our new president does some good that most of us do not
expect. I hope he is more unpredictable than that. I may be wrong but I
can hope.
Sounds like the Alternet crowd is up to its sheepdogging tactics again.
Let's corral young energy and co-opt it for the Democrats. Co-opting is what
I call "Skunking" because it sure stinks up the joint.
I'm with the majority here in finding this sad that these "organizers"
have decided to go all negative. They are "going to hold him [Trump]
accountable and delegitimize literally everything he is doing and not let
him succeed." Well, how has that worked out so far.
New thinking and new solutions ae called for, not the same old feel good
"protests" and voter drives that professional organizers love to do. If they
had done any real introspection they would have come up with ways of forming
new coalitions; and also realize the need to keep Schumer and Pelosi as
accountable as Trump. But these are still party operatives in younger
sheep's clothing. Many are poli sci majors who want to be in politics in
Washington as a vocation. See, they are the wise "behind the scenes" people
that will guide the "activists" . Ugh. Same old; Same old story.
And this smells of the same DLC Clinton gang since they are calling Trump's
victory and presidency illegitimate. Again, they don't want to delve into
why she lost. They wants jobs in D.C. And spend their energy "resisting"
rather than coming up with anything remotely interesting. This is not
Occupy. And I doubt they will embrace young Anarchists.
Wonderful shakeout by Cohn: Trump won by
trading places with
Obama
. O appealed to less educated whites as their protector
against the Wall Street candidate (47% time) Romney. (Crackpot) Trump
appealed to them with same promise versus Wall Street candidate (true
enough) Hill.
Upshot: Dems only have to get busy rebuilding labor union density at the
state by progressive state level (or not so progressive; but be seen trying
hard). Repubs will have no where to hide: once and for all political
checkmate.
We are only asking state legislatures to make possible joining a union if
you want to - without running an impassable gauntlet - no complicated policy
issues at all.
Totally unpromising that they start with the calamitous premise of the
whole Sanders campaign: "a campaign where Bernie specifically said, 'Do not
attack the other person." Sanders knew he could run a campaign that would
destroy the Clinton, a proven loser on the merits, and thereby make it
possible to defeat any of the GOP's dumpster of deplorables, especially the
Trumpe-l'oeil. But that would involve a political break with the whole
record of the Obama administration in both domestic and foreign policy. So
instead Sanders wound up saying the falsest single thing anyone said in the
whole campaign–"nobody cares about those damn e-mails."
Youth may wish to have their bragging rights for their old age, but Trump
has proven that power lies with the voters, who will be driven away to the
likes of Reagan by this posturing.
Ahmed has not learned all the lessons of the 1960s.
We-The-Ppl rejected Gold Sacks's "shitty deal" Hillary, foisted on us by
the Dems whose elites "assassinated" the best candidate since JFK; Repubs
rejected "fool me again" Jeb in the Primary. Nasty Trump was put there to
shoo-in Hill, but it backfired. Democracy? all gone. The Wild West is back.
We need both "away from" and "toward" bullet points. The "away
from" will naturally target Trump's onerous policies and will generate
lots of energy. The "toward" bullet points will also "target" the
"fake news" neoliberals because their support will prove to be tepid
faint praise and lots of how it can't be done. Energy wise it will be
more of a slog. They will also covertly seek to undermine progressive
change. They will be called out on their crap.
Why didn't they set up this "permanent base" when Sanders voted for the
700 billion dollar F35 or when Obama claimed the legal right to indefinitely
detain or kill anyone without judicial oversight?
"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image,
when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
I assume all of those who have so arrogantly dismissed the efforts of
these young people are all, therefore, engaged in alternative activities
that support their respective opinions of how to effect the change that is
our only salvation from neo-feudalism. Otherwise, I say put up or shut up.
Because I'm getting really sick of all the armchair quarterbacking, which
to me is no different from the way the DNC elites treat anyone who isn't a
member of their club. If people who object to the goals and/or methods of
the District 13 House group have useful suggestions to make, why haven't
they engaged in working to bring those suggestions to fruition. It's also
precisely the kind of ivory-tower critique that has brought us to this pass,
so do keep in mind that when pointing out the sins of others, one has three
other fingers pointing in the opposite direction.
Natural skeptic/cynic at this point I go back to to Bernie's first
statement after the election:
"Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that
is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the
establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower
wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage
countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not
being able to afford a college education for their kids – all while the very
rich become much richer.
"To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that
improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other
progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues
racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously
oppose him."
Now taken in that light, do we need a generic "anti-Trump" resistance
house to "stick out like a sore thumb"?
Or do we need something that speaks to the deeper issues around which
non-squillionaire people can unite?
I concur with those who posted above on sticking to the issues. If you
stick to the issues, the face of the opposition (from within and without)
doesn't matter. It's about getting people to realize that agents of the
establishment on BOTH sides (Dem & Repub) of all various
identarian
flavors have betrayed us all.
Now granted, there's plenty of swamp left undrained to warrant being all
up the new administration's grill like freckles. But please, let's get the
focus where it should be – on what's being done and undone. Focusing on
"Trump" is a non-starter.
Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah and FestivusForTheRestOfUs to everyone!
"Trump_vs_deep_state ... is anything but populist":
Populism, Real and Phony, by Paul Krugman, NY Times : Authoritarians with an animus against
ethnic minorities are on the march across the Western world. ... But what should we call these
groups? Many reporters are using the term "populist," which seems both inadequate and misleading...,
are the other shared features of this movement - addiction to conspiracy theories, indifference
to the rule of law, a penchant for punishing critics - really captured by the "populist" label?
Still, the European members of this emerging alliance - an axis of evil? - have offered some real
benefits to workers. ... Trump_vs_deep_state is, however, different..., the emerging policy agenda is anything
but populist.
All indications are that we're looking at huge windfalls for billionaires combined with savage
cuts in programs that serve not just the poor but also the middle class. And the white working
class, which provided much of the 46 percent Trump vote share, is shaping up as the biggest loser.
...
Both his pick
as budget director and his choice to
head Health and Human Services want to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and privatize Medicare.
His
choice as labor secretary is a fast-food tycoon who has been a vociferous opponent both of
Obamacare and of minimum wage hikes. And House Republicans have already
submitted plans for drastic cuts in Social Security, including a sharp rise in the retirement
age. ...
In other words..., European populism is at least partly real, while Trumpist populism is turning
out to be entirely fake, a scam sold to working-class voters who are in for a rude awakening.
Will the new regime pay a political price?
Well, don't count on it..., you know that there will be huge efforts to shift the blame. These
will include claims that the collapse of health care is really President Obama's fault; claims
that the failure of alternatives is somehow the fault of recalcitrant Democrats; and an endless
series of attempts to distract the public.
Expect more Carrier-style stunts that don't actually help workers but dominate a news cycle. Expect
lots of fulmination against minorities. And it's worth remembering what authoritarian regimes
traditionally do to shift attention from failing policies, namely, find some foreigners to confront.
Maybe it will be a trade war with China, maybe something worse.
Opponents need to do all they can to defeat such strategies of distraction. Above all, they shouldn't
let themselves be sucked into cooperation that leaves them sharing part of the blame. The perpetrators
of this scam should be forced to own it.
It really depend on how the two sides play it out. You don't need to move the diehard sexists
and racists for things to change. But the Democrats need to have a Warren/Sanders attack team
ready on every single GOP "favor the rich and screw the rest" proposal. It would be rather easy
to get the press to pay attention to those two if they went to war with Trump/GOP. Their following
is sufficiently large to be a media market - so their comments would not be ignored. We also know
that at least Warren knows how to bait Trump into saying something stupid so you can get the kind
of firework that commercial media cannot ignore. The Dems need to learn how to bait the media
at least as effectively as Trump does.
When can we please start tuning Krugman down here? He aided and abetted the election disaster
by being one of the most prominent Very Serious People leading the offensive against Sanders and
promoting a fatally flawed candidate that was beaten resoundingly in 2008 and with irredeemable,
self-inflicted, negative baggage.
He may make good points here after-the-fact, but they're all "duh!" level bits of analysis
at this stage. And the last thing I want to hear from any of the VSPs who piloted the train over
the cliff during this election season is b*tching about the mess at the bottom of the cliff.
Aren't there ANY other voices with some remaining shred of political credibility that can be
quoted here instead of the unabashed VSPs who helped elect trump?
Since I am only noting objection to one blogger who invested much of his personal credibility
into promoting a horrible leader, I don't see the relevance of your comment at all. I enjoy pretty
much every other blogger to which Thoma links.
My issue is with highlighting a crank whose writing has cratered over the last year. If a Trump
ripping is due (and it usually is), then I'm fine with it being a feature so long as it's written
by someone who isn't channeling Niall Ferguson and with the same degree of credibility as a political
"wonk".
I think a certain amount of self-criticism and introspection is warranted at this point, no? And,
I think, there is little question that the long-term coziness of the democratic party with high
finance and the PMIC played a major role in negative perceptions of HRC.
Although I did not vote for Clinton, if I had lived in a remotely competitive state I would
have certainly voted for her. To put this in perspective, my vote for Sanders was a very reluctant
vote and Clinton is the POTUS I despise the most (Trump will change this).
"beaten resoundingly in 2008 and with irredeemable, self-inflicted, negative baggage."
Characterizing Clinton's electoral college defeat as being beaten resoundingly is exactly the
kind of irrational "bro" rhetoric that Krugman rightly criticized.
And I write this as someone who voted for Sanders and then Stein.
They're an angry lot.... and they, like the conservative "affinity fraudsters" that Krugman has
lambasted over the years, refuse to accept reality. Instead, they hunker down, shut out facts,
and surround themselves only with people and information that agrees with their flawed opinions.
All I hear from Paul -- and others -- sounds like ducking and weaving and back peddling -- in
a phrase: retreat-in-good-order to avoid defeat-in-detail.
How about a little aggression? Would it be too much to expect these top brains the potential
to rebuild labor union density (THE ONLY POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC TISSUE OF THE AVERAGE PERSON)
at state by progressive state level.
NEVER HEAR OF IT -- NO OTHER PATH (and it looks to be multi-multi-path once you start looking
through all the angles.
I'm only beginning to sort all this out -- like the angle that any group disallowed of employee
status by the Trump NLRB (student teaching and research assistants?) immediately become eligible
for full state supported conduction of NLRB-like certification process. No preemption problem.
Preemption on closer exam may not be the barrier folks think. So, so much more federal preemption/supremacy
(not the same thing!) stuff to sort through -- another reason to put off posting the full comment.
Few weeks maybe.
Where I come from, the Bronx of the 50s-70s, everybody was different, so nobody was different,
so we had more fun with your differences.
We didn't have diversity; we had assimilation; everyone was the same.
Typical 60s high school chatter: How's an Italian like a crashing airplane? Guinea, Guinea,
Guinea: Whop!
How's an Irishman like a submarine under attack? Down the hatch; down the hatch; down the hatch!
In the movie The Wanderers, portraying the 1979 Bronx with more people of color, the high school
teasing is all: nigger, spic, kike! Too much for your non-real-melting pot ears.
:-)-
********************
Be more impressed by your (plural) interest in minority dignity if it obsessed on getting everyone
one the same ECONOMIC (!) level.
You rebuild union density or you do nothing! You do it at the state by progressive state level
or you do nothing! Are you academic progressives the slightest bit interested in doing just that?
How come you are not obsessed with re-unionization?
"... That seems to be the problem in most of our western democracies right now. Voters are able to diagnose the problems they themselves feel and suffer from; but are clueless as to the actual cause of those problems. So the first guy who comes around promising to provide solutions is given the go ahead, under the false assumption that it "cannot get any worse than it is now" - but it can get a lot worse! ..."
David Souter warned of a Trump-like
candidate in prescient remarks (in 2012)
Steve Benen - October
2016 - Maddow Blog
Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter has maintained
a very low public profile since retiring from the bench nearly
eight years ago, but Rachel highlighted a 2012 appearance
Souter made in New Hampshire, and his remarks on "civic ignorance"
are striking in their foresight.
"I don't worry about our losing republican government in
the United States because I'm afraid of a foreign invasion.
I don't worry about it because I think there is going to be
a coup by the military as has happened in some of other places.
What I worry about is that when problems are not addressed,
people will not know who is responsible. And when the problems
get bad enough, as they might do, for example, with another
serious terrorist attack, as they might do with another financial
meltdown, some one person will come forward and say, 'Give
me total power and I will solve this problem.'
"That is how the Roman republic fell. Augustus became emperor,
not because he arrested the Roman Senate. He became emperor
because he promised that he would solve problems that were
not being solved.
"If we know who is responsible, I have enough faith in
the American people to demand performance from those responsible.
If we don't know, we will stay away from the polls. We will
not demand it. And the day will come when somebody will come
forward and we and the government will in effect say, 'Take
the ball and run with it. Do what you have to do.'
"That is the way democracy dies. And if something is not
done to improve the level of civic knowledge, that is what
you should worry about at night."
Souter couldn't have known about Donald Trump's rise in
Republican politics, but that only makes his fears in 2012
that much more prophetic. ...
That seems to be the problem in most of our western democracies
right now. Voters are able to diagnose the problems they themselves
feel and suffer from; but are clueless as to the actual cause
of those problems. So the first guy who comes around promising
to provide solutions is given the go ahead, under the false
assumption that it "cannot get any worse than it is now" -
but it can get a lot worse!
I hope you are correct, but if Trump decides to defy the Congress
or the Courts, with 40% of the populace ready to do whatever
he says, who do you think is going to stand up to him? Mitch
McConnell? Paul Ryan? Clarence Thomas? Samuel Alito?
If PK's concern is right -- and I think it is -- Trump is
going to crack down on dissent. In this he will be aided and
abetted by his Nuremburg rallies.
We will still have elections
in 2018 and 2020. But will they be fair or banana-republic
facsimiles? North Carolina has already crossed the line in
my opinion.
The comment you made and reminder for me that the
Chinese leadership has long been largely educated as engineers
was especially important in my understanding the IMF warning
of dangerous credit growth in China. Economic planners are
of course aware of the warning and a just established goal
in 2017 is to limit the extension of credit though keeping
general economic growth at 6.5%.
PGL was equally helpful.
I now have the solution, which I can depict in graphs.
[...the seeming lack of concern about corporate debt suggests
the level is not considered a problem. Why though?]
Easy answer: China's leaders are technocrats not finance
people like in the US. Meaning they think that a factory is
an asset, the bonds used to pay for it is just a weak obligation
on paper. In the US it's the opposite.
I think most people commenting on the Trump phenomena are
treating as though it sprang whole cloth out of the either.
I think Trump is the natural conclusion of two things the
GOP accepted as its own. The modern management style of tell
your employees anything and it will happen, no need to be
a good manager and know what you're talking about just act
as though you know everything. Next the original sin(not my
coin) of the GOP supply side economics. Now this brings into
power R. Reagan. Who said famously, the scariest thing to
hear is, "I am from the Federal Government, and I am here
to help you!" This caused down through the years an ongoing
disdain for anything coming from Washington, no expert was
to be trusted, the other side was not to be trusted, etc.
This was for one reason, to make rich people feel good about
all the money that was going up stream into their pockets
instead of anyone who works for a living.
After about forty years of this is it any wonder that half
the people don't vote? Or that half of the half see a rich
guy and think he can do it look at all the money he made?
It is a very sad state of affairs, but it is what you get
when most of society is in love with the all mighty dollar
and not actual substance in their lives.
First of all, let me emphasize that I want to be polite about
this. But I think the concern is valid. The country will exist.
Elections will be held. But they are also held in Russia and
Turkey. If those in power crack down on the opposition, and
crack down on dissent, and the ruling party controls the election
apparatus, then the elections do not make the country a Republic.
The question is, why do you think Trump will refrain -- or
be restrained -- from doing any of those things? His rallies
have already appeared to condone violence. He has already
suggested an embrace of "second amendment remedies. He called
for his opponent to be locked up. He has suggested that he
personally will start prosecutions. He has said he wants libel
laws broadened. He has called for judges who rule against
him to be investigated. Really, he has telegraphed that he
wants to cross the Rubicon in just about every way he can.
Why shouldn't we take that seriously?
Well for one he has said a lot of stupid things that he's
already backed up on, from making the wall just a fence to
keeping parts of Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.
Second, a President
can't do whatever he wants. Lots of Republicans didn't want
him there in the first place, they won't let him just violate
the constitution and ruin the party when they have control
of house, senate, states, etc.
I can believe he'll be the worst president yet, I have
trouble seeing how we'll become Turkey, which has a history
many coups, or Russia, which is practically a failed state.
I guess we will just have to leave it at that, because when
Trump has his base (which is the GOP base) frothing at the
mouth, I simply do not see Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Clarence
Thomas, and Samueal Alito suddenly auditioning for Profiles
in Courage.
I pray that Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg
have the best healthcare on earth.
Something about whistling and graveyards is coming to mind
here. Do you think that a weasel like Ryan or an addled old
man like McCain can hold him back? McConnell? The Republicans
long ago gave up any trappings of rationality or reason. They
long ago gave up anything smacking of conscious or thoughtfulness.
They long ago stopped treating policy as something to be determined
by what works best for the most people. For decades the Republican
Party has been an insurgent party that has been seeking to
prevent positive change in the world. The elected leaders
despise government. They are against programs that actually
help people. They nakedly stole $12B in Iraq that we know
of. Pretending this is normal only helps to hasten the demise.
While I think this will likely be worse than anything we have
seen before, but I do not think this will be the end of democracy.
It may be in rather ragged shape by then, however.
draconian voter suppression is not a figment of krugman's
imagination. nor is the north carolina legislative coup. i
think the usa may very well transitionin into an authoritarian
political system.
"Why is this happening? ... And let's be clear: This is a
Republican story, not a case of "both sides do it.""
No
it's also a story about Democrats and center-left parties
the world over.
The callous elites of the center are not presenting a good
alternative to the demagogues on the right.
(So voters are unenthusiastic or they don't bother to vote
or organize. They're apathetic.)
You can see it here in comments. You can see it with Krugman
who absolves the center-left of any blame.
Bernie Sanders and his supporters issued a warning.
But Krugman assured us Hillary was a great candidate who
would easily win.
If the Democrats keep behaving like Krugman and EMichael
with their heads in the sand, then they'll lose in 2018 and
2020.
EMichael quotes Mike Singletary when Singletary would have
nothing but contempt for the EMichaels who are always crying
about the media/referees and blaming their loss on meddling
from the Russians.
I've seen NO post-mortem from the center-left Democrats.
Only excuses.
In a normal world, we would know - due to exit polling - that
something was amiss. In fact, the large skew from the results
and exit polling would be considered by our own election watchers
in the 3rd world to be indicative of shenanigans. But we can't
say that. And apparently the reason we can't is due to people
like you being on the same page with the Republican kleptocrats.
Your level of dishonesty is appalling. Calling Krugman a centrist?
That defies reason. Saying that there is a center-left? Absurd.
It doesn't exist. The Pete Peterson's of the world are Center
Right. Do you think that being just plain liberal is center
left? Anyone who questions anything that Amy Goodman or Thom
Hartman says is a centrist (and for the record, while I like
Thom and Amy very much - they occasionally fall for utter
BS because of tribalism). Also - reasons =/= excuses.
I would say a rare
but of brilliant honesty here. But I should add EVERY one
here knows PeterK lies 24/7. It is his day job. Don't get
him fired now as this winter is cold.
additional losses in 2018 are inevitable and voter suppression
and gerrymandering will likely result in even larger losses
in 2020. i also think constitutional amendments that make
the usa a de facto one party state are conceivable.
Bernie Sanders and his primary campaign made me hopeful.
"Initially considered a long shot, Sanders won 23 primaries
and caucuses and approximately 43% of pledged delegates to
Clinton's 55%. His campaign was noted for the enthusiasm of
its supporters, as well as his rejection of large donations
from corporations, the financial industry, and any associated
Super PAC. The campaign instead relied on a record-breaking
number of small, individual contributions."
If the Democrats continue to flail helplessly, energy will
continue to build on the left.
sanders is on his way to retirement and warren is hardly
an inspiring candidate. i personally see little evidence of
energy from the center-left (e.g. the congressional progressive
caucus). if anything, sanders and warren appear to be supporting
more triangulation (e.g. neoliberals like ellision and gabbard).
Adrian Goldsworthy's "In the Name of Rome" says: *
"However important it was for an individual to win fame
and add to his own and his family's reputation, this should
always be subordinated to the good of the Republic. The same
belief in the superiority of Rome that made senators by the
second century BC hold themselves the equals of any king ensured
that no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a
foreign power."
The Roman political élite was not unique in its competitiveness
and desire to excel. The aristocracies of most Greek cities
– and indeed of the overwhelming majority of other communities
in the Mediterranean world – were just as eager to win personal
dominance and often unscrupulous in their methods of achieving
this. Roman senators were highly unusual in channelling their
ambitions within fairly narrow, and universally recognized,
boundaries. The internal disorder and revolution which plagued
the public lives of most city states were absent from Rome
until the last century of the Republic. Even then, during
civil wars of extreme savagery when the severed heads of fellow
citizens were displayed in the Forum, the Roman aristocracy
continued to place some limits on what means were acceptable
to overcome their rivals. A common figure in the history of
the ancient world is the aristocratic exile – the deposed
king or tyrant, or the general forced out when he was perceived
to be becoming too powerful – at the court of a foreign power,
usually a king. Such men readily accepted foreign troops to
go back and seize power by force in their homeland – as the
tyrant Pisistratus had done at Athens – or actively fought
against their own city on their new protector's behalf, like
Alcibiades.
Rome's entire history contains only a tiny handful of individuals
whose careers in any way followed this pattern. The fifth-century
BC, and semi-mythical, Caius Marcius Coriolanus probably comes
closest, for when banished from Rome he took service with
the hostile Volscians and led their army with great success.
In the story he came close to capturing Rome itself, and was
only stopped from completing his victory by the intervention
of his mother. The moral of the tale was quintessentially
Roman. However important it was for an individual to win fame
and add to his own and his family's reputation, this should
always be subordinated to the good of the Republic. The same
belief in the superiority of Rome that made senators by the
second century BC hold themselves the equals of any king ensured
that no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a
foreign power. Senators wanted success, but that success only
counted if it was achieved at Rome. No senator defected to
Pyrrhus or Hannibal even when their final victory seemed imminent,
nor did Scipio Africanus' bitterness at the ingratitude of
the State cause him to take service with a foreign king.
The outbreak of civil war did not significantly change
this attitude, since both sides invariably claimed that they
were fighting to restore the true Republic. Use was often
made of non-Roman troops, but these were always presented
as auxiliaries or allies serving from their obligations to
Rome and never as independent powers intervening for their
own benefit. Yet the circumstances of Roman fighting Roman
did create many highly unorthodox careers, none more so than
that of Quintus Sertorius, who demonstrated a talent for leading
irregular forces and waging a type of guerrilla warfare against
conventional Roman armies. Exiled from Sulla's Rome, he won
his most famous victories and lived out the last years of
his life in Spain, but never deviated from the attitudes of
his class or thought of himself as anything other than a Roman
senator and general....
Julius Caesar who was born in 100 BC, of course invaded Rome
with a Roman army. I really am uncomfortable with the theme
in using Adrian Goldsworth on the end of the republic, likely
I am missing something and will read Goldworthy for a while
now.
The Roman political élite was not unique in its competitiveness
and desire to excel. The aristocracies of most Greek cities
– and indeed of the overwhelming majority of other communities
in the Mediterranean world – were just as eager to win personal
dominance and often unscrupulous in their methods of achieving
this. Roman senators were highly unusual in channelling their
ambitions within fairly narrow, and universally recognized,
boundaries. The internal disorder and revolution which plagued
the public lives of most city states were absent from Rome
until the last century of the Republic. Even then, during
civil wars of extreme savagery when the severed heads of fellow
citizens were displayed in the Forum, the Roman aristocracy
continued to place some limits on what means were acceptable
to overcome their rivals. A common figure in the history of
the ancient world is the aristocratic exile – the deposed
king or tyrant, or the general forced out when he was perceived
to be becoming too powerful – at the court of a foreign power,
usually a king. Such men readily accepted foreign troops to
go back and seize power by force in their homeland – as the
tyrant Pisistratus had done at Athens – or actively fought
against their own city on their new protector's behalf, like
Alcibiades.
Rome's entire history contains only a tiny handful of individuals
whose careers in any way followed this pattern. The fifth-century
BC, and semi-mythical, Caius Marcius Coriolanus probably comes
closest, for when banished from Rome he took service with
the hostile Volscians and led their army with great success.
In the story he came close to capturing Rome itself, and was
only stopped from completing his victory by the intervention
of his mother. The moral of the tale was quintessentially
Roman. However important it was for an individual to win fame
and add to his own and his family's reputation, this should
always be subordinated to the good of the Republic. The same
belief in the superiority of Rome that made senators by the
second century BC hold themselves the equals of any king ensured
that no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a
foreign power. Senators wanted success, but that success only
counted if it was achieved at Rome. No senator defected to
Pyrrhus or Hannibal even when their final victory seemed imminent,
nor did Scipio Africanus' bitterness at the ingratitude of
the State cause him to take service with a foreign king.
The outbreak of civil war did not significantly change this
attitude, since both sides invariably claimed that they were
fighting to restore the true Republic. Use was often made
of non-Roman troops, but these were always presented as auxiliaries
or allies serving from their obligations to Rome and never
as independent powers intervening for their own benefit. Yet
the circumstances of Roman fighting Roman did create many
highly unorthodox careers, none more so than that of Quintus
Sertorius, who demonstrated a talent for leading irregular
forces and waging a type of guerrilla warfare against conventional
Roman armies. Exiled from Sulla's Rome, he won his most famous
victories and lived out the last years of his life in Spain,
but never deviated from the attitudes of his class or thought
of himself as anything other than a Roman senator and general....
I grew up in Bakersfield, California. Most of my friends were
minorities, mexicans, phillipinos, blacks. But a lot were
white - and there's no other way to put it - racists. I played
pool with these guys, drank beer with em.
A lot of the racism
was just so casual I let it slide, though I'm very liberal.
We all figured it's just something you say over a beer, it
doesn't mean anything.
Well, maybe now that they run the government, maybe it
does. Maybe they just figure they got nothing left to lose.
And when you got nothing left to lose, you're one dangerous
fellow. And there's a bunch of em.
Lately I have been thinking about the famous story of Kurt
Gödel's citizenship hearing, when he said that he could prove
that the U.S. Constitution would allow for our government
to be converted to a dictatorship. (The most complete account
of this perhaps apocryphal story AFAIK is found here
http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com/ ). I wonder what
the most important logician of the 20th century had concluded,
and I worry that we may find out!
What is happening follows directly and inevitably from the
Citizens United decision. The Supreme Court failed in its
duty to be a bulwark of democracy.
However, that decision
wouldn't have gone the way it did unless the culture was already
fully compromised.
It's not so much that Clinton spent more than Trump. Seriously
Clinton lost because she had terrible negatives in the Rust
Belt and she didn't do jack diddly to shore that up.
Where
money comes in is that Clinton's ability to raise unlimited
amounts of money allowed her to squash the better candidate,
Sanders. Even though she lost a lot of campaign operatives
made a lot more than they would have if they backed Sanders.
"... That seems to be the problem in most of our western democracies right now. Voters are able to diagnose the problems they themselves feel and suffer from; but are clueless as to the actual cause of those problems. So the first guy who comes around promising to provide solutions is given the go ahead, under the false assumption that it "cannot get any worse than it is now" - but it can get a lot worse! ..."
David Souter warned of a Trump-like
candidate in prescient remarks (in 2012)
Steve Benen - October
2016 - Maddow Blog
Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter has maintained
a very low public profile since retiring from the bench nearly
eight years ago, but Rachel highlighted a 2012 appearance
Souter made in New Hampshire, and his remarks on "civic ignorance"
are striking in their foresight.
"I don't worry about our losing republican government in
the United States because I'm afraid of a foreign invasion.
I don't worry about it because I think there is going to be
a coup by the military as has happened in some of other places.
What I worry about is that when problems are not addressed,
people will not know who is responsible. And when the problems
get bad enough, as they might do, for example, with another
serious terrorist attack, as they might do with another financial
meltdown, some one person will come forward and say, 'Give
me total power and I will solve this problem.'
"That is how the Roman republic fell. Augustus became emperor,
not because he arrested the Roman Senate. He became emperor
because he promised that he would solve problems that were
not being solved.
"If we know who is responsible, I have enough faith in
the American people to demand performance from those responsible.
If we don't know, we will stay away from the polls. We will
not demand it. And the day will come when somebody will come
forward and we and the government will in effect say, 'Take
the ball and run with it. Do what you have to do.'
"That is the way democracy dies. And if something is not
done to improve the level of civic knowledge, that is what
you should worry about at night."
Souter couldn't have known about Donald Trump's rise in
Republican politics, but that only makes his fears in 2012
that much more prophetic. ...
That seems to be the problem in most of our western democracies
right now. Voters are able to diagnose the problems they themselves
feel and suffer from; but are clueless as to the actual cause
of those problems. So the first guy who comes around promising
to provide solutions is given the go ahead, under the false
assumption that it "cannot get any worse than it is now" -
but it can get a lot worse!
I hope you are correct, but if Trump decides to defy the Congress
or the Courts, with 40% of the populace ready to do whatever
he says, who do you think is going to stand up to him? Mitch
McConnell? Paul Ryan? Clarence Thomas? Samuel Alito?
If PK's concern is right -- and I think it is -- Trump is
going to crack down on dissent. In this he will be aided and
abetted by his Nuremburg rallies.
We will still have elections
in 2018 and 2020. But will they be fair or banana-republic
facsimiles? North Carolina has already crossed the line in
my opinion.
The comment you made and reminder for me that the
Chinese leadership has long been largely educated as engineers
was especially important in my understanding the IMF warning
of dangerous credit growth in China. Economic planners are
of course aware of the warning and a just established goal
in 2017 is to limit the extension of credit though keeping
general economic growth at 6.5%.
PGL was equally helpful.
I now have the solution, which I can depict in graphs.
[...the seeming lack of concern about corporate debt suggests
the level is not considered a problem. Why though?]
Easy answer: China's leaders are technocrats not finance
people like in the US. Meaning they think that a factory is
an asset, the bonds used to pay for it is just a weak obligation
on paper. In the US it's the opposite.
I think most people commenting on the Trump phenomena are
treating as though it sprang whole cloth out of the either.
I think Trump is the natural conclusion of two things the
GOP accepted as its own. The modern management style of tell
your employees anything and it will happen, no need to be
a good manager and know what you're talking about just act
as though you know everything. Next the original sin(not my
coin) of the GOP supply side economics. Now this brings into
power R. Reagan. Who said famously, the scariest thing to
hear is, "I am from the Federal Government, and I am here
to help you!" This caused down through the years an ongoing
disdain for anything coming from Washington, no expert was
to be trusted, the other side was not to be trusted, etc.
This was for one reason, to make rich people feel good about
all the money that was going up stream into their pockets
instead of anyone who works for a living.
After about forty years of this is it any wonder that half
the people don't vote? Or that half of the half see a rich
guy and think he can do it look at all the money he made?
It is a very sad state of affairs, but it is what you get
when most of society is in love with the all mighty dollar
and not actual substance in their lives.
First of all, let me emphasize that I want to be polite about
this. But I think the concern is valid. The country will exist.
Elections will be held. But they are also held in Russia and
Turkey. If those in power crack down on the opposition, and
crack down on dissent, and the ruling party controls the election
apparatus, then the elections do not make the country a Republic.
The question is, why do you think Trump will refrain -- or
be restrained -- from doing any of those things? His rallies
have already appeared to condone violence. He has already
suggested an embrace of "second amendment remedies. He called
for his opponent to be locked up. He has suggested that he
personally will start prosecutions. He has said he wants libel
laws broadened. He has called for judges who rule against
him to be investigated. Really, he has telegraphed that he
wants to cross the Rubicon in just about every way he can.
Why shouldn't we take that seriously?
Well for one he has said a lot of stupid things that he's
already backed up on, from making the wall just a fence to
keeping parts of Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.
Second, a President
can't do whatever he wants. Lots of Republicans didn't want
him there in the first place, they won't let him just violate
the constitution and ruin the party when they have control
of house, senate, states, etc.
I can believe he'll be the worst president yet, I have
trouble seeing how we'll become Turkey, which has a history
many coups, or Russia, which is practically a failed state.
I guess we will just have to leave it at that, because when
Trump has his base (which is the GOP base) frothing at the
mouth, I simply do not see Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Clarence
Thomas, and Samueal Alito suddenly auditioning for Profiles
in Courage.
I pray that Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg
have the best healthcare on earth.
Something about whistling and graveyards is coming to mind
here. Do you think that a weasel like Ryan or an addled old
man like McCain can hold him back? McConnell? The Republicans
long ago gave up any trappings of rationality or reason. They
long ago gave up anything smacking of conscious or thoughtfulness.
They long ago stopped treating policy as something to be determined
by what works best for the most people. For decades the Republican
Party has been an insurgent party that has been seeking to
prevent positive change in the world. The elected leaders
despise government. They are against programs that actually
help people. They nakedly stole $12B in Iraq that we know
of. Pretending this is normal only helps to hasten the demise.
While I think this will likely be worse than anything we have
seen before, but I do not think this will be the end of democracy.
It may be in rather ragged shape by then, however.
draconian voter suppression is not a figment of krugman's
imagination. nor is the north carolina legislative coup. i
think the usa may very well transitionin into an authoritarian
political system.
"Why is this happening? ... And let's be clear: This is a
Republican story, not a case of "both sides do it.""
No
it's also a story about Democrats and center-left parties
the world over.
The callous elites of the center are not presenting a good
alternative to the demagogues on the right.
(So voters are unenthusiastic or they don't bother to vote
or organize. They're apathetic.)
You can see it here in comments. You can see it with Krugman
who absolves the center-left of any blame.
Bernie Sanders and his supporters issued a warning.
But Krugman assured us Hillary was a great candidate who
would easily win.
If the Democrats keep behaving like Krugman and EMichael
with their heads in the sand, then they'll lose in 2018 and
2020.
EMichael quotes Mike Singletary when Singletary would have
nothing but contempt for the EMichaels who are always crying
about the media/referees and blaming their loss on meddling
from the Russians.
I've seen NO post-mortem from the center-left Democrats.
Only excuses.
In a normal world, we would know - due to exit polling - that
something was amiss. In fact, the large skew from the results
and exit polling would be considered by our own election watchers
in the 3rd world to be indicative of shenanigans. But we can't
say that. And apparently the reason we can't is due to people
like you being on the same page with the Republican kleptocrats.
Your level of dishonesty is appalling. Calling Krugman a centrist?
That defies reason. Saying that there is a center-left? Absurd.
It doesn't exist. The Pete Peterson's of the world are Center
Right. Do you think that being just plain liberal is center
left? Anyone who questions anything that Amy Goodman or Thom
Hartman says is a centrist (and for the record, while I like
Thom and Amy very much - they occasionally fall for utter
BS because of tribalism). Also - reasons =/= excuses.
I would say a rare
but of brilliant honesty here. But I should add EVERY one
here knows PeterK lies 24/7. It is his day job. Don't get
him fired now as this winter is cold.
additional losses in 2018 are inevitable and voter suppression
and gerrymandering will likely result in even larger losses
in 2020. i also think constitutional amendments that make
the usa a de facto one party state are conceivable.
Bernie Sanders and his primary campaign made me hopeful.
"Initially considered a long shot, Sanders won 23 primaries
and caucuses and approximately 43% of pledged delegates to
Clinton's 55%. His campaign was noted for the enthusiasm of
its supporters, as well as his rejection of large donations
from corporations, the financial industry, and any associated
Super PAC. The campaign instead relied on a record-breaking
number of small, individual contributions."
If the Democrats continue to flail helplessly, energy will
continue to build on the left.
sanders is on his way to retirement and warren is hardly
an inspiring candidate. i personally see little evidence of
energy from the center-left (e.g. the congressional progressive
caucus). if anything, sanders and warren appear to be supporting
more triangulation (e.g. neoliberals like ellision and gabbard).
Adrian Goldsworthy's "In the Name of Rome" says: *
"However important it was for an individual to win fame
and add to his own and his family's reputation, this should
always be subordinated to the good of the Republic. The same
belief in the superiority of Rome that made senators by the
second century BC hold themselves the equals of any king ensured
that no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a
foreign power."
The Roman political élite was not unique in its competitiveness
and desire to excel. The aristocracies of most Greek cities
– and indeed of the overwhelming majority of other communities
in the Mediterranean world – were just as eager to win personal
dominance and often unscrupulous in their methods of achieving
this. Roman senators were highly unusual in channelling their
ambitions within fairly narrow, and universally recognized,
boundaries. The internal disorder and revolution which plagued
the public lives of most city states were absent from Rome
until the last century of the Republic. Even then, during
civil wars of extreme savagery when the severed heads of fellow
citizens were displayed in the Forum, the Roman aristocracy
continued to place some limits on what means were acceptable
to overcome their rivals. A common figure in the history of
the ancient world is the aristocratic exile – the deposed
king or tyrant, or the general forced out when he was perceived
to be becoming too powerful – at the court of a foreign power,
usually a king. Such men readily accepted foreign troops to
go back and seize power by force in their homeland – as the
tyrant Pisistratus had done at Athens – or actively fought
against their own city on their new protector's behalf, like
Alcibiades.
Rome's entire history contains only a tiny handful of individuals
whose careers in any way followed this pattern. The fifth-century
BC, and semi-mythical, Caius Marcius Coriolanus probably comes
closest, for when banished from Rome he took service with
the hostile Volscians and led their army with great success.
In the story he came close to capturing Rome itself, and was
only stopped from completing his victory by the intervention
of his mother. The moral of the tale was quintessentially
Roman. However important it was for an individual to win fame
and add to his own and his family's reputation, this should
always be subordinated to the good of the Republic. The same
belief in the superiority of Rome that made senators by the
second century BC hold themselves the equals of any king ensured
that no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a
foreign power. Senators wanted success, but that success only
counted if it was achieved at Rome. No senator defected to
Pyrrhus or Hannibal even when their final victory seemed imminent,
nor did Scipio Africanus' bitterness at the ingratitude of
the State cause him to take service with a foreign king.
The outbreak of civil war did not significantly change
this attitude, since both sides invariably claimed that they
were fighting to restore the true Republic. Use was often
made of non-Roman troops, but these were always presented
as auxiliaries or allies serving from their obligations to
Rome and never as independent powers intervening for their
own benefit. Yet the circumstances of Roman fighting Roman
did create many highly unorthodox careers, none more so than
that of Quintus Sertorius, who demonstrated a talent for leading
irregular forces and waging a type of guerrilla warfare against
conventional Roman armies. Exiled from Sulla's Rome, he won
his most famous victories and lived out the last years of
his life in Spain, but never deviated from the attitudes of
his class or thought of himself as anything other than a Roman
senator and general....
Julius Caesar who was born in 100 BC, of course invaded Rome
with a Roman army. I really am uncomfortable with the theme
in using Adrian Goldsworth on the end of the republic, likely
I am missing something and will read Goldworthy for a while
now.
The Roman political élite was not unique in its competitiveness
and desire to excel. The aristocracies of most Greek cities
– and indeed of the overwhelming majority of other communities
in the Mediterranean world – were just as eager to win personal
dominance and often unscrupulous in their methods of achieving
this. Roman senators were highly unusual in channelling their
ambitions within fairly narrow, and universally recognized,
boundaries. The internal disorder and revolution which plagued
the public lives of most city states were absent from Rome
until the last century of the Republic. Even then, during
civil wars of extreme savagery when the severed heads of fellow
citizens were displayed in the Forum, the Roman aristocracy
continued to place some limits on what means were acceptable
to overcome their rivals. A common figure in the history of
the ancient world is the aristocratic exile – the deposed
king or tyrant, or the general forced out when he was perceived
to be becoming too powerful – at the court of a foreign power,
usually a king. Such men readily accepted foreign troops to
go back and seize power by force in their homeland – as the
tyrant Pisistratus had done at Athens – or actively fought
against their own city on their new protector's behalf, like
Alcibiades.
Rome's entire history contains only a tiny handful of individuals
whose careers in any way followed this pattern. The fifth-century
BC, and semi-mythical, Caius Marcius Coriolanus probably comes
closest, for when banished from Rome he took service with
the hostile Volscians and led their army with great success.
In the story he came close to capturing Rome itself, and was
only stopped from completing his victory by the intervention
of his mother. The moral of the tale was quintessentially
Roman. However important it was for an individual to win fame
and add to his own and his family's reputation, this should
always be subordinated to the good of the Republic. The same
belief in the superiority of Rome that made senators by the
second century BC hold themselves the equals of any king ensured
that no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a
foreign power. Senators wanted success, but that success only
counted if it was achieved at Rome. No senator defected to
Pyrrhus or Hannibal even when their final victory seemed imminent,
nor did Scipio Africanus' bitterness at the ingratitude of
the State cause him to take service with a foreign king.
The outbreak of civil war did not significantly change this
attitude, since both sides invariably claimed that they were
fighting to restore the true Republic. Use was often made
of non-Roman troops, but these were always presented as auxiliaries
or allies serving from their obligations to Rome and never
as independent powers intervening for their own benefit. Yet
the circumstances of Roman fighting Roman did create many
highly unorthodox careers, none more so than that of Quintus
Sertorius, who demonstrated a talent for leading irregular
forces and waging a type of guerrilla warfare against conventional
Roman armies. Exiled from Sulla's Rome, he won his most famous
victories and lived out the last years of his life in Spain,
but never deviated from the attitudes of his class or thought
of himself as anything other than a Roman senator and general....
I grew up in Bakersfield, California. Most of my friends were
minorities, mexicans, phillipinos, blacks. But a lot were
white - and there's no other way to put it - racists. I played
pool with these guys, drank beer with em.
A lot of the racism
was just so casual I let it slide, though I'm very liberal.
We all figured it's just something you say over a beer, it
doesn't mean anything.
Well, maybe now that they run the government, maybe it
does. Maybe they just figure they got nothing left to lose.
And when you got nothing left to lose, you're one dangerous
fellow. And there's a bunch of em.
Lately I have been thinking about the famous story of Kurt
Gödel's citizenship hearing, when he said that he could prove
that the U.S. Constitution would allow for our government
to be converted to a dictatorship. (The most complete account
of this perhaps apocryphal story AFAIK is found here
http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com/ ). I wonder what
the most important logician of the 20th century had concluded,
and I worry that we may find out!
What is happening follows directly and inevitably from the
Citizens United decision. The Supreme Court failed in its
duty to be a bulwark of democracy.
However, that decision
wouldn't have gone the way it did unless the culture was already
fully compromised.
It's not so much that Clinton spent more than Trump. Seriously
Clinton lost because she had terrible negatives in the Rust
Belt and she didn't do jack diddly to shore that up.
Where
money comes in is that Clinton's ability to raise unlimited
amounts of money allowed her to squash the better candidate,
Sanders. Even though she lost a lot of campaign operatives
made a lot more than they would have if they backed Sanders.
"... The essence of voting the lesser of two evils: "To comfortable centrists like pgl, the Democrats should be graded on a curve. As long as they're better than the awful Republicans, then they're good enough and beyond criticism." ..."
"... These Wall Street Democrats can rest assured that Democrats will surely get their turn in power in 4-8 years...after Trump thoroughly screws things up. And then Democrats will proceed to screw things up themselves...as we learned from Obama and Hillary's love of austerity and total disinterest in the economic welfare of the vast majority. ..."
"... In case you didn't notice, Democrats did nothing about the minimum wage 2009-2010. ..."
"... Many Democratic candidates won't even endorse minimum wage increase in states where increases win via initiative. They preferred to lose elections to standing up for minimum wage increases. ..."
Peter K.... The essence of voting the lesser of two evils: "To comfortable centrists like pgl,
the Democrats should be graded on a curve. As long as they're better than the awful Republicans,
then they're good enough and beyond criticism."
These Wall Street Democrats can rest assured that Democrats will surely get their turn in power
in 4-8 years...after Trump thoroughly screws things up. And then Democrats will proceed to screw
things up themselves...as we learned from Obama and Hillary's love of austerity and total disinterest
in the economic welfare of the vast majority.
To pgl and his ilk, Obama was great as long as he said the right things...regardless of what
he actually did. Hillary didn't even have to say the right things...she only had to be a Wall
Street Democrat for pgl to be enthusiastic about her.
In case you didn't notice, Democrats did nothing about the minimum wage 2009-2010.
At a minimum,
they could have taken their dominance then to enact increases for 2010-2016 or to index increases
to inflation. Instead, Pelosi, Reid and Obama preferred to do nothing.
Many Democratic candidates won't even endorse minimum wage increase in states where increases
win via initiative. They preferred to lose elections to standing up for minimum wage increases.
"... Shorter Paul Krugman: nobody acted more irresponsibly in the last election than the New York Times. ..."
"... Looks like Putin recruited the NYT, the FBI and the DNC. ..."
"... Dr. Krugman is feeding this "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. He comes across as increasingly shrill and even unhinged - it's a slide he's been taking for years IMO, which is a big shame. ..."
"... It is downright irresponsible and dangerous for a major public intellectual with so little information to cast the shadow of legitimacy on a president ("And it means not acting as if this was a normal election whose result gives the winner any kind of a mandate, or indeed any legitimacy beyond the bare legal requirements.") This kind of behavior is EXACTLY what TRUMP and other authoritarians exhibit - using pieces of information to discredit institutions and individuals. Since foreign governments have and will continue to try to influence U.S. policy through increasingly sophisticated means, this opens the door for anyone to declare our elections and policies as illegitimate in the future. ..."
"... Any influence Russian hacking had was entirely a consequence of U.S. media obsession with celebrity, gotcha and horse race trivia and two-party red state/blue state tribalism. ..."
"... Without the preceding, neither Trump nor Clinton would have been contenders in the first place. Putin didn't invent super delegates, Citizens United, Fox News, talk radio, Goldman-Sachs, etc. etc. etc. If Putin exploited vulnerabilities, it is because preserving those vulnerabilities was more important to the elites than fostering a democratic political culture. ..."
"... It's not a "coup". It's an election result that didn't go the way a lot of people want. That's it. It's probably not optimal, but I'm pretty sure that democracy isn't supposed to produce optimal results. ..."
"... All this talk about "coups" and "illegitimacy" is nuts, and -- true to Dem practice -- incredibly short-sighted. For many, voting for Trump was an available way to say to those people, "We don't believe you any more. At all." Seen in that light, it is a profoundly democratic (small 'd') response to elites that have most consistently served only themselves. ..."
"... Post Truth is Pre-Fascism. The party that thinks your loyalty is suspect unless you wear a flag pin fuels itself on Post Truth. Isnt't this absurdity the gist of Obama's Russia comments today!?! ..."
"... Unless the Russians or someone else hacked the ballot box machines, it is our own damn fault. ..."
"... The ship of neo-liberal trade sailed in the mid-2000's. That you don't get that is sad. You can only milk that so far the cow had been milked. ..."
"... The people of the United States did not have much to choose between: Either a servant of the Plutocrats or a member of the Plutocratic class. The Dems brought this on us when they refused to play fair with Bernie. (Hillary would almost certainly have won the nomination anyway.) ..."
"... The Repubs brought this on, by refusing to govern. The media brought this on: I seem to remember Hillary's misfeasances, once nominated, festering in the media, while Trump's were mentioned, and then disappeared. (Correct me if I'm wrong in this.) Also, the media downplayed Bernie until he had no real chance. ..."
"... The government brought this on, by failing to pursue justice against the bankers, and failing to represent the people, especially the majority who have been screwed by trade and the plutocratic elite and their apologists. ..."
"... The educational system brought this on, by failing to educate the people to critical thought. For instance: 1) The wealthy run the country. 2) The wealthy have been doing very well. 3) Everybody else has not. It seems most people cannot draw the obvious conclusion. ..."
"... Krugman is himself one of those most useful idiots. I do not recall his clarion call to Democrats last spring that "FBI investigation" and "party Presidential nominee" was bound to be an ugly combination. Some did; right here as I recall. Or his part in the official "don't vote for third party" week in the Clinton media machine....thanks, hundreds of thousands of Trump votes got the message. ..."
"... It's too rich to complain about Russia and Wikileaks as if those elements in anyway justified Clinton becoming President. Leaks mess with our democracy? Then for darn sure do not vote for a former Sec. of State willing to use a home server for her official business. Russia is menacing? Just who has been managing US-Russia relations the past 8 years? I voted for her anyway, but the heck if I think some tragic fate has befell the nation here. Republicans picked a better candidate to win this thing than we Democrats did. ..."
"... The truth of the matter is that Clinton was a very weak candidate with nothing to offer but narcissism ("I'm with her"). It's notable that Clinton has still not accepted responsibility for her campaign, preferring to throw the blame for the loss anywhere but herself. Sociopathy much? ..."
[ I find it terrifying, simply terrifying, to refer to people as "useful idiots" after all
the personal destruction that has followed when the expression was specifically used in the past.
To me, using such an expression is an honored economist intent on becoming Joseph McCarthy.
]
To demean a person as though the person were a communist or a fool of communists or the like,
with all the personal harm that has historically brought in this country, is cruel beyond my understanding
or imagining.
Well, not really. For example he referred to "the close relationship between Wikileaks and Russian
intelligence." But Wikileaks is a channel. They don't seek out material. They rely on people to
bring material to them. They supposedly make an effort to verify that the material is not a forgery,
but aside from that what they release is what people bring to them. Incidentally, like so many
people you seem to not care whether the material is accurate or not -- Podesta and the DNC have
not claimed that any of the emails are different from what they sent.
ZURICH - If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine's new democratic experiment and
unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every pro-Western country around Russia will be
in danger....
Yup, like the other elections, the bases stayed solvent and current events factored into the turnout
and voting patterns which spurred the independent vote.
When people were claiming Clinton was going to win big, I thought no Republican and Democratic
voters are going to pull the lever like a trained monkey as usual. Only difference in this election
was Hillary's huge negatives due entirely by her and Bill Clinton's support for moving manufacturing
jobs to Mexico and China in the 90s.
To Understand Trump, Learn Russian http://nyti.ms/2hLcrB1
NYT - Andrew Rosenthal - December 15
The Russian language has two words for truth - a linguistic quirk that seems relevant to our
current political climate, especially because of all the disturbing ties between the newly elected
president and the Kremlin.
The word for truth in Russian that most Americans know is "pravda" - the truth that seems evident
on the surface. It's subjective and infinitely malleable, which is why the Soviet Communists called
their party newspaper "Pravda." Despots, autocrats and other cynical politicians are adept at
manipulating pravda to their own ends.
But the real truth, the underlying, cosmic, unshakable truth of things is called "istina" in
Russian. You can fiddle with the pravda all you want, but you can't change the istina.
For the Trump team, the pravda of the 2016 election is that not all Trump voters are explicitly
racist. But the istina of the 2016 campaign is that Trump's base was heavily dependent on racists
and xenophobes, Trump basked in and stoked their anger and hatred, and all those who voted for
him cast a ballot for a man they knew to be a racist, sexist xenophobe. That was an act of racism.
Trump's team took to Twitter with lightning speed recently to sneer at the conclusion by all
17 intelligence agencies that the Kremlin hacked Democratic Party emails for the specific purpose
of helping Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton. Trump said the intelligence agencies got it wrong
about Iraq, and that someone else could have been responsible for the hack and that the Democrats
were just finding another excuse for losing.
The istina of this mess is that powerful evidence suggests that the Russians set out to interfere
in American politics, and that Trump, with his rejection of Western European alliances and embrace
of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, was their chosen candidate.
The pravda of Trump's selection of Rex Tillerson, head of Exxon Mobil, as secretary of state
is that by choosing an oil baron who has made billions for his company by collaborating with Russia,
Trump will make American foreign policy beholden to American corporate interests.
That's bad enough, but the istina is far worse. For one thing, American foreign policy has
been in thrall to American corporate interests since, well, since there were American corporations.
Just look at the mess this country created in Latin America, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia and
the Middle East to serve American companies.
Yes, Tillerson has ignored American interests repeatedly, including in Russia and Iraq, and
has been trying to remove sanctions imposed after Russia's seizure of Crimea because they interfered
with one of his many business deals. But take him out of the equation in the Trump cabinet and
nothing changes. Trump has made it plain, with every action he takes, that he is going to put
every facet of policy, domestic and foreign, at the service of corporate America. The istina here
is that Tillerson is just a symptom of a much bigger problem.
The pravda is that Trump was right in saying that the intelligence agencies got it wrong about
Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction.
But the istina is that Trump's contempt for the intelligence services is profound and dangerous.
He's not getting daily intelligence briefings anymore, apparently because they are just too dull
to hold his attention.
And now we know that Condoleezza Rice was instrumental in bringing Tillerson to Trump's attention.
As national security adviser and then secretary of state for president George W. Bush, Rice was
not just wrong about Iraq, she helped fabricate the story that Hussein had nuclear weapons.
Trump and Tillerson clearly think they are a match for the wily and infinitely dangerous Putin,
but as they move foward with their plan to collaborate with Russia instead of opposing its imperialist
tendencies, they might keep in mind another Russian saying, this one from Lenin.
"There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience," he wrote. "A scoundrel may be
of use to us just because he is a scoundrel."
Putin has that philosophy hard-wired into his political soul. When it comes to using scoundrels
to get what he wants, he is a professional, and Trump is only an amateur. That is the istina of
the matter.
If nothing else, Russia - with a notably un-free press - has shrewdly used our own 'free press'
against US.
RUSSIA'S UNFREE PRESS
The Boston Globe - Marshall Goldman - January 29, 2001
AS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DEBATES ITS POLICY TOWARD RUSSIA, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS SHOULD BE
ONE OF ITS MAJOR CONCERNS. UNDER PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN THE PRESS IS FREE ONLY AS LONG AS IT
DOES NOT CRITICIZE PUTIN OR HIS POLICIES. WHEN NTV, THE TELEVISION NETWORK OF THE MEDIA GIANT
MEDIA MOST, REFUSED TO PULL ITS PUNCHES, MEDIA MOST'S OWNER, VLADIMIR GUSINSKY, FOUND HIMSELF
IN JAIL, AND GAZPROM, A COMPANY DOMINATED BY THE STATE, BEGAN TO CALL IN LOANS TO MEDIA MOST.
Unfortunately, Putin's actions are applauded by more than 70 percent of the Russian people. They
crave a strong and forceful leader; his KGB past and conditioned KGB responses are just what they
seem to want after what many regard as the social, political, and economic chaos of the last decade.
But what to the Russians is law and order (the "dictatorship of the law," as Putin has so accurately
put it) looks more and more like an old Soviet clampdown to many Western observers.
There is no complaint about Putin's promises. He tells everyone he wants freedom of the press.
But in the context of his KGB heritage, his notion of freedom of the press is something very different.
In an interview with the Toronto Globe and Mail, he said that that press freedom excludes the
"hooliganism" or "uncivilized" reporting he has to deal with in Moscow. By that he means criticism,
especially of his conduct of the war in Chechnya, his belated response to the sinking of the Kursk,
and the heavy-handed way in which he has pushed aside candidates for governor in regional elections
if they are not to Putin's liking.
He does not take well to criticism. When asked by the relatives of those lost in the Kursk
why he seemed so unresponsive, Putin tried to shift the blame for the disaster onto the media
barons, or at least those who had criticized him. They were the ones, he insisted, who had pressed
for reduced funding for the Navy while they were building villas in Spain and France. As for their
criticism of his behavior, They lie! They lie! They lie!
Our Western press has provided good coverage of the dogged way Putin and his aides have tried
to muscle Gusinsky out of the Media Most press conglomerate he created. But those on the Putin
enemies list now include even Boris Berezovsky, originally one of Putin's most enthusiastic promoters
who after the sinking of the Kursk also became a critic and thus an opponent.
Gusinsky would have a hard time winning a merit badge for trustworthiness (Berezovsky shouldn't
even apply), but in the late Yeltsin and Putin years, Gusinsky has earned enormous credit for
his consistently objective news coverage, including a spotlight on malfeasance at the very top.
More than that, he has supported his programmers when they have subjected Yeltsin and now Putin
to bitter satire on Kukly, his Sunday evening prime-time puppet show.
What we hear less of, though, is what is happening to individual reporters, especially those
engaged in investigative work. Almost monthly now there are cases of violence and intimidation.
Among those brutalized since Putin assumed power are a reporter for Radio Liberty who dared to
write negative reports about the Russian Army's role in Chechnia and four reporters for Novaya
Gazeta. Two of them were investigating misdeeds by the FSB (today's equivalent of the KGB), including
the possibility that it rather than Chechins had blown up a series of apartment buildings. Another
was pursuing reports of money-laundering by Yeltsin family members and senior staff in Switzerland.
Although these journalists were very much in the public eye, they were all physically assaulted.
Those working for provincial papers labor under even more pressure with less visibility. There
are numerous instances where regional bosses such as the governor of Vladivostok operate as little
dictators, and as a growing number of journalists have discovered, challenges are met with threats,
physical intimidation, and, if need be, murder.
True, freedom of the press in Russia is still less than 15 years old, and not all the country's
journalists or their bosses have always used that freedom responsibly. During the 1996 election
campaign, for example, the media owners, including Gusinsky conspired to denigrate or ignore every
viable candidate other than Yeltsin. But attempts to muffle if not silence criticism have multiplied
since Putin and his fellow KGB veterans have come to power. Criticism from any source, be it an
individual journalist or a corporate entity, invites retaliation.
When Media Most persisted in its criticism, Putin sat by approvingly as his subordinates sent
in masked and armed tax police and prosecutors. When that didn't work, they jailed Gusinsky on
charges that were later dropped, although they are seeking to extradite and jail him again. along
with his treasurer, on a new set of charges. Yesterday the prosecutor general summoned Tatyana
Mitkova, the anchor of NTV's evening news program, for questioning. Putin's aides are also doing
all they can to prevent Gusinsky from refinancing his debt-ridden operation with Ted Turner or
anyone else in or outside of the country.
According to one report, Putin told one official, You deal with the shares, debts, and management
and I will deal with the journalists. His goal simply is to end to independent TV coverage in
Russia. ...
"Unfortunately, Putin's actions are applauded by more than 70 percent of the Russian people"
Exactly; the majority of people are so stupid and/or lazy that they cannot be bothered understanding
what is going on; and how their hard won democracy is being subjugated. But thank God that is
in Russia not here in the US - right?
"Pravda" is etymologically derived from "prav-" which means "right" (as opposed to "left", other
connotations are "proper", "correct", "rightful", also legal right). It designates the social-construct
aspect of "righteousness/truthfulness/correctness" as opposed to "objective reality" (conceptually
independent of social standards, in reality anything but). In formal logic, "istina" is used to
designate truth. Logical falsity is designated a "lie".
It is a feature common to most European languages that rightfulness, righteousness, correctness,
and legal rights are identified with the designation for the right side. "Sinister" is Latin for
"left".
If you believe 911 was a Zionist conspiracy, so where the Paris attacks of November 2015, when
Trump was failing in the polls as the race was moving toward as you would expect, toward other
candidates. After the Paris attacks, his numbers reaccelerated.
If "ZOG" created the "false flag" of the Paris attacks to start a anti-Muslim fervor, they
succeeded, much like 911. Bastille day attacks were likewise, a false flag. This is not new, this
goes back to when the aristocracy merged with the merchant caste, creating the "bourgeois". They
have been running a parallel government in the shadows to effect what is seen.
There used to be something called Usenet News, where at the protocol level reader software could
fetch meta data (headers containing author, (stated) origin, title, etc.) independently from comment
bodies. This was largely owed to limited download bandwidth. Basically all readers had "kill files"
i.e. filters where one could configure that comments with certain header parameters should not
be downloaded, or even hidden.
The main application was that the reader would download comments in the background when headers
were already shown, or on demand when you open a comment.
Now you get the whole thing (or in units of 100) by the megabyte.
A major problem is signal extraction out of the massive amounts of noise generated by the media,
social media, parties, and pundits.
It's easy enough to highlight this thread of information here, but in real time people are
being bombarded by so many other stories.
In particular, the Clinton Foundation was also regularly being highlighted for its questionable
ties to foreign influence. And HRC's extravagant ties to Wall St. And so much more.
The media's job was to sell Trump and denounce Clinton. The mistake a lot of people make is thinking
the global elite are the "status quo". They are not. They are generally the ones that break the
status quo more often than not.
The bulk of them wanted Trump/Republican President and made damn sure it was President. Buffering
the campaign against criticism while overly focusing on Clinton's "crap". It took away from the
issues which of course would have low key'd the election.
Not much bullying has to be applied when there are "economic incentives". The media attention
economy and ratings system thrive on controversy and emotional engagement. This was known a century
ago as "only bad news is good news". As long as I have lived, the non-commercial media not subject
(or not as much) to these dynamics have always been perceived as dry and boring.
I heard from a number of people that they followed the campaign "coverage" (in particular Trump)
as gossip/entertainment, and those were people who had no sympathies for him. And even media coverage
by outlets generally critical of Trump's unbelievable scandals and outrageous performances catered
to this sentiment.
First, let me disclose that I detest TRUMP and that the Russian meddling has me deeply concerned.
Yet...
We only have assertions that the Russian hacking had some influence. We do not know whether
it likely had *material* influence that could have reasonably led to a swing state(s) going to
TRUMP that otherwise would have gone to HRC.
Dr. Krugman is feeding this "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. He comes across
as increasingly shrill and even unhinged - it's a slide he's been taking for years IMO, which
is a big shame.
It is downright irresponsible and dangerous for a major public intellectual with so little
information to cast the shadow of legitimacy on a president ("And it means not acting as if this
was a normal election whose result gives the winner any kind of a mandate, or indeed any legitimacy
beyond the bare legal requirements.") This kind of behavior is EXACTLY what TRUMP and other authoritarians
exhibit - using pieces of information to discredit institutions and individuals. Since foreign
governments have and will continue to try to influence U.S. policy through increasingly sophisticated
means, this opens the door for anyone to declare our elections and policies as illegitimate in
the future.
It is quite clear that the Russians intervened on Trump's behalf and that this intervention had
an impact. The problem is that we cannot actually quantify that impact.
"We only have assertions that the Russian hacking had some influence."
Any influence Russian hacking had was entirely a consequence of U.S. media obsession with
celebrity, gotcha and horse race trivia and two-party red state/blue state tribalism.
Without the preceding, neither Trump nor Clinton would have been contenders in the first
place. Putin didn't invent super delegates, Citizens United, Fox News, talk radio, Goldman-Sachs,
etc. etc. etc. If Putin exploited vulnerabilities, it is because preserving those vulnerabilities
was more important to the elites than fostering a democratic political culture.
But this is how influence is exerted - by using the dynamics of the adversary's/targets organization
as an amplifier. Hierarchical organizations are approached through their management or oversight
bodies, social networks through key influencers, etc.
I see this so much and it's so right wing cheap: I hate Trump, but assertions that Russia intervened
are unproven.
First, Trump openly invited Russia to hack DNC emails. That is on its face treason and sedition.
It's freaking on video. If HRC did that there would be calls of the right for her execution.
Second, a NYT story showed that the FBI knew about the hacking but did not alert the DNC properly
- they didn't even show up, they sent a note to a help desk.
This was a serious national security breach that was not addressed properly. This is criminal
negligence.
This was a hacked election by collusion of the FBI and the Russian hackers and it totally discredits
the FBI as it throwed out chum and then denied at the last minute. Now the CIA comes in and says
PUTIN, Trump's bff, was directly involved in manipulating the timetable that the hacked emails
were released in drip drip form to cater to the media - creating story after story about emails.
It was a perfect storm for a coup. Putin played us. And he will play Trump. And God knows how
it ends. But it doesn't matter b/c we're all screwed with climate change anyway.
"It was a perfect storm for a coup. Putin played us. And he will play Trump. And God knows how
it ends. But it doesn't matter b/c we're all screwed with climate change anyway."
It's not a "coup". It's an election result that didn't go the way a lot of people want.
That's it. It's probably not optimal, but I'm pretty sure that democracy isn't supposed to produce
optimal results.
All this talk about "coups" and "illegitimacy" is nuts, and -- true to Dem practice --
incredibly short-sighted. For many, voting for Trump was an available way to say to those people,
"We don't believe you any more. At all." Seen in that light, it is a profoundly democratic (small
'd') response to elites that have most consistently served only themselves.
Trump and his gang will be deeply grateful if the left follows Krugman's "wisdom", and clings
to his ever-changing excuses. (I thought it was the evil Greens who deprived Clinton of her due?)
Post Truth is Pre-Fascism. The party that thinks your loyalty is suspect unless you wear a
flag pin fuels itself on Post Truth. Isnt't this absurdity the gist of Obama's Russia comments
today!?!
"On Wednesday an editorial in The Times described Donald Trump as a "useful idiot" serving Russian
interests." I think that is beyond the pale. Yes, I realize that Adolph Hitler was democratically
elected. I agree that Trump seems like a scary monster under the bed. That doesn't mean we have
too pee our pants, Paul. He's a bully, tough guy, maybe, the kind of kid that tortured you before
you kicked the shit out of them with your brilliance. That's not what is needed now.
What really is needed, is a watchdog, like Dean Baker, that alerts we dolts of pending bills and
their ramifications. The ship of neo-liberal trade bullshit has sailed. Hell, you don't believe
it yourself, you've said as much. Be gracious, and tell the truth. We can handle it.
The experience of voting for the Hill was painful, vs Donald Trump.
The Hill seemed like the least likely aristocrat, given two choices, to finish off all government
focus on the folks that actually built this society. Two Titans of Hubris, Hillary vs Donald,
each ridiculous in the concept of representing the interests of the common man.
At the end of the day. the American people decided that the struggle with the unknown monster
Donald was worth deposing the great deplorable, Clinton.
The real argument is whether the correct plan of action is the way of FDR, or the way of the industrialists,
the Waltons, the Kochs, the Trumps, the Bushes and the outright cowards like the Cheneys and the
Clintons, people that never spent a day defending this country in combat. What do they call it,
the Commander in Chief.
My father was awarded a silver and a bronze star for his efforts in battle during WW2. He was
shot in the face while driving a tank destroyer by a German sniper in a place called Schmitten
Germany.
He told me once, that he looked over at the guy next to him on the plane to the hospital in
England, and his intestines were splayed on his chest. It was awful.
What was he fighting for ? Freedom, America. Then the Republicans, Ronald Reagan, who spent the
war stateside began the real war, garnering the wealth of the nation to the entitled like him.
Ronald Reagan was a life guard.
Anthony Weiner
Podesta
Biden (for not running)
Tim Kaine (for accepting the nomination instead of deferring to a latino)
CNN and other TV news media (for giving trump so much coverage- even an empty podium)
Donna Brazile
etc.
The people of the United States did not have much to choose between: Either a servant of the
Plutocrats or a member of the Plutocratic class. The Dems brought this on us when they refused
to play fair with Bernie. (Hillary would almost certainly have won the nomination anyway.)
The Repubs brought this on, by refusing to govern. The media brought this on: I seem to
remember Hillary's misfeasances, once nominated, festering in the media, while Trump's were mentioned,
and then disappeared. (Correct me if I'm wrong in this.) Also, the media downplayed Bernie until
he had no real chance.
The government brought this on, by failing to pursue justice against the bankers, and failing
to represent the people, especially the majority who have been screwed by trade and the plutocratic
elite and their apologists.
The educational system brought this on, by failing to educate the people to critical thought.
For instance: 1) The wealthy run the country. 2) The wealthy have been doing very well. 3) Everybody
else has not. It seems most people cannot draw the obvious conclusion.
The wealthy brought this on. For 230 years they have, essentially run this country. They are
too stupid to be satisfied with enough, but always want more.
The economics profession brought this on, by excusing treasonous behavior as efficient, and
failing to understand the underlying principles of their profession, and the limits of their understanding.
(They don't even know what money is, or how a trade deficit destroys productive capacity, and
thus the very ability of a nation to pay back the debts it incurs.)
The people brought this on, by neglecting their duty to be informed, to be educated, and to
be thoughtful.
Anybody else care for their share of blame? I myself deserve some, but for reasons I cannot
say.
What amazes me now is, the bird having shown its feathers, there is no howl of outrage from
the people who voted for him. Do they imagine that the Plutocrats who will soon monopolize the
White House will take their interests to heart?
As far as I can tell, not one person of 'the people' has been appointed to his cabinet. Not
one. But the oppressed masses who turned to Mr Trump seem to be OK with this.
I can only wonder, how much crap will have to be rubbed in their faces, before they awaken to
the taste of what it is?
Eric377 : , -1
Krugman is himself one of those most useful idiots. I do not recall his clarion call to Democrats
last spring that "FBI investigation" and "party Presidential nominee" was bound to be an ugly
combination. Some did; right here as I recall. Or his part in the official "don't vote for third
party" week in the Clinton media machine....thanks, hundreds of thousands of Trump votes got the
message.
It's too rich to complain about Russia and Wikileaks as if those elements in anyway justified
Clinton becoming President. Leaks mess with our democracy? Then for darn sure do not vote for
a former Sec. of State willing to use a home server for her official business. Russia is menacing?
Just who has been managing US-Russia relations the past 8 years? I voted for her anyway, but the
heck if I think some tragic fate has befell the nation here. Republicans picked a better candidate
to win this thing than we Democrats did.
The truth of the matter is that Clinton was a very weak candidate with nothing to offer
but narcissism ("I'm with her"). It's notable that Clinton has still not accepted responsibility
for her campaign, preferring to throw the blame for the loss anywhere but herself. Sociopathy
much?
This has made me cynical. I used to think that at least *some* members of the US political
elite had the best interests of ordinary households in mind, but now I see that it's just ego
vs. ego, whatever the party.
As for democracy being on the edge: I believe Adam Smith over Krugman: "there is a lot of ruin
in a nation". It takes more than this to overturn an entrenched institution.
I think American democracy will survive a decade of authoritarianism, and if it does not, then
H. L. Mencken said it best: "The American people know what they want, and they deserve to get
it -- good and hard."
As the Worm Turns!
For all those Amurican rubes out there who beleived that Homeland Security was protecting them
against foreign terrorists – ha hahahahahaha!
The election is over. I am left with two very contradictory feelings.
First is one of appreciation - every four years we peacefully replace our government.
I remember my parents in the late 1970s discussing Soviet politics at our house with
their close friend. Their friend said something anti-Soviet. I vividly recall the fear
in my mother's eyes when she realized I had overheard that part of the conversation.
Views that were contrary to "politics of the party" were not tolerated. If I repeated in
kindergarten what I had just heard, my teacher could report it to authorities and my
parents (not me) would get in trouble.
A six-year-old kid could have only heard this sort of anti-Soviet talk at home: TV,
radio, and newspapers were a pro-Soviet propaganda machine. My parents would not have
been sent to the gulag, but they could have lost their jobs. If this sounds farfetched,
my father's best friend, a colleague and professor at Murmansk Marine Academy, was fired
for possession of anti-Soviet propaganda - a copy of Solzhenitsyn's
Gulag
Archipelago
. It took him years to get another job, and it was almost two decades
later, when the Soviet Union fell apart, that he was finally able to get a decent
teaching job.
We in America tend to take our democratic elections for granted and underappreciate the
fact that we can openly express our views. But there is also the other, new feeling:
disgust. Yes, disgust. There is something deeply wrong with the U.S. election process.
Between the presidential candidates and the congressional races, billions of dollars
were spent (wasted) on the election. To spend that kind of money, first you have to
raise it. Politicians sell their souls and beliefs to whomever will give them the most
money.
And here is the sad truth: If you don't raise money, the other guy will, and then he can
outspend you. He can slaughter you, as his lies will be amplified louder through TV and
radio ads, and the victory will be his. As I am writing this, I am realizing that
allowing politicians to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns is not unlike
allowing steroids in sports - even the strongest athlete will lose to a weaker opponent
who is pumped on steroids.
Also, this election process will turn even a very honorable person into a liar or
half-truth teller, because it is impossible to express complex ideas in 30-second sound
bites. Even during the presidential debates, where candidates were allowed a few minutes
to make their case, every claim that each of them made had to be fact-checked the next
morning. We must be scratching an all-time low in politics when we feel the need to
fact-check the statements of the candidates running for the highest office in the land,
the president of the United States, the office that should be the moral compass for the
country. If we accept lies and half-truths from them as politics as usual, what do you
expect from just a mortal senator or a congressman?
The partisan politics of this country is simply insane. I observed both Republican and
Democrat friends, who are otherwise rational people whom I deeply respect, turning into
mindless robots when the conversation turned to politics. It seemed that their cognitive
abilities had been wiped and replaced by a party program as they mindlessly repeated
half-truths and lies propagated by the party mother ship, without any critical thinking
of their own. It was scary.
But there is a silver lining to U.S. politics. Call me a disillusioned optimist, but no
matter what the outcome of the election, this country has survived and will continue to
survive bad congressmen, bad senators, and even bad presidents.
Here is the irony of the above: I wrote that piece exactly four years ago about the
Obama/Romney election. I never thought that I was describing what, four years later,
we'd consider the good ol' days.
Thoughts on Trump's presidency:
If Hillary Clinton had been elected, her presidency would have provided a fairly narrow
band of outcomes - basically a continuation of the past eight years. (I'll let you, Dear
Reader, be the judge of whether that would have been good or bad.)
Potential outcomes for the Trump presidency fall in a much wider band. Probable outcomes
are relatively narrow for domestic policy and a mile wide for foreign policy.
We tend to think of the American president as a very powerful person. However, that is
only true when it comes to foreign policy, when the president acts as
commander-in-chief. Regarding domestic policy, the brilliance of the Constitution is
that it puts significant limits on what the president can do.
For instance, even though Republicans control the Congress, they lack the 60 votes to
break filibusters and invoke cloture. Thus, though Trump's party may diminish Obamacare,
they may not have the ability to repeal it altogether. In the case of domestic policy,
Trump is pretty much just another Republican president whose effectiveness will be
helped by Republican control of Congress - but at the same time may potentially be
restricted by the new president's own negotiating skills and his lack of political
experience.
When it comes to foreign policy and trade, the range of outcomes becomes incredibly
wide. First, we don't know who Trump the commander-in-chief really is. Is he Trump the
candidate, who would say brash and simply idiotic things - or the very calm,
presidential person who delivered a brilliant acceptance speech? Will he make the world
a safer or a more dangerous place?
I don't have an answer for that question. Just as with predictions for the outcome of
this election, it seems that no one does.
Vitaliy N. Katsenelson, CFA, is Chief Investment Officer at
Investment
Management Associates
in
Denver, Colo. He is the author of
Active
Value Investing
(Wiley)
and
The
Little Book of Sideways Markets
(Wiley).
Since recounts that overturn the vote totals seem unlikely, it appears the Clinton campaign's Plan B is to use any evidence
of tampering that it can pin on Russia to lobby electors to change their votes to Clinton when the Electoral College meets
in state capitals on Dec. 19.
Finding evidence of hacking of election computers that can somehow be blamed on Russia could be crucial for the Clinton
team in their effort to convince electors to change their vote.
Laurence Tribe, a well-known and connected Democratic lawyer, has offered to defend pro bono any elector who breaks the
law by changing their vote to Clinton. And there are plans to mount a constitutional challenge against the 26 states that legally
bind the electors' to their state's popular vote.
Jill Stein's willingness to provide cover for 'the Russians hacked the election' recounts is interesting ...
Exhibit A in Stein's petition is an affidavit from Professor J. Alex Halderman, a professor of computer science at the University
of Michigan, who alleges that Russia hacked the election.
Exhibit B from Stein's petition is an article from Wired Magazine about Russia's alleged role in the hack.
Exhibit C is a New York Times article quoting DellSecureWorks, a private security firm, saying Russia was behind the hack
of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Exhibits D through G - meaning all of Stein's exhibits - are on alleged Russian hacking. One article is about an alleged
attempted Russian hack of the 2014, post-coup Ukrainian election.
... although I think it unlikely that 'the Russians hacked the election' it does look likely that the authors of that 'meme' managed
to get Jill Stein to carry their water for them. Why did she do that? Did she even read the petition - that drew $7 million in
funding overnight - before signing it? What does it say about her if she didn't? What does it say about her if she did?
What does it say about her that she went for such a lose-lose proposition?
Can an actual run on the electoral college be in the works? Can that be the 'reasoning' behind Jeff Bezos' ProPornoTeam?
The quotes:
"
So the recent apparent rejection of the elites in both America and Britain is surely
aimed at me, as much as anyone. Whatever we might think about the decision by the
British electorate to reject membership of the European Union and by the American public
to embrace Donald Trump as their next president, there is no doubt in the minds of
commentators that this was a cry of anger by people who felt they had been abandoned by
their leaders.
"
"
What matters now, far more than the choices made by these two electorates, is how the
elites react. Should we, in turn, reject these votes as outpourings of crude populism
that fail to take account of the facts, and attempt to circumvent or circumscribe the
choices that they represent? I would argue that this would be a terrible mistake.
The concerns underlying these votes about the economic consequences of globalisation
and accelerating technological change are absolutely understandable. The automation of
factories has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing, and the rise of
artificial intelligence is likely to extend this job destruction deep into the middle
classes, with only the most caring, creative or supervisory roles remaining.
This in turn will accelerate the already widening economic inequality around the
world. The internet and the platforms that it makes possible allow very small groups of
individuals to make enormous profits while employing very few people. This is
inevitable, it is progress, but it is also socially destructive.
We need to put this alongside the financial crash, which brought home to people that
a very few individuals working in the financial sector can accrue huge rewards and that
the rest of us underwrite that success and pick up the bill when their greed leads us
astray. So taken together we are living in a world of widening, not diminishing,
financial inequality, in which many people can see not just their standard of living,
but their ability to earn a living at all, disappearing. It is no wonder then that they
are searching for a new deal, which Trump and Brexit might have appeared to represent.
"
"
For me, the really concerning aspect of this is that now, more than at any time in our
history, our species needs to work together. We face awesome environmental challenges:
climate change, food production, overpopulation, the decimation of other species,
epidemic disease, acidification of the oceans.
Together, they are a reminder that we are at the most dangerous moment in the
development of humanity. We now have the technology to destroy the planet on which we
live, but have not yet developed the ability to escape it. Perhaps in a few hundred
years, we will have established human colonies amid the stars, but right now we only
have one planet, and we need to work together to protect it.
To do that, we need to break down, not build up, barriers within and between nations.
If we are to stand a chance of doing that, the world's leaders need to acknowledge that
they have failed and are failing the many. With resources increasingly concentrated in
the hands of a few, we are going to have to learn to share far more than at present.
With not only jobs but entire industries disappearing, we must help people to retrain
for a new world and support them financially while they do so. If communities and
economies cannot cope with current levels of migration, we must do more to encourage
global development, as that is the only way that the migratory millions will be
persuaded to seek their future at home.
We can do this, I am an enormous optimist for my species; but it will require the
elites, from London to Harvard, from Cambridge to Hollywood, to learn the lessons of the
past year. To learn above all a measure of humility.
"
"... Existing "trade" agreements like NAFTA allow corporations to sue governments for passing laws and regulations that limit their profits. They set up special " corporate courts " in which corporate attorneys decide the cases. These corporate "super courts" sit above governments and their own court systems, and countries and their citizens cannot even appeal the rulings. ..."
"... Now, corporations are pushing two new "trade" agreements - one covering Pacific-are countries and one covering Atlantic-area countries - that expand these corporate rights and move governments out of their way. The Pacific agreement is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Atlantic one is called the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). ..."
"... International corporations that want to intimidate countries have access to a private legal system designed just for them. And to unlock its power, sometimes all it takes is a threat. ..."
"... ISDS is so tilted and unpredictable, and the fines the arbitrators can impose are so catastrophically large, that bowing to a company's demands, however extreme they may be, can look like the prudent choice. ..."
BuzzFeed is running a very important investigative series called
"Secrets
of a Global Super Court." It describes what they call "a parallel legal
universe, open only to corporations and largely invisible to everyone else."
Existing "trade" agreements like NAFTA allow corporations to sue governments
for passing laws and regulations that limit their profits. They set up special
"corporate
courts" in which corporate attorneys decide the cases. These corporate "super
courts" sit above governments and their own court systems, and countries
and their citizens cannot even appeal the rulings.
Picture a poor "banana republic" country ruled by a dictator and his
cronies. A company might want to invest in a factory or railroad - things
that would help the people of that country as well as deliver a return to
the company. But the company worries that the dictator might decide to just
seize the factory and give it to his brother-in-law. Agreements to protect
investors, and allowing a tribunal not based in such countries (courts where
the judges are cronies of the dictator), make sense in such situations.
Here's the thing: Corporate investors see themselves as legitimate "makers"
and see citizens and voters and their governments - always demanding taxes and
fair pay and public safety - to be illegitimate "takers." Corporations are all
about "one-dollar-one-vote" top-down systems of governance. They consider "one-person-one-vote"
democracy to be an illegitimate, non-functional system that meddles with their
more-important profit interests. They consider any governmental legal or regulatory
system to be "burdensome." They consider taxes as "theft" of the money they
have "earned."
To them, any government anywhere is just another "banana republic"
from which they need special protection.
"Trade" Deals Bypass Borders
Investors and their corporations have set up a way to get around the borders
of these meddling governments, called "trade" deals. The trade deals elevate
global corporate interests above any national interest. When a country signs
a "trade" deal, that country is agreeing not to do things that protect the country's
own national interest - like impose tariffs to protect key industries or national
strategies, or pass laws and regulations - when those things interfere with
the larger, more important global corporate "trade" interests.
Now, corporations are pushing two new "trade" agreements - one covering
Pacific-are countries and one covering Atlantic-area countries - that expand
these corporate rights and move governments out of their way. The Pacific agreement
is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Atlantic one is called
the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
Secrets of a Global Super Court
BuzzFeed's series on these corporate courts,
"Secrets
of a Global Super Court," explains the investor-state dispute settlement
(ISDS) provisions in the "trade" deals that have come to dominate the world
economy. These provisions set up "corporate
courts" that place corporate profits above the interests of governments
and set up a court system that sits above the court systems of the countries
in the "trade" deals.
In a little-noticed 2014 dissent, US Chief Justice John Roberts warned
that ISDS arbitration panels hold the alarming power to review a nation's
laws and "effectively annul the authoritative acts of its legislature, executive,
and judiciary." ISDS arbitrators, he continued, "can meet literally anywhere
in the world" and "sit in judgment" on a nation's "sovereign acts."
[. . .]
Reviewing publicly available information for about 300 claims filed during
the past five years, BuzzFeed News found more than 35 cases in which the
company or executive seeking protection in ISDS was accused of criminal
activity, including money laundering, embezzlement, stock manipulation,
bribery, war profiteering, and fraud.
Among them: a bank in Cyprus that the US government accused of
financing terrorism and organized crime, an oil company executive accused
of embezzling millions from the impoverished African nation of Burundi,
and the Russian oligarch known as "the
Kremlin's banker."
One lawyer who regularly represents governments said he's seen evidence
of corporate criminality that he "couldn't believe." Speaking on the condition
that he not be named because he's currently handling ISDS cases, he said,
"You have a lot of scuzzy sort-of thieves for whom this is a way to hit
the jackpot."
Part Two,
"The Billion-Dollar Ultimatum," looks at how "International corporations
that want to intimidate countries have access to a private legal system designed
just for them. And to unlock its power, sometimes all it takes is a threat."
Of all the ways in which ISDS is used, the most deeply hidden are the
threats, uttered in private meetings or ominous letters, that invoke those
courts. The threats are so powerful they often eliminate the need to actually
bring a lawsuit. Just the knowledge that it could happen is enough.
[. . .] ISDS is so tilted and unpredictable, and the fines the arbitrators
can impose are so catastrophically large, that bowing to a company's demands,
however extreme they may be, can look like the prudent choice. Especially
for nations struggling to emerge from corrupt dictatorships or to lift their
people from decades of poverty, the mere threat of an ISDS claim triggers
alarm. A single decision by a panel of three unaccountable, private lawyers,
meeting in a conference room on some other continent, could gut national
budgets and shake economies to the core.
Indeed, financiers and ISDS lawyers have created a whole new business:
prowling for ways to sue nations in ISDS and make their taxpayers fork over
huge sums, sometimes in retribution for enforcing basic laws or regulations.
The financial industry is pushing novel ISDS claims that countries
never could have anticipated - claims that, in some instances,
would be barred in US courts and those of other developed nations, or
that strike at emergency decisions nations make to cope with crises.
ISDS gives particular leverage to traders and speculators who chase
outsize profits in the developing world. They can buy into local disputes
that they have no connection to, then turn the disputes into costly international
showdowns. Standard Chartered, for example, bought the debt of a Tanzanian
company that was in dire financial straits and racked by scandal; now, the
bank has filed an ISDS claim demanding that the nation's taxpayers hand
over the full amount that the private company owed - more than $100 million.
Asked to comment, Standard Chartered said its claim is "valid."
But instead of helping companies resolve legitimate disputes over seized
assets, ISDS has increasingly become a way for rich investors to make money
by speculating on lawsuits, winning huge awards and forcing taxpayers to
foot the bill.
Here's how it works: Wealthy financiers with idle cash have purchased
companies that are well placed to bring an ISDS claim, seemingly for the
sole purpose of using that claim to make a buck. Sometimes, they set up
shell corporations to create the plaintiffs to bring ISDS cases.
And some hedge funds and private equity firms bankroll ISDS cases as third
parties - just like billionaire Peter Thiel bankrolled Hulk Hogan in his
lawsuit against Gawker Media.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) released this statement
on the ISDS provisions in TPP:
"Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Wall Street would be allowed to
sue the government in extrajudicial, corporate-run tribunals over any regulation
and American taxpayers would be on the hook for damages. This is an outrage.
We need more accountability and fairness in our economy – not less. And
we need to preserve our ability to make our own rules.
"It's time for Obama to take notice of the widespread, bipartisan opposition
to the TPP and take this agreement off the table before he causes lasting
political harm to Democrats with voters."
But those politicians lucky enough to win discover -- if they did not know already -- that their
capacity to affect even their own domestic environment is constrained by forces beyond their control.
Notable quotes:
"... But those politicians lucky enough to win discover -- if they did not know already -- that their capacity to affect even their own domestic environment is constrained by forces beyond their control. ..."
"... In the case of Britain, the once-powerful centralized governments of that country are now multiply constrained. As the power of Britain in international affairs has declined, so has the British government's power within its own domain. Membership of the European Union constrains British governments' ability to determine everything from the quantities of fish British fishermen can legally catch to the amount in fees that British universities can charge students from other EU countries. ..."
"... Not least, the EU's insistence on the free movement of labor caused the Conservative-dominated coalition that came to power in 2010 to renege on the Tories' spectacularly ill-judged pledge to reduce to "tens of thousands a year" the number of migrants coming to Britain. The number admitted in 2014 alone was nearer 300,000. ..."
"... On top of all that, British governments -- even more than those of some other predominantly capitalist economies -- are open to being buffeted by market forces, whose winds can acquire gale force. In a world of substantially free trade, imports and exports of goods and services are largely beyond any government's control, and the Bank of England's influence over the external value of sterling is negligible. During the present election campaign, HSBC, one of the world's largest banks, indicated that it was contemplating shifting its headquarters from the City of London to Hong Kong. For good or ill, Britain's government was, and is, effectively helpless to intervene. ..."
"... That's why we need a federal Europe. Local governments for local issues and elected by the local people and a European government for European issues elected by all Europeans. ..."
Once upon a time, national elections were -- or seemed to be -- overwhelmingly domestic affairs,
affecting only the peoples of the countries taking part in them. If that was ever true, it is so
no longer. Angela Merkel negotiates with Greece's government with Germany's voters looming in the
background. David Cameron currently fights an election campaign in the UK holding fast to the belief
that a false move on his part regarding Britain's relationship with the EU could cost his Conservative
Party seats, votes and possibly the entire election.
Britain provides a good illustration of a general proposition. It used to be claimed, plausibly,
that "all politics is local." In 2015, electoral politics may still be mostly local, but the post-electoral
business of government is anything but local. There is a misfit between the two. Voters are mainly
swayed by domestic issues. Vote-seeking politicians campaign accordingly. But those politicians
lucky enough to win discover -- if they did not know already -- that their capacity to affect even
their own domestic environment is constrained by forces beyond their control.
Anyone viewing the UK election campaign from afar could be forgiven for thinking that British
voters and politicians alike imagined they were living on some kind of self-sufficient sea-girt island.
The opinion polls indicate that a large majority of voters are preoccupied -- politically as well
as in other ways -- with their own financial situation, tax rates, welfare spending and the future
of the National Health Service. Immigration is an issue for many voters, but mostly in domestic terms
(and often as a surrogate for generalized discontent with Britain's political class). The fact that
migrants from Eastern Europe and elsewhere make a positive net contribution to both the UK's economy
and its social services scarcely features in the campaign.
... ... ...
After polling day, all that will change -- probably to millions of voters' dismay. One American
presidential candidate famously said that politicians campaign in poetry, but govern in prose. Politicians
in democracies, not just in Britain, campaign as though they can move mountains, then find that most
mountains are hard or impossible to move.
In the case of Britain, the once-powerful centralized governments of that country are now
multiply constrained. As the power of Britain in international affairs has declined, so has the British
government's power within its own domain. Membership of the European Union constrains British governments'
ability to determine everything from the quantities of fish British fishermen can legally catch to
the amount in fees that British universities can charge students from other EU countries.
Not least, the EU's insistence on the free movement of labor caused the Conservative-dominated
coalition that came to power in 2010 to renege on the Tories' spectacularly ill-judged pledge to
reduce to "tens of thousands a year" the number of migrants coming to Britain. The number admitted
in 2014 alone was nearer 300,000.
The UK's courts are also far more active than they were. The British parliament in 1998 incorporated
the European Convention on Human Rights into British domestic law, and British judges have determinedly
enforced those rights. During the 1970s, they had already been handed responsibility for enforcing
the full range of EU law within the UK.
Also, Britain's judges have, on their own initiative, exercised increasingly frequently their
long-standing power of "judicial review," invalidating ministerial decisions that violated due process
or seemed to them to be wholly unreasonable. Devolution of substantial powers to semi-independent
governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has also meant that the jurisdiction of many
so-called UK government ministers is effectively confined to the purely English component part.
On top of all that, British governments -- even more than those of some other predominantly
capitalist economies -- are open to being buffeted by market forces, whose winds can acquire gale
force. In a world of substantially free trade, imports and exports of goods and services are largely
beyond any government's control, and the Bank of England's influence over the external value of sterling
is negligible. During the present election campaign, HSBC, one of the world's largest banks, indicated
that it was contemplating shifting its headquarters from the City of London to Hong Kong. For good
or ill, Britain's government was, and is, effectively helpless to intervene.
The heirs of Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, Britain's political leaders
are understandably still tempted to talk big. But their effective real-world influence is small.
No wonder a lot of voters in Britain feel they are being conned.
ItsJustTim
That's globalization. And it won't go away, even if you vote nationalist. The issues are increasingly
international, while the voters still have a mostly local perspective. That's why we need
a federal Europe. Local governments for local issues and elected by the local people and a European
government for European issues elected by all Europeans.
There is no global left. We have only global state capitalists and
global social democrats – a pseudo left.
The countries where Marxist class analysis was supposedly adopted were not
industrial countries where "alienation" had brought the "proletariat" to an
inevitable communal mentality. The largest of these countries killed millions
in order to industrialize rapidly – pretending the goal was to get to that
state.
The terms left and right may not be adequate for those of us who want an
egalitarian society but also see many of the obstacles to egalitarianism as
human failings that are independent of and not caused by ruling elites –
although they frequently serve the interests of those elites.
Bigotry. Identity centered thinking. Neither serves egalitarianism. But
people cling to them. "I gotta look out for myself first." And so called left
thinkers constantly pontificate about "benefits" and "privileges" that some
class, sex, and race confer. Hmmm. The logic is that many of us struggling
daily to keep our jobs and pay the bills must give up something in order to be
fair, in order to build a better society. Given this thinking it is no surprise
that so many have retreated into the illusion of safety offered by identity
based thinking.
Hopefully those of us who yearn for an egalitarian movement can develop and
articulate an alternate view of reality.
Correct. Many of the people (me included) who voted Green for obvious anti-Clinton reasons
were also very suspicious of Trump. So Green made sense. But all of these people now feel utterly
betrayed by Stein's greed or fronting for the Clintons. Why no New Hampshire recount? So good
job Stein, you just destroyed the only credible left alternative while the Dems are mortally wounded
on the their left flank and the Clinton mob are taking resumes for a new sheepdog to get the wayward
Sandernistas back into their stinking little corner of Hillary's big tent where they belong.
...This recount is serious business. The Greens don't have the organizational aptitude or money
to have accomplished what needed to be done within days. That indicates that Democrats/Clinton
cronies are behind this. And
the Clinton press corps have been engaged as well.
Now Stein has allowed the dems to buy her ass, one has to wonder -
why? Debs is dead at 60.
Because carreerism, because her position was always to get ahead in a major
party (not Repub. obviously), to capitalise on her popularity.
Many Greens are like that all over the OECD world. They get 'splinter support',
often quite high in votes, using seductive discourse, to then join the Top Brass
promoting "renewables" using all kinds of inclusive and enviro-friendly, vague but
marginal, leftist discourse, avoiding the 'economy' and 'real numbers' and for
that matter deeper politics e.g. "sustainable communities" , "sharing", "grass
roots initiatives", "husbanding energy", "respecting traditional ways of life",
"integrating people", "developping solar", "promoting electric cars" and
forbidding plastic bags, etc. etc.
The powerful party apparatus integrates them as a 'voice' for whatever is the
gout-du-jour memes and everyone, including the dominant energy conglomerates are
all happy. The person earns potentially well a lot.
Sorry to be so cynical and negative but I have seen Greens do this time and
time again.
I don't hate or dislike Jill Stein. Just, that is the general trend and from
what I have seen (maybe superficial) she is not different from the mold.
"Every four years it seems U.S. voters need to be reminded how the Electoral College works and
how it serves the Republic. Prager University Foundation provides this short video on what the Electoral
College is, its purpose, how it works and why America's Founders made it a bedrock in U.S. Presidential
elections"...
We always ridicule the 98 percent voter support that dictatorships frequently
achieve in their elections and plebiscites, yet perhaps those secret-ballot
results may sometimes be approximately correct, produced by the sort of
overwhelming media control that leads voters to assume there is no possible
alternative to the existing regime. Is such an undemocratic situation really so
different from that found in our own country, in which our two major parties
agree on such a broad range of controversial issues and, being backed by total
media dominance, routinely split 98 percent of the vote? A democracy may
provide voters with a choice, but that choice is largely determined by the
information citizens receive from their media.
Most of the Americans who
elected Barack Obama in 2008 intended their vote as a total repudiation of the
policies and personnel of the preceding George W. Bush administration. Yet once
in office, Obama's crucial selections-Robert Gates at Defense, Timothy Geither
at Treasury, and Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve-were all top Bush
officials, and they seamlessly continued the unpopular financial bailouts and
foreign wars begun by his predecessor, producing what amounted to a third Bush
term.
Consider the fascinating perspective of the recently deceased Boris
Berezovsky, once the most powerful of the Russian oligarchs and the puppet
master behind President Boris Yeltsin during the late 1990s. After looting
billions in national wealth and elevating Vladimir Putin to the presidency, he
overreached himself and eventually went into exile. According to the New
York Times, he had planned to transform Russia into a fake two-party
state-one social-democratic and one neoconservative-in which heated public
battles would be fought on divisive, symbolic issues, while behind the scenes
both parties would actually be controlled by the same ruling elites. With the
citizenry thus permanently divided and popular dissatisfaction safely channeled
into meaningless dead-ends, Russia's rulers could maintain unlimited wealth and
power for themselves, with little threat to their reign. Given America's
history over the last couple of decades, perhaps we can guess where Berezovsky
got his idea for such a clever political scheme.
Title is pretty misleading. It is neoliberals who are snake oil sellers. In no way FDR was
a snake oil seller.
Notable quotes:
"... People aren't so much voting _for_ snake oil as _against_ the status quo. ..."
"... False analogies. Time for "change", no expectation of "hope" from the bomber* who got the Nobel peace prize. 'Snake oil'+ from both sides in 2016. Add a dash of corruption and rigged system. The corrupt snake oil sales pitch who lost to the unorganized snake oil sales pitch. ..."
"... From my prospective the donkey-s were pushing more of the same conservative party-line straight from 1928. The publicans had deep vested interest in the same failed approach to culture, society, economy, and finance. The same except for one of its hopeful candidates who saw the problem, some of the remedies, and a path towards the control tower using the popular but outdated methods of pandering to our most disgusting instincts of evil. Sure! ..."
"... Snake oil salesmen, eh? One only has to read Minsky on the neoclassical assumptions or, for that matter, Milton Friedman on why nonsense is perfectly fine to know who the big league snake oil salesmen have been. People voting for Brexit and Trump were voting for anything but the snake oil status quo. ..."
"... The Establishment isn't delivering so you get populists on the left and right. ..."
"... Make me think of the Middle East where the West destroyed the communists and socialists and so all that was left was the military-backed authoritarians and the mosques with their "snake oil." ..."
"... "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people" ..."
"... Seems it to difficult to admit globalization damaged US workers, so the fall back is to call workers gullible and racist. ..."
Clearly Keynes and FDR were snake-oil salesmen. The Progressive New Deal Era (1932-80) being the
biggest economic muckup in the history of humanity!
Thankfully Friedman came along and made America and the world great again. (Just a slight kink
in the model: the global economy teetering on the verge of collapse into fascist revolutions and
world war. Nothing a little free-market medicine can't nip in the bud!)
False analogies.
Time for "change", no expectation of "hope" from the bomber* who got the Nobel peace prize.
'Snake oil'+ from both sides in 2016. Add a dash of corruption and rigged system. The corrupt snake oil sales pitch who lost to the unorganized snake oil sales pitch.
If the faux left don't get some logic it needs to be replaced by a leftie of the Trump brand.
have become "homogeneous", while Lebanon has not thrived as a nation
"
~~steve randy waldman~
Populist Politicians
From the steve quotation you can guess that USA has thrived thus all our long list of ethnicity-s
are mutually dissolving each into the other. As interbreeding proceeds you can see the evidence
within Gaussian distribution of each ethnic feature. We are now a nation of one people.
If it then follows that the recent election was not merely all things racism, what was the
focus of the candidates?
From my prospective the donkey-s were pushing more of the same conservative party-line straight
from 1928. The publicans had deep vested interest in the same failed approach to culture, society,
economy, and finance. The same except for one of its hopeful candidates who saw the problem, some
of the remedies, and a path towards the control tower using the popular but outdated methods of
pandering to our most disgusting instincts of evil. Sure!
His vision is incomplete. He is still searching for the answers, but he is certain that we
cannot return to the cold war of 1950. Will he rediscover deflation, full reserve banking, green
transportation, a gentler approach to the Luddites?
We need to support his search for a more sustainable USA, a more sustainable planet, a more
sustainable
Snake oil salesmen, eh?
One only has to read Minsky on the neoclassical assumptions or, for that matter, Milton Friedman
on why nonsense is perfectly fine to know who the big league snake oil salesmen have been. People
voting for Brexit and Trump were voting for anything but the snake oil status quo.
There are populists and then there are demagogues masquerading as populists. Stamp out the
populists with constant ridicule from the crackpot realists and all that will be left are the
demagogues who style themselves as populists.
As my old Bronx doctor, Seymour Tenzer, put it: "All these histories are bullshit -- I got
punched in the chest; that's why I've got a lump." [:-)]
Trump's victory is down to the disappearance of the $800 job for the $400 job. That subtracted
from the vote in the black ghettos – and added to the vote in the white ghettos -- both ghettos
being far off the radar screen of academic liberals like Hill and O.
I notice the white ghettos because that is me. My old taxi job (much too old now at 72 3/4)
was "in-sourced" all over the world to drivers who would work for remarkably less (than the not
so great incomes we native born eked out). Today's low skilled jobs go to native and foreign born
who willing to show up for $400 (e.g., since Walmart gutted supermarket contracts). Fast food
strictly to foreign born who will show up for $290 a week (min wage $400, 1968 -- when per cap
income half today's).
Don't expect the 100,000 out of maybe 200,000 Chicago gang age males to show up for a life
time of $400/wk servitude. Did I mention, manufacturing was down to 6% of employment 15 years
ago -- now 4% (disappearing like farm labor, mostly robo; look to health care for the future?)?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gang-wars-at-the-root-of-chicagos-high-murder-rate/
6% union density at private employers = 20/10 BP which starves every healthy process in the
social body = disappearance of collective bargaining and its institutional concomitants which
supply political funding and lobbying equal to oligarchs plus most all the votes ...
... votes: notice? 45% take 10% of overall income -- 45% earn $15/hr or less -- a lot of votes.
The Establishment isn't delivering so you get populists on the left and right. Would Dillow or
SWL call Corbyn and Sanders snake oil salesmen?
The centrists do. The corrupt corporate media makes a point to do that.
Make me think of the Middle East where the West destroyed the communists and socialists and
so all that was left was the military-backed authoritarians and the mosques with their "snake
oil."
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul
of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people"
"... I was one of those recounting the votes by hand and when all was said and done we wound up counting over 100 votes more than the machines had counted and we only recounted ballots that contained votes for the 2nd and 3rd place candidates so there were potentially and quite probably an even higher number of ballots that weren't counted the first time around. A rough estimate is that 1-2% of the initial votes weren't counted at all by the machines. ..."
"... The ballots that were initially counted weren't marked in any way so we had no way of knowing which ballots had been previously counted by the machines and which hadn't however we were able to make some educated guesses after looking through thousands of ballots. ..."
"... After the recount we picked up some votes but not enough to change the results which was actually pretty reassuring as the extra votes tallied were in the same proportion for each candidate to what the machines initially tallied which is what you'd expect over a large sample size. ..."
"... What we found is that while these particular machines did accurately count the ballots they were able to count, they cannot count all of them due to user error which is pretty difficult to eradicate – some people simply won't follow directions properly no matter how clear they are. ..."
"... We caught some flak when asking for the recount about the presumed large cost to the taxpayer however the cost turned out to be minimal. Each candidate had 8 volunteers plus 8 more election clerks who were paid $11/hr by the city to supervise the volunteers. Our 8 teams of 3 managed to go through around 12K ballots in about 5 hours. ..."
"... The solution is to have all ballots for every election counted by hand in public immediately after the polls close. It isn't rocket science, it's not that expensive and it's the only way to ensure that everyone's vote is actually counted. ..."
Regarding recounts, when the total vote difference is in the single digit thousands in large states
where hundreds of thousands or more votes were cast, the candidates shouldn't have to ask for a recount,
it should be mandatory*.
I've been asking my city to do a recount to verify the accuracy of the machines for several years
and was told that the state law would not allow for a recount simply for accuracy's sake (unbelievable!)
and the only way for a recount to happen would be after a close election.
Well my significant other stood for election in a city race this year, and how ironic, came within
about 50 votes of winning and we got to ask for a recount! This was an odd race where voters chose
two out of seven candidates for the two open seats. One candidate won by a clear margin and 2nd and
3rd place were separated by about 50 votes. I was one of those recounting the votes by hand and when
all was said and done we wound up counting over 100 votes more than the machines had counted and
we only recounted ballots that contained votes for the 2nd and 3rd place candidates so there were
potentially and quite probably an even higher number of ballots that weren't counted the first time
around. A rough estimate is that 1-2% of the initial votes weren't counted at all by the machines.
The ballots that were initially counted weren't marked in any way so we had no way of knowing
which ballots had been previously counted by the machines and which hadn't however we were able to
make some educated guesses after looking through thousands of ballots.
We found quite a few where
people 'x'ed or drew a line through the circle rather than filling it in according to instructions
and others where people had voted for one candidate, crossed it out, and then voted for someone else.
We suspected these were the types of ballots that the machines were not able to count.
Also when
I had served as an election clerk several years ago I noticed that the ticker on the machine that
is supposed to count the number of ballots fed into it would not count a ballot if it was fed into
the machine too quickly after the previous one so this may have been another reason some ballots
didn't get counted the first time.
There were also reports on election day that some machines temporarily
malfunctioned (one had been accidentally unplugged) which may have caused other votes not to be counted.
After the recount we picked up some votes but not enough to change the results which was actually
pretty reassuring as the extra votes tallied were in the same proportion for each candidate to what
the machines initially tallied which is what you'd expect over a large sample size.
What we found
is that while these particular machines did accurately count the ballots they were able to count,
they cannot count all of them due to user error which is pretty difficult to eradicate – some people
simply won't follow directions properly no matter how clear they are.
We caught some flak when asking for the recount about the presumed large cost to the taxpayer
however the cost turned out to be minimal. Each candidate had 8 volunteers plus 8 more election clerks
who were paid $11/hr by the city to supervise the volunteers. Our 8 teams of 3 managed to go through
around 12K ballots in about 5 hours.
The solution is to have all ballots for every election counted by hand in public immediately after
the polls close. It isn't rocket science, it's not that expensive and it's the only way to ensure
that everyone's vote is actually counted.
* Lest anyone accuse me of trying to get Clinton in, I say all of this as someone who would rather
be shot in the face by Dick Cheney than cast a ballot for any of the Clinton's or their spawn, legitimate
or otherwise.
"... the media is not in competition with talking about disenchantment over globalisation and de-industrialisation, but a complement to it. ..."
"... This piece is right on the money and nails the ultimate failure of our modern corporate media. ..."
"... Modern corporate media is in existence to make more money, not to serve society. Whatever makes (the collective) us more likely to pay attention to the media is what the media will serve up. With the failure of old style media we have to be concerned whether an actual informed political discourse will be possible. ..."
"... These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America http://www.morriscreative.com/6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america/ ..."
"... People are looking for scapegoats and the corrupt corporate media are misleading them, along with politicians. Why are they looking for scapegoats? Not simply because they're wealthy racist Trump supporters who long for the good old days, as the center-left is telling us. ..."
"... The corrupt corporate media was incredibly unfair to both Bernie Sanders and Jeremby Corbyn but the Blairites and Clinton supporters were okay with that. Sanders was quite good on calling out the media. We need more of that. ..."
"... "We know that erecting trade barriers is harmful: the only question is whether in this case it will be pretty harmful or very harmful"...to whom? To the elites? Or to those who voted for Brexit? ..."
"... Instead of constantly harping on the illusory 'free trade is a free lunch for all,' 'liberal' economists need to start taking responsibility for not emphasizing or even acknowledging that free trade is not a panacea...it has real downsides for many...and real benefits mostly for elites that negotiated the deals. ..."
"... Too many were severely harmed by off shoring and illegal immigration. ..."
This could be the subtitle of the
talk
I will be giving later today. I will have more to say in later posts, plus a link to the
full text..., but I thought I would make this important point here about why I keep going on about
the media. In thinking about Brexit and Trump, talking about the media is not in competition with
talking about disenchantment over globalisation and de-industrialisation, but a complement to it.
I don't blame the media for this disenchantment, which is real enough, but for the fact that it is
leading people to make choices which are clearly bad for society as a whole, and in many cases will
actually make them worse off. They are choices which in an important sense are known to be wrong.
Modern corporate media is in existence to make more money, not to serve society. Whatever
makes (the collective) us more likely to pay attention to the media is what the media will serve
up. With the failure of old style media we have to be concerned whether an actual informed political
discourse will be possible.
Case in Point: Fake Media. As documented in the WaPo yesterday, two unemployed restaurant workers (McDonalds?) made a
fortune with their fake news website that collected ad revenue from the likes of Facebook. They
didn't bother with any facts; just published stories they knew would attract right wing extremists.
They really worked at their craft using specific language and formats to draw in eyeballs.
It worked beyond their wildest expectations and they won't even discuss how much money they made.
Something tells me there might be a bit of "fake news" creation going on in those shops, eh? But
no, let's pull out our hair over some 20-year-old with a Facebook feed. And -- censor! For the
greater good, naturally.
"In thinking about Brexit and Trump, talking about the media is not in competition with talking
about disenchantment over globalisation and de-industrialisation, but a complement to it."
People are looking for scapegoats and the corrupt corporate media are misleading them, along
with politicians. Why are they looking for scapegoats? Not simply because they're wealthy racist Trump supporters
who long for the good old days, as the center-left is telling us.
The corrupt corporate media was incredibly unfair to both Bernie Sanders and Jeremby Corbyn
but the Blairites and Clinton supporters were okay with that. Sanders was quite good on calling
out the media. We need more of that.
The SyFy Channel has a new series called Incorporated about a dystopian America set in 2074 where
global climate change has wrecked havoc on politics and society. Giant multinational corporations
have stepped in and taken over for governments as America's class divisions have sharpened between
the haves and the have-nots. You can watch the first episode online.
Globalization is not Pareto improving. Maybe it could be done in a way that is, but until then,
the "media" is correct to paint a disenchanting picture
Pareto improving assumes we compensates those who lose from globalization. This is well known.
What else is well known is we have a terrible track record on this score.
"We know that erecting trade barriers is harmful: the only question is whether in this case it
will be pretty harmful or very harmful"...to whom? To the elites? Or to those who voted for Brexit?
Instead of constantly harping on the illusory 'free trade is a free lunch for all,' 'liberal'
economists need to start taking responsibility for not emphasizing or even acknowledging that
free trade is not a panacea...it has real downsides for many...and real benefits mostly for elites
that negotiated the deals.
Why do 'liberal' economists insist on invalidating the life experience of so many?
Wisdom implies giving a good look to the consequences, and taking measures to ameliorate those
negative. Too many were severely harmed by off shoring and illegal immigration. These weren't
without consequences and maybe not even, on balance, gainful.
In the future, let those best able to make any necessary sacrifices and adjustments.
As my old Bronx doctor, Seymour Tenzer, put it: "All these histories are bullshit -- I got punched
in the chest; that's why I've got a lump."
Trump's victory is down to the disappearance of the $800 [a week] job for the $400 job. That subtracted
from the vote in the black ghettos – and added to the vote in the white ghettos -- both ghettos
being far off the radar screen of academic liberals like Hill and O.
I notice the white ghettos because that is me. My old taxi job (much too old now at 72 3/4)
was "in-sourced" all over the world to drivers who would work for remarkably less (than the not
so great incomes we native born eked out). Today's low skilled jobs go to native and foreign born
who willing to show up for $400 (e.g., since Walmart gutted supermarket contracts). Fast food
strictly to foreign born who will show up for $290 a week (min wage $400, 1968 -- when per cap
income half today's).
Don't expect the 100,000 out of maybe 200,000 Chicago gang age males to show up for a life
time of $400/wk servitude. Did I mention, manufacturing was down to 6% of employment 15 years
ago -- now 4% (disappearing like farm labor, mostly robo; look to health care for the future?)?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gang-wars-at-the-root-of-chicagos-high-murder-rate/
6% union density at private employers = 20/10 BP which starves every healthy process in the
social body = disappearance of collective bargaining and its institutional concomitants which
supply political funding and lobbying equal to oligarchs plus most all the votes ...
... votes: notice? 45% take 10% of overall income -- 45% earn $15/hr or less -- a lot of votes.
"(and maybe we could replace the insulting euphemism "low information voters" with "differently-informationed
voters." Or something)."
How about "insufficiently bamboozled voters"?
aab
Given that all these nice, affluent women voters who apparently had NO IDEA much of the country
has been ravaged by Democratic Party policies, they are the people who should have the "low information"
label hung around their necks for the foreseeable future. They also seem to have very little understanding
how how elections work, how American government works, etc.
Low Information, High Credential voters (LIHC): ugly acronym, uglier impact.
A crisis of legitimacy . People are fed up with politics. Do not blame globalisation for
that. Sep 27th 2001 | From the print edition. Timekeeper. Add this article to ...
Legitimacy: Legitimation Crises and Its Causes - Political Science Notes www.politicalsciencenotes.com/
legitimacy / legitimacy -legitimation- crises -and-its.../797
Causes of Legitimation Crisis : There are several causes or aspects of legitimation crisis
. Habermas and several other neo-Marxists, after studying all the aspects of capitalist
societies, have concluded that a number of factors are responsible for the legitimation crisis
The Global Crisis of Legitimacy . Geopolitical Weekly. May 4, 2010 | 08:56 GMT. Print. Text
Size. By George Friedman. Financial panics are an integral part of ...
by GE Reyes - 2010 -
Cited by 1 -
Related articles Theoretical basis of crisis of legitimacy and implications for less
developed countries: Guatemala as a case of study. TENDENCIAS. Revista de la Facultad de ...
by A Mattelaer - 2014 -
Related articles Mar 21, 2014 - generalised crisis in legitimacy , our democracies
face a crisis of legitimation: political choices are in dire need of an explanatory narrative
that.
The Legitimacy Crisis | RealClearPolitics www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/08/the_
legitimacy _ crisis _126530.html
May 8, 2015 - American government - at all levels - is losing the legitimacy it needs to
function. Or, perhaps, some segments of the government have ...
The third dimension of the crisis that I identify is the crisis of legitimacy of US hegemony.
This, I think, is as serious as the other two crises, since, as an admirer of ...
The Crisis of Legitimacy in Africa. Abiola Irele ▫ Summer 1992. A bleak picture emerges
from today's Africa. One glaring aspect is the material deprivation ...
"... Harris later learned that the lever machine companies and technicians had all been convicted of election fraud, going back to the 1880s, all over the US. Lever machine tampering was also discovered not long ago that changed election results, resulting from a single "miscalibrated" machine that it turned out had been producing anomalous results for over a decade. ..."
[Response to Ulysses' comment] This begs the question of whether those votes were cast or counted accurately. In my early days
of learning about election fraud (particularly at the Black Box Voting.org website and discussion threads), a topic that came
up time and again was that there was extensive history of election fraud associated with union elections. IIRC, as electronic
voting machines were being actively promoted, one of the avid supporters of using these methods was trade unions.
Harris later learned that the lever machine companies and technicians had all been convicted of election fraud, going back
to the 1880s, all over the US. Lever machine tampering was also discovered not long ago that changed election results, resulting
from a single "miscalibrated" machine that it turned out had been producing anomalous results for over a decade. Richard
Hayes Phillips in his lectures and book about the theft
of the OH 2004 election (and thus the presidency) describes with detail how one of the methods used was altering the punch cards
or sending voters to the wrong precinct machine, so their ballot would end up with undervotes or overvotes and not be counted.
It would be interesting to know about the election procedures for that union election, particularly the Canadian vote. Was
it on machines? Paper? How secure was the chain of custody of the ballots?
"... With Trump, exactly the same thing has happened as with my Five Star Movement, which was born of the Internet: the media were taken aback and asked us where we were before. We gathered millions of people in public squares and they marvelled. We became the biggest movement in Italy and journalists and philosophers continued to say that we were benefitting from people's dissatisfaction. ..."
"... the amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I'm rejoicing in it because the professionals are the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all the rest have destroyed democracy and their international policies. ..."
"... If that's the case, it signifies that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely misunderstood everything, especially if the situation is the way it is ..."
"... Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge change. If we manage to understand that, we'll also get to face it." ..."
"... Until now, these anti-establishment movements have come face-to-face with their own limits: as soon as they come to power they seem to lose their capabilities and reason for being. Alexis Tsipras, in Greece, for example ..."
"... President Juncker suggested modifying the code of ethics and lengthening the period of abstinence from any private work for former Commission members to three years. Is that enough? ..."
"... I have serious doubts about a potential change in the code of ethics being made by a former minister of a tax haven. ..."
"... We've always maintained this idea of total autonomy in decision-making, but we united over the common idea of a different Europe, a mosaic of autonomies and sovereignties. ..."
"... If he wants to hold a referendum on the euro, he'll have our support. If he wants to leave the Fiscal Stability Treaty – the so-called Fiscal Compact – which was one of our battles, we'll be there ..."
"... Renzi's negotiating power will also depend on the outcome of the constitutional referendum in December. We'll see whether he sinks or swims. ..."
"... Neoliberal Trojan Horse Obama has quite a global legacy. ..."
"... Maybe it's time for the Europeans to stop sucking American cock. Note that we barely follow your elections. It's time to spread your wings and fly. ..."
"... "The Experts* Destroyed The World" - Beppe Grillo. Never a truer word spoken, Beppe! YOU DA MAN!!! And these "Experts" - these self-described "ELITE" - did so - and are STILL doing so WITH MALICIOUS INTENT - and lining their pockets every fking step of the way! ..."
"... As the Jason Statham character says in that great Guy Richie movie "Revolver": "If there's ONE thing I've learnt about "Experts", it's that they're expert in FUCK ALL!" ..."
"... Apart from asset-stripping the economy & robbing the populace blind that is - and giving their countries away to the invader so indigenous populations cant fight back... or PURPOSELY angling for WW3 to hide their criminality behind the ULTIMATE & FINAL smokescreen. ..."
"... It NATO collapses so will the Euro project. The project was always American from the start. In recent years it has become a mechanism by which the Poles (and other assorted Eastern Europeans) can extract war guarantees out of the USA, UK and France. It is a total mess and people like Grillo add to the confusion by their flawed analysis. ..."
Whatever the reason, we agree with the next point he makes, namely the overthrow of "experts" by
amateurs.
euronews: "Do you think appealing to people's emotions is enough to get elected?
Is that a political project?"
Beppe Grillo: "This information never ceases to make the rounds: you don't
have a political project, you're not capable, you're imbeciles, amateurs And yet, the
amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I'm rejoicing in it because the professionals are
the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all the rest have
destroyed democracy and their international policies. If that's the case, it signifies
that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely misunderstood everything, especially
if the situation is the way it is. If the EU is what we have today, it means the European
dream has evaporated. Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge change. If we manage to understand
that, we'll also get to face it."
Bingo, or as Nassim Taleb put its, the "Intellectual-Yet-Idiot"
class. It is the elimination of these so-called "experts", most of whom have PhDs or other letters
next to their name to cover their insecurity, and who drown every possible medium with their endless,
hollow, and constantly wrong chatter, desperate to create a self-congratulatory echo
chamber in which their errors are diluted with the errors of their "expert" peers,
that will be the biggest challenge for the world as it seeks to break away from the legacy of a fake
"expert class" which has brought the entire world to its knees, and has unleashed the biggest political
tsunami in modern history.
One thing is certain: the "experts" won't go quietly as the "amateurs" try to retake what is rightfully
theirs.
... ... ...
Beppe Grillo, Leader of the Five Star Movement
"It's an extraordinary turning point. This corn cob – we can also call Trump that in a nice way –
doesn't have particularly outstanding qualities. He was such a target for the media, with such terrifying
accusations of sexism and racism, as well as being harassed by the establishment – such as the New
York Times – but, in the end, he won.
"That is a symbol of the tragedy and the apocalypse of traditional information. The television
and newspapers are always late and they relay old information. They no longer anticipate anything
and they're only just understanding that idiots, the disadvantaged, those who are marginalised –
and there are millions of them – use alternative media, such as the Internet, which passes under
the radar of television, a medium people no longer use.
"With Trump, exactly the same thing has happened as with my Five Star Movement, which was
born of the Internet: the media were taken aback and asked us where we were before. We gathered millions
of people in public squares and they marvelled. We became the biggest movement in Italy and journalists
and philosophers continued to say that we were benefitting from people's dissatisfaction. We'll
get into government and they'll ask themselves how we did it."
euronews
"There is a gap between giving populist speeches and governing a nation."
Beppe Grillo
"We want to govern, but we don't want to simply change the power by replacing it with our own. We
want a change within civilisation, a change of world vision.
"We're talking about dematerialised industry, an end to working for money, the start of working
for other payment, a universal citizens revenue. If our society is founded on work, what will happen
if work disappears? What will we do with millions of people in flux? We have to organise and manage
all that."
euronews
"Do you think appealing to people's emotions is enough to get elected? Is that a political project?"
Beppe Grillo
"This information never ceases to make the rounds: you don't have a political project, you're
not capable, you're imbeciles, amateurs
"And yet, the amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I'm rejoicing in it because the
professionals are the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all
the rest have destroyed democracy and their international policies.
"If that's the case, it signifies that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely
misunderstood everything, especially if the situation is the way it is. If the EU is what we
have today, it means the European dream has evaporated. Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge
change. If we manage to understand that, we'll also get to face it."
euronews
"Until now, these anti-establishment movements have come face-to-face with their own limits:
as soon as they come to power they seem to lose their capabilities and reason for being. Alexis Tsipras,
in Greece, for example "
Beppe Grillo
"Yes, I agree."
euronews
"Let's take the example of Podemos in Spain. They came within reach of power, then had to backtrack.
Why?"
Beppe Grillo
"Because there's an outdated way of thinking. Because they think power is managed by forming coalitions
or by making agreements with others.
"From our side, we want to give the tools to the citizens. We have an information system called
Rousseau, to which every Italian citizen can subscribe for free. There they can vote in regional
and local elections and check what their local MPs are proposing. Absolutely any citizen can even
suggest laws in their own name.
"This is something never before directly seen in democracy and neither Tsipras nor Podemos have
done it."
euronews
"You said that you're not interested in breaking up the European Union, but rather in profoundly
changing it. What can a small group of MEPs do to put into motion such great change?"
Beppe Grillo
"The little group of MEPs is making its voice heard, but there are complications In parliament,
there are lobby groups and commissions. Parliament decides, but at the same time doesn't decide.
"We do what we can, in line with our vision of a world based on a circular economy. We put forward
the idea of a circular economy as the energy of the future and the proposal has been adopted by the
European parliament."
euronews
"One hot topic at the Commission at the moment is the problem of the conflicts of interest concerning
certain politicians.
"President Juncker suggested modifying the code of ethics and lengthening the period of abstinence
from any private work for former Commission members to three years. Is that enough?"
Beppe Grillo
"I have serious doubts about a potential change in the code of ethics being made by a former
minister of a tax haven."
euronews
"You don't think the Commission is legitimate?"
Beppe Grillo
"Absolutely not. Particularly because it's a Commission that no one has actually elected. That's
what brought us closer to Nigel Farage: a democracy coming from the people."
euronews "You don't regret being allied with Farage?"
Beppe Grillo
"It was an alliance of convenience, made to give us enough support to enter parliament. We've
always maintained this idea of total autonomy in decision-making, but we united over the common idea
of a different Europe, a mosaic of autonomies and sovereignties.
"I'm not against Europe, but I am against the single currency. Conversely, I am for the idea of
a common currency. The words are important: 'common' and 'single' are two different concepts.
"In any case, the UK has demonstrated something that we in Italy couldn't even dream of: organising
a clear 'yes-no' referendum."
euronews
"That is 'clear' in terms of the result and not its consequences. In reality, the population is torn.
Many people's views have done u-turns."
Beppe Grillo
"Whatever happens, the responsibility returns entirely to the British. They made the decision."
euronews
"Doesn't it bother you that Italy's Prime Minister Matteo Renzi is playing the spoilsport in Europe?
Criticising European institutions was your battle horse and now he is flexing his muscles in Brussels."
Beppe Grillo
"Renzi has to do that. But he's just copying me and in doing so, strengthens the original."
euronews
"Whatever it may be, his position at the head of the government can get him results."
Beppe Grillo
"Very well. If he wants to hold a referendum on the euro, he'll have our support. If he wants
to leave the Fiscal Stability Treaty – the so-called Fiscal Compact – which was one of our battles,
we'll be there."
euronews
"In the quarrel over the flexibility of public accounts due to the earthquake and immigration, who
are you supporting?"
Beppe Grillo "On that, I share Renzi's position. I have nothing against projects and ideas. I have preconceptions
about him. For me, he is completely undeserving of confidence."
euronews
"Renzi's negotiating power will also depend on the outcome of the constitutional referendum in
December. We'll see whether he sinks or swims."
Beppe Grillo
"It's already lost for him."
euronews
"If he doesn't win, will you ask for early elections?"
Beppe Grillo
"Whatever happens, we want elections because the government as it stands is not legitimate and, as
a consequence, neither are we.
"From this point onwards, the government moves forward simply by approving laws based on how urgent
they are. And 90 percent of laws are approved using this method. So what good will it do to reform
the Senate to make the process quicker?"
euronews
"Can you see yourself at the head of the Italian government?"
Beppe Grillo
"No, no. I was never in the race. Never."
euronews
"So, Beppe Grillo is not even a candidate to become prime minister or to take on another official
role, if one day the Five Star Movement was to win the elections?"
Beppe Grillo
"The time is fast approaching."
euronews
"Really? A projection?"
Beppe Grillo
"People just need to go and vote. We're sure to win."
BabaLooey -> Nemontel •Nov 21, 2016 6:27 AM
euronews: "You don't think the Commission is legitimate?"
Beppe Grillo: "Absolutely not. Particularly because it's a Commission that no one has
actually elected. That's what brought us closer to Nigel Farage: a democracy coming from the people."
BOILED DOWN - THAT IS ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID.
Blackhawks •Nov 21, 2016 3:15 AM
Neoliberal Trojan Horse Obama has quite a global legacy. People all over the world
are voting for conmen and clowns instead of his endorsed candidates and chosen successor. Having
previously exposed the "intellectual-yet-idiot" class, Nassim Taleb unleashes his acerbic
tone in 3 painfully "real news" tweets on President Obama's legacy...
Obama:
Protected banksters (largest bonus pool in 2010)
"Helped" Libya
Served AlQaeda/SaudiBarbaria(Syria & Yemen) https://t.co/bcNMhDgmuo
Maybe it's time for the Europeans to stop sucking American cock. Note that we barely follow
your elections. It's time to spread your wings and fly.
Yen Cross -> LetThemEatRand •Nov 21, 2016 3:27 AM
Amen~ The" European Toadies" should also institute " term limits" so those Jean Paul & Draghi][JUNKERS[]-
technocratic A-Holes can be done away with!
NuYawkFrankie •Nov 21, 2016 5:07 AM
"The Experts* Destroyed The World" - Beppe Grillo. Never a truer word spoken, Beppe! YOU
DA MAN!!! And these "Experts" - these self-described "ELITE" - did so - and are STILL doing so
WITH MALICIOUS INTENT - and lining their pockets every fking step of the way!
As the Jason Statham character says in that great Guy Richie movie "Revolver": "If there's
ONE thing I've learnt about "Experts", it's that they're expert in FUCK ALL!"
Apart from asset-stripping the economy & robbing the populace blind that is - and giving
their countries away to the invader so indigenous populations cant fight back... or PURPOSELY
angling for WW3 to hide their criminality behind the ULTIMATE & FINAL smokescreen.
Yep -THAT is how F'KING sick they are. These, my friends, are your "Experts", your self-decribed
"Elite" - and Soros is at the head of the parade.
lakecity55 -> NuYawkFrankie •Nov 21, 2016 6:18 AM
You know the old saying, "an expert's a guy from more than 20 miles outside of town."
tuetenueggel •Nov 21, 2016 5:17 AM
Which experts do you mean Beppe ?
All I Kow is that those "experts" are too stupid to piss a hole in the snow.
Oettinger ( not even speaking his mother tongue halfways correct )
Jean clown Juncker ( always drunk too is a kind of well structured day )
Schulz capo (who was too stupid as mayor of a german village so they fucked him out)
Hollande ( lefts are always of lower IQ then right wing people )
Blair ( war criminal )
and thousands more not to be named her ( due to little space availlable )
caesium •Nov 21, 2016 6:35 AM
It NATO collapses so will the Euro project. The project was always American from the start.
In recent years it has become a mechanism by which the Poles (and other assorted Eastern Europeans)
can extract war guarantees out of the USA, UK and France. It is a total mess and people like Grillo
add to the confusion by their flawed analysis.
The bedrock of Italy was always the Catholic faith which the country has abandoned. "The Faith
is Europe and Europe is the Faith" said Hilaire Belloc. A reality that Grillo is unable to grasp.
The heads of the Pentagon and the nation's intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of
the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed.
The recommendation, delivered to the White House last month, was made by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director
of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
...
The news comes as Rogers is being considered by President-Elect Donald Trump to be his nominee for DNI, replacing Clapper as
the official who oversees all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers,
without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower.
Adm. Michael S. Rogers recently claimed in
reference to the hack of the Democratic National Council emails that Wikileaks spreading them is "a conscious effort by a nation-state
to attempt to achieve a specific effect." He obviously meant Russia.
Compare that with his boss James Clapper who very recently
said
(again) that the "intelligence agencies don't have good insight on when or how Wikileaks obtained the hacked emails."
Emails of the DNC and of Clinton's consigliere John Podesta were hacked and leaked. Additionally emails from Clinton's private
email server were released. All these influenced the election in favor of Trump.
Wikileaks boss Assange
says he does not know where the emails come from but he does not think they came from Russia.
Clapper and Carter wanted Rogers fired because he was generally disliked at the NSA, because two big breaches in the most secret
Tailored Access Organization occurred on
his watch even after the Snowden case and because he blocked, with the help of Senator McCain, plans to split the NSA into a spying
and a cyber war unit.
Now let me spin this a bit.
Rogers obviously knew he was on the to-be-fired list and he had good relations with the Republicans.
Now follows some plausible speculation:
Some Rogers trusted dudes at the NSA (or in the Navy cyber arm which Rogers earlier led) hack into the DNC, Podesta emails
and the Clinton private email server. An easy job with the tools the NSA provides for its spies. Whoever hacked the emails then
pushes what they got to Wikileaks (and DCleaks , another "leak" outlet). Wikileaks
publishes what it gets because that is what it usually does. Assange also has various reasons to hate Clinton. She was always
very hostile to Wikileaks. She allegedly even
mused of killing Assange by a drone strike.
Rogers then accuses Russia of the breach even while the rest of the spying community finds no evidence for such a claim. That
is natural to do for a military man who grew up during the cold war and may wish that war (and its budgets) back. It is also a
red herring that will never be proven wrong or right unless the original culprit is somehow found.
Next we know - Trump offers Rogers the Clapper job. He would replace the boss that wanted him fired.
Rogers support for the new cold war will also gain him favor with the various weapon industries which will eventually beef
up his pension.
Some of the above is speculation. But it would make sense and explain the quite one-sided wave of leaks we saw during this
election cycle.
Even if it isn't true it would at least be a good script for a Hollywood movie on the nastiness of the inside fighting in Washington
DC.
Let me know how plausible you find the tale.
Posted by b on November 19, 2016 at 02:14 PM |
Permalink
Not sure about the speculation. There's justification for military spending beyond the cold war. Actually, the cold war
could be sacrificed in order to re-prioritize military spending.
In any case, Trump's proposed picks are interesting. I especially like the idea of Dana Rohrabacher as Secretary of State
if it comes to pass.
One thing for sure .... there's been so much 'fail' with the Obama years that there's an abundance of low-hanging fruit
for Trump to feather his cap with success early on, which will give him a template for future successes. That depends largely
on who his picks for key posts are, but there has seldom been so much opportunity for a new President as the one that greets
Trump.
It's there to be had. Let's hope that Trump doesn't blow it.
Sounds about right and this just means a new criminal class has taken over the beltway. That doesn't do anything for us citizens,
just more of the same.
Everything is on schedule and please there's nothing to see here.
I wonder if Rogers' statement appearing to implicate Russian government hackers in leaking DNC information to Wikileaks at
that link to Twitter was made after the Democratic National Convention itself accused Russia of hacking into its database.
In this instance, knowing when Rogers made his statement and when the DNC made its accusation makes all the difference.
If someone at the NSA had been leaking information to Wikileaks and Rogers knew of this, then the DNC blaming Russia for
the leaked information would have been a godsend. All Rogers had to do then would be to keep stumm and if questioned, just
say a "nation state" was responsible. People can interpret that however they want.
Any of the scenarios you mention could be right. The one thing that is certain - Russia was not the culprit. Not because Russians
would not be inclined to hack - I think it is plausible that everyone hacks everyone (as someone said) - but Russians would
not likely go to Wikileaks to publicize their prize. They'd keep it to themselves... in that way, they are probably like LBJ,
who knew that Nixon had sabotaged the end-of-war negotiations in Paris in 1968, but said nothing for fear of shocking the "system"
and the people's trust in it... (didn't work out too well in the end, though). Putin was right when he said (referring to the
2016 US election) that it all should somehow be ... more dignified.
Makes me wonder who populates the Anonymous group of loosely affiliated hackers and if they were used. The tale has probability;
it would be even more interesting if the motive could be framed within the hacker's fulfilling its oath of obligation to the
Constitution. Le Carre might be capable of weaving such a tale plausibly. But what about the Russia angle? IMO, Russia had
the biggest motive to insure HRC wouldn't become POTUS despite all its denials and impartiality statements. Quien Sabe? Maybe
it was Chavez's ghost who did all the hacking; it surely had an outstanding motive.
I'll add some color on Rogers in another post, but I just want to preface any remarks with one overriding aspect of the leaks.
From the details of most of these leaks, speculation on tech blogs (and as far as anyone knows for certain):
There are many parties that had great incentive to acquire and leak the emails, but I have to insist with the utmost conviction
(without a string of expletives) that a junior high school kid could have performed the same feat using hacking tools
easily found on the internet . There was absolutely nothing technically sophisticated or NSA-like in someone's ability
to get into the DNC server or grab Podesta's emails. It was a matter of opportunity and poor security. If anyone has a link
to any other reasoning, I would love to see it. The DNC and Hillary leaks (among other hacks) were due to damn amateurish security
practices. The reason you don't outsource or try to get by on the cheap for systems/network security is to reduce the risk
of this happening to an acceptable cost/benefit level.
So the presumption of Wikileaks source being (or needing to be) a state actor with incredibly sophisticated hacking tools
is utter nonsense. Yes, it could have been the Russian FSB or any one of the five-eyes intelligence agencies or the U.S. Defense
Intelligence Agency. But it could have just as plausibly been Bart Simpson
pwning the DNC from Springfield Elementary School and sending
everything to Wikileaks, "Cool, I just REKT the Clintons!"
WikiLeaks doesn't care if the leak comes from the head of a western intel agency or a bored teenager in New Jersey. It cares
that the material is authentic and carefully vets the content, not the source. At least until they kidnapped Assange and took
over WikiLeaks servers a couple of weeks ago, but that's for a different tin-foil hat thread.
Carol Davidek-Waller | Nov 19, 2016 3:18:02 PM |
7
Is Trump that much of a deep thinker? Rebellious teenager who chooses anyone that the last administration didn't like seems
more plausible to me. It doesn't matter who they are or what their record is. I don't think Trump plans to surrender any of
his undeserved power to anyone. He'll be running the whole show. They'll do what he wants or be shown the door.
rufus (aka "rufie") the MoA Hillbot uses a new persona - "Ron Showalter" - to attack Trump post-election. rufie/Ron conducts
a false flag attack on MoA (making comments that are pages long) so that his new persona can claim that his anti-Trump
views are being attacked by someone using his former persona.
I generally dislike "theories" that go too much into speculation, -- however this one sounds actually quite plausible!
As for "Russia did it", this was obvious bullshit right from the start, not least because of what GoraDiva #4 says: I think it is plausible that everyone hacks everyone (as someone said) - but Russians would not likely go to Wikileaks to
publicize their prize. They'd keep it to themselves
Allegations against Russia worked on confusing different levels: hacking -- leaking -- "rigging".
This picture encapsulates IMO the full absurdity this election campaign had come down to:
MSM constantly bashing Trump for "lies", "post-factual", "populist rage", "hate speech", -- while themselves engaging in the
same on an even larger level, in a completely irresponsible way that goes way beyond "bias", "preference" or even "propaganda".
I understand (and like) the vote for Trump mainly as a call to "stop this insanity!"
~~~
Some more on the issue:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/10/really-really-upset-foreign-office-security-services/ I left Julian [Assange] after midnight. He is fit, well, sharp and in good spirits. WikiLeaks never reveals or comments
upon its sources, but as I published before a fortnight ago, I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is not any Russian
state actor or proxy that gave the Democratic National Committee and Podesta material to WikiLeaks.
The following week, two cybersecurity firms, Fidelis Cybersecurity and Mandiant, independently corroborated Crowdstrike's
assessment that Russian hackers infiltrated DNC networks, having found that the two groups that hacked into the DNC used malware
and methods identical to those used in other attacks attributed to the same Russian hacking groups.
But some of the most compelling evidence linking the DNC breach to Russia was found at the beginning of July by Thomas
Rid, a professor at King's College in London, who discovered an identical command-and-control address hardcoded into the DNC
malware that was also found on malware used to hack the German Parliament in 2015. According to German security officials,
the malware originated from Russian military intelligence. An identical SSL certificate was also found in both breaches.
Sooooo .... these "traces" all show known Russian methods (whether true or not). If they are known they can be faked and
used by someone else.
Now who is the no. 1 organisation, worldwide, in having and being capable to use such information?
@b, your speculation gets better and better the more one thinks about it.
I'm out of my depth on cyber forensics, but would the NSA, and thus Clapper, know who hacked and leaked these documents? Or
would the NSA be in the dark, as they suggest?
Just watched Oliver Stone's "Snowden". Awesome. Can't believe after seeing it that Clapper has survived all these years. Just
another Hoover.
thanks b.. i like the idea of it being an inside job.. makes a lot of sense too.
i like @3 jens question about the timing as a possible aid to understanding this better.
@4 gordiva comment - everyone hacks everyone comment..ditto. it's another form of warfare and a given in these times..
i agree with @6 paveway, and while it sounds trite, folks who don't look after their own health can blame all the doctors..
the responsibility for the e mail negligence rests with hillary and her coterie of bozos..
@7 carol. i agree.
@8 jr.. did you happen to notice a few posts missing from the thread from yesterday and who it was that's been removed?
hint : poster who made the comment "more popcorn" is no longer around. they have a new handle today..
@20 manne.. you can say whatever you want and be speculative too, but i don't share your view on assange knowing who leaked
it..
Except that you have to consider the targeting. I've suspected an insider all along, given the pre-packaged spin points coordinated
with the release vectors. Not that the Russies, Pakistanis, or Chinese wouldn't know more about the US than the US knows about
itself, but the overall nuance really hits the anti-elitist spurned sidekick chord. This clashes a bit with b's interagency
pissing match scenario, but, then again, you step on the wrong tail... Someone didn't get their piece of pie, or equally valid,
someone really really disapproves of the pie's magnitude and relative position on the table.
Curious how Weenergate led to the perfectly timed 650K emails on that remarkably overlooked personal device.
@20 Manne
Yes I think on this case Assange does know, if I remember correctly, he spoke to RT and said something to the effect of 'it's
not Russia, we don't reveal our sources but if the DNC found out who it was they would have "egg on their faces"' ...and easy
access, copy, paste, send job, my hunch it was the DNC staffer who was suicided.
Its what Assange himself says, do your homework, as someone else said here, Wikileaks wont reveal the source, that doesnt
mean they dont know who leaked it.
Is Trump that much of a deep thinker? Rebellious teenager who chooses anyone that the last administration didn't like seems
more plausible to me. It doesn't matter who they are or what their record is. I don't think Trump plans to surrender any of
his undeserved power to anyone. He'll be running the whole show. They'll do what he wants or be shown the door.
Posted by: Carol Davidek-Waller | Nov 19, 2016 3:18:02 PM | 7
I agree.
Trump's got charm and a good memory and doesn't need to be a deep thinker in order to network efficiently and listen carefully.
Nor does he need to be a mathematician to figure out that 1 + 1 = 2.
Has anyone else got the feeling that much of the panic inside Washington is due to the possibility that the crimes of the Obama
administration might be exposed?
One of the most uncanny moments I've experienced watching the Syria crisis unfold is seeing the "Assad gasses his people"
operation launched, fail miserably, then - mostly - interest is lost. I know: the lie, once asserted, has done most of its
work already, debunked or not. I also understand that the western press is so in the tank for the establishment, so "captured"
that it shouldn't surprise anyone that no follow up is offered. My point is, rather, that if you think back over just the Ukrainian
and Syrian debacle the amount of dirt that could be exposed by a truly anti-establishment figure in the White House is mind
boggling.
Just off the top of my head:
- the sabotage of the deal to save the Ukrainian constitutional order brokered by Putin, Merkel and Hollande c/o of the
excuisitely timed and staged sniper shootings (otherwise known as the "most obvious coup in history")
- the farce that is the MH17 inquiry (and the implication: another false flag operation with a cut-out that killed, what was
it, 279 innocents?)
- the Kherson pogrom and the Odessa massacre
- the targeting of both Libya and Syria with outright lies and with all the propaganda perfectly reflecting the adage that,
in dis- info operations, the key is to accuse your enemies of all the crimes you are committing or planning to
- highlights of the above might include: Robert Ford's emails scheming to create "paranoia" in Damascus while completely justifying
same; the "rat-lines" and Ghoutta gas operation; the farcically transparent White Helmets Psy-op *
And on and on...
If you or the institution that pays you had a closet full to bursting with skeletons like this and you were facing an incoming
administration that seems to relish and flaunt it's outsider status wouldn't you be freaking out?
To ice the cake the latest Freudian slip is the crusade against "fake news." Seriously, if I were in their shoes that's
the last phrase I would want people ruminating over. I think it was R. D. Laing who said "we always speak the truth." One way
or another.
* This comes with the delicious irony that the operation's own success offers proof of the adage that sometimes you can succeed
too well. The fact that the Omran photo was plastered across every paper in the west is good evidence of how completely "fake"
our news has become. My favourite is this farcical interview between Amanpour and Lavrov:
https://youtu.be/Tx8kiQyEkHc
@27 Oddlots
Most of those are pretty easy picking under a firm rule of law - plenty of underling rats willing to squeal with even gentle
pressure, I'm sure.
His legacy is horrific.
Obama taught constitutional law for 12 years... It would be sweet, sweet poetry to see him nailed... his 'white papers',
formed in secret courts that no one can see, no oversight in the light of day... phony legal documents that allowed him to
incinerate fellow humans via drone without charge, without trial...
95% or more of the individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those already picked have a deep-seated
obsession with Iran. This is very troubling. It's going to lead to war and not a regular war where 300,000 people die. This
is a catastrophic error in judgment I don't give a sh...t who makes such an error, Trump or the representative from Kalamazoo!
This is so bad that it disqualifies whatever else appears positive at this time.
And one more deeply disturbing thing; Pompeo, chosen to head the CIA has threatened Ed Snowden with the death penalty, if
Snowden is caught, and now as CIA Director he can send operatives to chase him down wherever he is and render him somewhere,
torture him to find out who he shared intelligence with and kill him on the spot and pretend it was a foreign agent who did
the job. He already stated before he was assigned this powerful post that Snowden should be brought back from Russia and get
the death penalty for treason.
Pompeo also sided with the Obama Administration on using U. S. military force in Syria against Assad and wrote this in the
Washington Post: "Russia continues to side with rogue states and terrorist organizations, following Vladimir Putin's pattern
of gratuitous and unpunished affronts to U.S. interests,".
That's not all, Pompeo wants to enhance the surveillance state, and he too wants to tear up the Iran deal.
Many of you here are extremely naïve regarding Trump.
James @21 I noticed the different handle but b hasn't commented on the attack. I assumed that this meant that b didn't know
for sure who did the attack.
As I wrote, rufus/Ron made himself the prime suspect when he described the attack as an attempt to shut down his anti-Trump
message. Some of us thought that it might be a lame attempt to discredit rufus but only "Ron" thought that the attack was related
to him.
If one doesn't believe - as I do - that Ron = rufus then you might be less convinced that rufus did the deed.
Yes, it is important to remember that Assange, though he did not state that he knew who provided the DNC emails, implied
that he did, and further implied--but did not state--that it was Seth Rich. Assange's statement came shortly after Rich's death
by shooting. Assange stated he specifically knew people had people had risked their lives uploading material, implying that
they had in fact lost them.
b's speculation has the ring of truth. I've often wondered if Trump was encouraged to run by a deep-state faction that found
the neocons to be abhorrent and dangerous.
Aside: I find those who talk about "factions" in foreign policy making to be un-credible. Among these were those that spoke
of 'Obama's legacy'. A bullshit concept for a puppet.The neocons control FP. And they could only be unseated if a neocon
-unfriendly President was elected.
Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran. But I doubt that it will result in a shooting war with Iran. The
'deep-state' (arms industry and security agencies) just wants a foreign enemy as a means of ensuring that US govt continues
to fund security agencies and buy arms.
And really, Obama's "peace deal" with Iran was bogus anyway. It was really just a placeholder until Assad could be toppled.
Only a small amount of funds were released to Iran, and US-Iranian relations have been just as bad as they were before the
"peace deal". So all the hand-wringing about Trump vs. Iran is silly.
What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest" military
(note: every candidate was for a strong military) , the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.
And so it is interesting that those that want to undermine Trump have resorted to the claim that he is close to Jews/Zionists/Israel
or even Jewish himself. Funny that Trump wasn't attacked like that before the election, huh?
The profound changes and profound butt-hurt lead to the following poignant questions:
>> Have we just witnessed a counter-coup?
>> Isn't it sad that, in 2016(!), the only check on elites are other elite factions? An enormous cultural failure that
has produced a brittle social fabric.
>> If control of NSA snooping power is so crucial, why would ANY ruling block ever allow the another to gain power?
Indeed, the answer to this question informs one's view on whether the anti-Trump protests are just Democratic Party ass-covering/distraction
or a real attempt at a 'color revolution'.
b said also.."Rogers support for the new cold war will also gain him favor with the various weapon industries which will
eventually beef up his pension."
That's the long game for most of the "Hawks" in DC. Perpetual war is most profitable.
What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest"
military (note: every candidate was for a strong military), the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.
Oh please! Trump is stacking his cabinet with Iran-obsessed Islam haters! Nominal enemy , my ass! And was every candidate
for spending a Trillion more on defense??? Did you even read Trump's plan to build up the military?
You do Netanyahu proud with your deflection. What? Nothing regarding Pompeo's blistering comments on Russia or Ed Snowden?
Why are you trying to diminish the threat to Iran with the hawks, Islam-haters, and Iran-obsessed team that Trump cobbled
together so far?
Trump's Israel adviser David Friedman is known to be more extreme than even Netanyahu.
No doubt Netanyahu has unleashed an army of IDF hasbara to crush criticism of Trump and his Iran-obsessed cabinet because
he must be elated with his choices and wants to make them palatable to the American sheeple.
Netanyahu is the first leader Trump spoke with on the phone. Trump praised Netanyahu from day one. PNAC and Clean Break
were war manifestos for rearranging the Middle East with the ultimate goal of toppling Iran.
Trump and his cabinet are all about tearing up the deal and assuming a much more hostile position with Iran. Tearing up
the deal is a precursor to a casus belli. What more proof is there that Trump is doing the bidding of Zionist Neocons??? Oh,
but you don't want more, do you?
As chipnik noted in a comment, Iran is one of the only countries that is yet to be under the control of private finance
(see my latest Open Thread comments, please)
I personally see all this as obfuscation covering for throwing Americans under the bus by the global plutocrats. The elite
can see, just like us, that the US empire's usefulness is beyond its "sold by" date and are acting accordingly. America and
its Reserve Currency status are about to crash and the elites are working to preserve their supra-national private finance
base of power/control while they let America devolve to who knows what level.
Too much heat and not enough light here...or if you prefer, the noise to signal ratio is highly skewed to noise.
Crimes involving moral turpitude have an inherent quality of baseness, vileness, or depravity with respect to a person's
duty to another or to society in general.
Given the above Trump would not be allowed to immigrate to the US.....just saying...
the shadowbrokers say they have NSA malware/tools and to prove it after their auction was met with crickets riding tumbleweeds
they released some teaser info on NSA servers used for proxy attacks and recon. of course a few just happened to be "owned"
boxes in russia (and china and some other places for that matter). add their russian IP addresses to some (mostly useless)
sigantures associated with supposedly russian-designed malware and you've got some good circumstantial evidence.
also: an email address associated with one or more attacks is from a russian site/domain but whoever registered was directed
to the .com domain instead of the .ru one. this probably means someone got sloppy and didn't remember to check their DNS for
fail.
in general these hacks look less like russians and more like someone who wants to look like russians. the overpaid consultants
used by the DNC/clinton folks can put "bear" in the names and claim that a few bits of cyrillic are a "slam dunk" but all the
"evidence" is easily faked. not that anyone in the "deep state" would ever fake anything.
Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran.
I worry about it as well. Trump said he'll tear up nuclear agreement, and the people he is choosing also have rabid anti-Iranian
agenda.
Nice start for Trump:
Thursday US House voted to stop civilian aircraft sales to Iran by both Boeing and Airbus.
Few days before - US extending economic sanctions against Iran through 2026.
Of course Trump can block it, but will he? Even if he does, he might blackmail Iran for something in return, etc. Iran is
by no means off the hook for neocons and Israel, and I wouldnt be surprised if Trump follows the suit.
Trump will (or might) have better relations with Russia, but this cordiality doesnt extend to Iran. Or as Jackrabbit says,
US neocons will simply switch the targeted state and Iran may soon become "worse threat to humanity than ISIS", again.
I doubt separating the animosity towards Russia and Iran is even possible. Truth be told his comments towards Russia during
the election seemed more like he was woefully unaware of the reality of the Russo-American situation in the Mideast than about
being ready to negotiate major US power positions and accept Russia as anything more than enemy. Sounded very off the cuff
to me. Maybe he thought he'd 'get along great with Putin' at the time but after realizing later that means making nice with
Iran and giving up a large measure of US influence in the MENA he has reconsidered and taken the party line. It'd certainly
be understandable for a noncareer politician. I'd imagine he'd be more interested now in currying favour with the MIC and the
typical Republican party hawks than with Russia/Putin given his statements on military spending. Back when I saw him bow down
at the altar of AIPAC earlier in the season I had trouble reconciling that with how he hoped to improve relationships with
Russia at the same time given their radical differences wrt their allies. He's made a lot of those type of statements too,
it was hard to read where he stood on most any issue during election season.
I imagine as he's brought into the fold and really shown the reality of how US imperialist power projection he'll change
his mind considerably. I think we, as readers and amateur analysts of this type of material, take for granted how hard some
of this knowledge is to come by without looking for it directly. When we hear someone is going to make nice with Russia we
want to think "well he says that as he must surely recognize the insanity and destructive forces at work." Maybe it's more
of a case where the person speaking actually thinks we're in Syria to fight ISIS - that they have very little grasp of how
things really work over there.
In my eyes the names he's been considering are reason for much worry for those hoping Trump would be the one to usher in
a multipolar world and end the cold war. I never had much hope in that regard (but I'm still praying for the best).
Putin has been supporting right-wing movements across the West in order to weaken NATO
Care to back this statement with arguments, examples ar a link to an excellent article?
Looking at most of "New Europe", it's the other way around ... fascist states allied with Nazi Germany against communism,
participating in massacres of Jewish fellow citizens and functioning as a spearhead for US intelligence against communism after
the defeat of Nazi Germany – see Gladio. Now used by the CIA in the
coup d'état in Ukraine in Februari 2014.
Ahhh ... searched for it myself, a paper written earlier in 2016 ... how convenient!
Policy set by the Atlantic Council years ago:
make Russia a pariah state . Written
about it many times. BS and more western propaganda. The West has aligned itself with jihadists across the globe, Chechnya
included. Same as in Afghanistan, these terrorists were called "freedom fighters". See John McCain in northern Syria with same
cutthroats.
Absolutely outrageous! See her twitter account with followers/participants
Anne Applebaum and former and now discredited Poland's FM
Radoslaw Sikorski .
"Emails of the DNC and of Clinton's consigliere John Podesta were hacked and leaked. Additionally emails from Clinton's private
email server were released. All these influenced the election in favor of Trump."
Not necessarily so. An informal poll of people in blue collar flyover country about their voting intentions prior to the
election expressed 4 common concerns
i) The risk of war.
ii) The Obamacare disaster especially recent triple digit percent increase in fees.
iii) Bringing back jobs.
iv) Punishing the Democrat Party for being indistinguishable from the Republicans.
We shouldn't take Trump's bluster at face value. For example, Trump said that he'd eliminate Obamacare. Now he has backed
off that saying that some elements of Obamacare are worthwhile.
That the Israeli head of state is one of the first foreign leaders that any President-elect speaks to is no surprise. That
you harp on what is essentially nonsense is telling.
In my view Trump is not anti-Jewish. He is anti-neocon/anti-Zionist. As Bannon said, America has been getting f*cked.
To ice the cake the latest Freudian slip is the crusade against "fake news."
i see it more as another mindfucking meme than a Freudian slip. another paean to Discordia, the goddess of chaos. we've
lived with 'fake news,' heretofore advertised by reliable sources , since forever. baptizing this bastardized melange
only sinks us deeper into dissonant muck.
One would hope if that is true - Trump recognises this and fires him as well rather than promoting him.
However, if he were instrumental in getting Trump elected it is understandable if Trump decided to promote him.
It's well-known and clear Trump rewards those who have done him favours.
Let us hope it is not true.
The first thing Trump must do when elected is declassify all material related to MH17. This can be done in late January/
February as one of his first orders of business.
It's important to do this quickly - at least before the Dutch Elections in March 2017.
#MH17truth
If Trump does this he will do a number of things.
1 - Likely reveal that it was the Ukrainians who were involved in shooting down MH17. I say likely because it's possible
this goes deeper than just Ukraine - if that's the case - more the better.
2. He will destroy the liar Porky Poroshenko and his corrupt regime with him. He will destroy Ukraine's corrupt Government's
relationship with Europe.
3. He will destroy the sell-out traitor to his own people Mark Rutte of Netherlands. This will ensure an election win for
a key Trump ally - Geert Wilders.
If Rutte is discredited for using the deaths of 200 Dutch citizens for his own political gain - he is finished and might
end up in jail.
4. He will destroy Merkel utterly. Her chances of re-election (which she just announced she will stand!) will be utterly
destroyed.
5. He will restory Russia-USA relations in an instant.
Trump must also do this ASAP because this is the kind of thing that could get him killed if he doesn't do it ASAP when he's
inaugurated.
Of course - until then - he should keep his mouth shut about it - but the rest of us should be shouting it all around the
Internet.
And very well documented, too. Sort of like the theory that 9/11 was carried out by the Boy Scouts of America. After all,
the boost in jingoism and faux-patriotism gave the BSA a boost in revenue and membership, so that pretty well proves it, eh?
And if you dig deep enough I'm sure you'll find that on 9/10 the BSA shorted their stocks in United.
Totally agree Oddlots and that is why Trump must be on the front foot immediately.
Exposing MH17 and destroying Poroshenko, Rutte & Merkel - and Biden & Obama by the way and a bunch of others is absolutely
key.
Blow MH17 skyhigh and watch Russia-USA relations be restored in a nanosecond.
It will be especially sweet to watch the Dutch traitor to his own people Rutte destroyed in the midst of an election campaign
such that he might end up in jail charged with treason and replaced by Geert Wilders - the Dutch Donald Trump if ever there
was one - within a matter of weeks.
However, a word of caution, it is precisely because of these possibilities that there has to be a high chance Trump will
be assassinated.
Pence would not walk that line. Not at all.
There is no doubt Trump's life is in danger. I hope he has enough good people around him who will point the finger in the
right direction if and when it happens.
I think it's a bit of a stretch. First of all, there are other, deeper areas of investigative matters concerning previous governments
of the US, impeachable offenses and international crimes - remember when Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table? Not to
mention, what did happen in Benghazi and why? It wouldn't matter who did that hacking of those emails- it's a bit like the
exposure of the White House tapes in Nixon's presidency. We didn't worry about who revealed that - we went to the issues themselves.
I think that is what Trump is doing as he brings people to his home for conversations. It is the opposite of Obama's 'moving
forward, not looking back'. Trump is going to look back. It's not about reinstating the cold war; it's about gathering information.
I think Saudi Arabia are the ones who should be scared. Trump has implied before he knows who is responsible for September
11.
My guess is he wants to expose Saudi Arabia and the Bush Family.
Ever wondered why the Bushes hate and appear frightened of Trump? Because they understand he will expose their complicity
in September 11 and potentially have them locked up.
Or perhaps he'll let Dubya off claiming he didn't know in return for a favour and lock up Dick Cheney instead. Quite possible.
The Saudis will get thrown down the river and lose any assets they hold in US Dollars - a significant amount I believe!
Sucks to be a Saudi Royal right about now - they better liquidate their US assets ASAP if they have any brains.
Retired UK ambassador Craig Murray said on his Web site, after meeting with Assange and then traveling to Washington where
he met with former NSA officials, that he was 100 percent sure that Wikileaks's source was not the Russians and also suggested
that the leaks came from inside the U.S. government.
@24 jr.. i found the rs guy to be quite repugnant..rufus never came across quite the same way to me, but as always - i could
be wrong! i see pac is gone today and been replaced with another name, lol.. and the beat goes on.. b has deleted posts and
must be getting tired of them too.
@31 manne.. thanks.. does that rule out an insider with the nsa/cia as well?
@34 fecklessleft.. i agree with your last paragraph..
@36 yonatan.. i agree with that alternative take myself..
@40 jules.. would be nice to see happen, but most likely an exercise in wishful thinking.. sort of the same with your @44
too.. the saudis need to be taken down quite a few notches.. the usa/israel being in bed with the headchopper cult has all
the wrong optics for suggesting anything positive coming from usa/israel..
b says 'Next we [can speculate] - Trump offers Rogers the Clapper job. He would replace the boss that wanted him fired.' There,
fixed it.
There appears to be a growing canyon in the intelligence world with some wanting to rid the Office of the National Intelligence
agency altogether, while others are lobbying for it to remain.
Remember when Obama referred to the rise of the Islamic State as the 'JV team'? That nonchalant attitude by Obama towards
the growing threat of the head choppers in Iraq and Syria was squarely placed on senior management within the intelligence
community -
"Two senior analysts at CENTCOM signed a written complaint sent to the Defense Department inspector general in July alleging
that the reports, some of which were briefed to President Obama, portrayed the terror groups as weaker than the analysts
believe they are. The reports were changed by CENTCOM higher-ups to adhere to the administration's public line that the
U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and al Nusra, al Qaeda's branch in Syria, the analysts claim."
Who knows, Rogers may very well have been one in senior management who encouraged these 50 analysts to come forward. Maybe
the IG investigation is wrapping up and at least internally, the senior management who made intel reports to Obama full of
'happy talk' have been identified and are now leaving on their own.
We shouldn't take Trump's bluster at face value. For example, Trump said that he'd eliminate Obamacare. Now he has backed
off that saying that some elements of Obamacare are worthwhile.
For crying out loud! I don't give a rat's ass about Obamacare when he outlined a plan to boost the military by a trillion
dollars and stacks his cabinet with crazy Iran-obsessed hawks who want to start a world war over effing Iran! And you're deflecting
this with freakin' Obamacare -- It's speaks volumes about your credibility!
Trump is anti-Zionist??? Ha! His adviser to Israel David Friedman is an extreme right-wing Zionist! Or do you just prefer
to completely ignore fact and reality???
And Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo can't stand Putin and their comments and record are there - FACT!
And Trump didn't only tell Hillary he was going to build up the military; he outlined it later in his plan with facts and
figures and it's going to cost about a Trillion dollars, so quit comparing it to a gradual phasing out of Obamacare!
Okay, you know what? I see right through your little game. Unless you have something cogent with factual backup; I don't
wanna read your responses based on pure fantasy and deflection. I look at the cold, hard facts and reality. I look at who Trump
is surrounding himself with rabid Islam-haters obsessed with going after Iran and extremist Zionist loons and hawks like Pompeo
and Pence making disturbing comments on Russia and Snowden and Trump's plan. So quit pretending you're not trying to obscure
fact with fiction meant to deceive!
"...and not a regular war where 300,000 people die..."
- Regular? So, you're calling an aggression on Syria just a 'Regular' war, on par with the course? The very least the Americans
have to do, including those given the 'Nobel Peace Prize' (a bloody joke if there ever was one)? And those regular wars are
needed to, what, regularly feed and the US MIC Beast? So... Obama and Hillary were just getting on with the inevitable?
Your other observations regarding Pompeo are more meaningful, but I think you underestimate the power of groupthink under
the Clinton-Bush-Obama continuous administration complex. Anyway, if Pompeo doesn't wish to get "reassigned", he might be better
off unmounting the neocon horse mindset and getting on better with the Tea Party dogma, where the enemies of thy enemies are
more likely to be seen as friends then frenemies.
#34 Feckless Left
In a sense you are right, he is not a career politician and he might be underestimating the depth of the abyss. Yet, he
has far more street cred than you seem to be giving him credit for. An honest, naive idealist, he is certainly not...
Circe, I have addressed your panic about Iran in another thread and you failed to reply so again:
"Even if true that the future administration would shift its focus against Iran, what can they accomplish militarily against
it? Nought. SAA & ISA would send militias to support Iran, nothing would prevent Russia from using Hamedan airbase just as
it uses Hmeimim and deploy S-400 et al systems to bolster Iran's already existing ones. Plus on what grounds politically could
they intervene? Nobody is buying Bibi's "Bomb" bs seriously anymore. Forget it, with Syria prevailing Iran is safe.."
Oddlots #21. insightful. you ignored the entire list on the financial side, but they are linked through the profound mutual
support between Israel and Wall Street.
I have been really surprised at the lack of discussion of BHO's impromptu post-election tour of Germany and Greece. It seems
to me Egypt flipped and it was met with silence, because WashDC must be secured before the neocons can respond. But the two
countries that are game-set-match are Germany and Greece. The Greek navy with German support is a great power in the Mediterranean.
How convenient to keep them at each other's throats for a decade. I think BHO was trying desperately to keep them onside. But
he would either have to promise them something that he can no longer deliver after Jan 20th...or he has to clue them in to
a different timeline than the one we think is playing out. Anyone have a idea why the Prez had to go and talk to Merkel and
Tsipras *without intermediaries?*
Having now founded a central bank in every nation of the world, the Khazars have defeated the Pope and the Caliphate. Only
Iran and North Korea don't have a Khazar central bank. And only Iran has the last stash of crown jewels and gold bullion that
the Khazars don't already control.
They want Iran as part of Greater Israel, and they hate Russia for driving them out after the fall of the Soviet Union.
The Khazars control the American Union under a Red/Blue Star. Just talking ethnics, not race, religion or creed, since Hebrew
is a religion of pure commercial convenience for the Khazars.
US and IL are therefore aligned against IR and RU. Now we can get rid of all the race, religion or creed crap, and talk
New Math set theory: {US,IL} ≠ {IR,RU}
Who are {US,IL} sanctions against? {IR,RU}. In this new Trump' Administration: {TA} ⊆ {US,IL}, and {TA} ⊄ {IR,RU}. From
a chess perspective, Putin just got Kieningered, because the Khazars would have everyone believe that {TA} ❤ {RU}, when in
reality, {TA} ∩ {RU} = {Ø}.
I'm fully expecting a radical change in rhetoric coming from Mr. Trump and his new team, but little else. The REAL movers and
shakers who run the U$A have everything moving their direction right now, so why change? I expect "the Donald" to do as he's
told, like every other POTUS in modern history. They'll let him screw the workers, but, not the REAL owners of the U$A( 1%).
You don't know? Before he died, my father told me a trick. Once the bloom was off their marriage, his wife would deliberately
provoke his heavy-handed management of the family, by doing whatever he didn't want. So he learned to always 'go crazy' over
things, knowing that's exactly what she would do to spite him, ...and in that way, using 'reverse psychology', the Khazars
would have you believe that they hate Trump, and Trump loves Russia. They're just putting the Maidan gears into motion.
If Trump is considering Mitt Romney for SoS then you can bet his policy towards Russia will be hostile because the only reason
Trump would put someone between himself and Putin, who repeatedly called Russia, America's No. 1 enemy, is because he wants
a bad cop on Russia in the State Department, in spite of his supposed good cop remarks regarding Putin. In other words, he
wants someone who can put it straight to Putin so he himself can pretend to be the good cop. If Trump were being honest regarding
a softening in policy with Russia do you really believe he would ever consider someone like Romney for SoS??? Again, Mitt Romney
has made the most scathing comments of anyone against Putin, and then calling Russia the number one geopolitical enemy of
the U.S. . Many on the Democratic and even Republican side felt he went overboard and many have since called his comment
prophetic and today Romney feels vindicated.
Many analysts on the Democratic side and Republican side are calling Romney prophetic since he made that statement on Russia
before Russia messed with U.S. plans for Syria.
So, my point is this; it's possible, it's very possible that, Mike Pompeo, Trump's choice for CIA Director, who also has
a hostile position towards Russia asked Trump to consider Romney because he know doubt also believes that Romney proved good
foresight with that comment regarding Russia and urged Trump to give Romney a meeting.
My 2nd point is this: quit trying to make Trump into what he's not when he's spelling it all out for you in black and white!
It doesn't look good. This picture that's starting to develop is looking worse by the day. Look at who he's surrounding
himself with; look at his actions and forget about his words. This man has sold ice to the eskimos in his business dealings.
Look at the facts. Trump is not who you think he is and just because he made some comments favorable in Putin's regard doesn't
mean he's not going to turn around and stick it to Putin a year or maybe a few years down the line. Kissinger told Fareed Zakaria
today on GPS: One should not insist in nailing Trump to positions he took during the campaign.
I already wrote that I believe Trump is using this fake softer strategy to get Russia to look sideways on a coming Resolution
to invade Iran and then he's going to deal with Putin and Russia.
If Trump picks someone like Romney for State; he'll have 3 individuals in the most important cabinet positions dealing with
foreign policy and foreign enemies who will be hostile to Russia: VP, CIA Director and SoS. Therefore he would be sending his
bad cop to deal with Russia and sending a message to Putin like: Don't put your money on whatever I said during the campaign,
my positions are changing for the empire's benefit and strategic interests. And even if he doesn't choose Mitt, because on
Breitbart where his base convenes they're up in arms about this meeting, I would still be wary of his direction because of
the picks he's made already; the majority of his cabinet so far want war with Iran and his VP and CIA Director can't stand
Putin and then looking at who's advising him, rabid Neocon Zionists like James Woolsey and David Friedman.
Look at what Trump does, who he's meeting with, who he's choosing to surround himself with and quit hanging on what he said,
because talk is cheap, especially coming from someone who's now in the inner circle of American power.
@55
Please don't give me one measly Cohen tweet as fact! The entire Zionist Organization of America came to Bannon's defense
and he will be attending their gala! It's been made public everywhere; so quit obscuring the truth.
@54
Yes, Russia could come to Iran's defense considering Iran allowed for Russia's use of that air base for Syria and rescued
one of the two Russian pilots shot down by Turkey, and is fighting al-Nusra shoulder to shoulder with Russia, but the empire
has something up its sleeve to stop Russia from coming to the defense of Iran, should the U.S. and Israel decide to circumvent
the Security Council. Something stinks; Trump is top loading his cabinet with crazy, Iran-obsessed hawks and his VP and CIA
Direct also have no love for Putin. They're planning something against Iran and I know they're going to do something to tie
Putin's hands. Something's up and it's going to lead to war beyond Syria. Look the Russians are already depleting resources
in Syria; already that puts Russia in a weakened position. I don't know what they're planning but it's not good. The picture
unfolding with Trump's cabinet is very disturbing.
There's another aspect and maybe it's significant and maybe not that could influence a change in Trump's position on Russia
that would have also made him take the extreme step of meeting with Romney while considering the SoS position. Trump is getting
the highest level of security briefings now that he's President-elect. You wanna bet that Russia and Putin are mentioned in
over 50% of those briefings and ISIS, Iran and others get the other 50% collectively???
Hasbara hysteria to undermine Trump. Unrelenting bullshit and innuendo.
What was Bannon talking about when he said that America is getting f*cked? Globalism vs. Nationalism. Who equates nationalism
with nazism? Zionists. Who is butt-hurt over Trump Presidency? Zionists and neocons.
Yep, describes your weak deception to a T! ...like I'm going to hang on Bannon's word as gospel when he's going to be wining
and dining with Zionists at the ZOA gala.
Oh, and one more thing: Zionists, FYI, relate very well with nationalists and supremacists since they got their own nationalist,
supremacist operation in ISRAEL! So I'm only too sure they'll be commiserating and exchanging ideas on how best to secure their
nationalist, supremacist vision for the empire. There's a whole lot of common ground for them to cover during the gala, and
YOU CAN'T AND DIDN'T DENY THAT BANNON IS ATTENDING THE ZIONIST GALA! Did you???
So again, quit dogging me, quit presuming I'm some undercover hasbara, that maybe you are, and spare me the bullshit.
As if we didn't need anymore proof of where Trump is taking the U.S.: Trump tweeted a comment highly praising General James
Mattis after their meeting considering him for Secretary of Defense. This is a major, major red flag signalling a very troubling
direction in Trump's foreign policy.
Mattis served for two years as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. Although, he served under Obama, he was against the Iran
deal and considers Iran more dangerous that ISIS!
Mattis is nicknamed "mad-dog mattis" for a reason: he is an extreme hawk and he is MIC incorporated.
But here's the kicker, Mattis like Pompeo, Pence and Romney has also made blistering comments against Russia, stating that
Putin wants to break up NATO, sent "dogs and thugs" into Georgia and has been very critical of Putin's actions in Ukraine and
Syria.
At the beginning of the primaries, Neocons wanted Mattis as a candidate for the Presidency on the Republican side. I like
how the following article describes just how much Neocon war hawks salivated over the thought of Mattis in the White House:
Well folks, Mattis, the darling of Neocons, will be in the White House next to Trump advising him on war strategy! And worst
of all this mad-dog Neocon war hawk is going to run the Pentagon, oversee a trillion-dollar military expansion and command
the next world war!
So are you convinced yet that Trump is perpetuating the Neocon PNAC/Clean Break plan or are you still totally blind???
@34 fl, 'In my eyes the names he's been considering are reason for much worry for those hoping Trump would be the one to usher
in a multipolar world and end the cold war. I never had much hope in that regard (but I'm still praying for the best).'
Trump is in it for Trump. He's a solipsist. We and our 'real world' doesn't exist for Trump. He lives in Trump Tower. The
only things he cares about are his personal interests. He'll put in people to 'run the government' who will insulate him and
his interests from the consequences of their actions and that'll keep him happy and them in their jobs, no matter the consequences
for our 'imaginary' real world. We're back to the mad Caesars. Our government has been steadily walking away from us since
Bush XLI. It's on the run now, we're up to Nero. We 'barbarians' need to take care of our real world in its absence, prepare
ourselves to pick up the pieces when it's become so unrecognizable that it's finally disappeared.
"... Put together, these two trends have served the purposes of the highly centralized State and the globalized market that has resulted in an unprecedented concentration of power and wealth. ..."
"... The liberal left and significant portions further left tend to celebrate a negative cultural and sexual liberty while the Liberal right tends to celebrate an economic and political negative liberty. ..."
"... It ends up bringing about exactly the kinds of intolerant [neo]liberalis m(blatantly on display these days) it ascribes to all non-liberal positions. ..."
"The Archdruid report is useful but Greer should read Thomas Frank. Then he will stop conflating
"Left" and "Liberal."
The "Left" as well as the center-left/center-right (Hillary/traditional conservative Republican
crowd) both are strong supporters of a social-cultural liberalism, that since the 1960s has
heavily promoted individual rights and an equality of opportunity for self-expression.
The "Right" since at least the early 1980s( along with the Hillary crowd) has supported
an economic political liberalism that champions "free markets" liberated from the bureaucratic
State.
Put together, these two trends have served the purposes of the highly centralized State
and the globalized market that has resulted in an unprecedented concentration of power and wealth.
The liberal left and significant portions further left tend to celebrate a negative cultural
and sexual liberty while the Liberal right tends to celebrate an economic and political negative
liberty.
The Left's defense of existing negative liberty (and not being willing to think beyond it)
ends up undermining all modes of freedom because it tends to shut down debate about substantive
ends.
It ends up bringing about exactly the kinds of intolerant [neo]liberalis m(blatantly on
display these days) it ascribes to all non-liberal positions.
Is there anyplace for a positive concept of liberty in 2016?
"... Here Ackerman ranks the USA with Belarus and Singapore on the democracy scale and indeed explicitly characterizes it as a Russian-like "soft authoritarian" regime. I've always thought the USA possessed a distinct "Russkieness" to it, not surprising for a continent-country with a historic background of relative labor shortage and rich in natural resources. ..."
"... Yes, we are a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual empire of continental scope, that acquired contiguous territory by accretion, ruled by a decadent police state. There are many similarities, including waiting in line a a lot, ..."
Laugh line: "But Russia also diverges sharply from the U.S. on values like democracy, freedom of
speech, international sovereignty and territorial integrity, he noted."
Obama, and everyone, needs to read Seth Ackerman's piece on the reality of the US political
system up on Jacobin:
Here Ackerman ranks the USA with Belarus and Singapore on the democracy scale and indeed
explicitly characterizes it as a Russian-like "soft authoritarian" regime. I've always thought the
USA possessed a distinct "Russkieness" to it, not surprising for a continent-country with a historic
background of relative labor shortage and rich in natural resources.
However, I think the USA's political restrictiveness *does* directly stem for the founders and
their constitution. It's an 18th C vintage Whig clique constitution in neo-classical dress.
> I've always thought the USA possessed a distinct "Russkieness"
Yes, we are a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual empire of continental scope, that acquired
contiguous territory by accretion, ruled by a decadent police state. There are many similarities,
including waiting in line a a lot,
and mordant humor.
JSM was struck by the same line in the Jacobin piece. 'Authoritarian democracy' was making the
rounds in the primaries.
When Jill Stein can be zip-tied to a chair for hours on end, all for merely attending the 2012
presidential debates, why quibble about whether parties are banned by law, or as in the US, laws
'not directly intended' to achieve that
de facto
result, ruling power conspiracies, and
arbitrary police action.
"... 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.
It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all
need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland ..."
"... The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate. ..."
"... two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. ..."
"... Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime. ..."
"... In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined. ..."
"... But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism. ..."
"... Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this. ..."
"... Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. ..."
"... Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. ..."
"... The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico. ..."
"... I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit. ..."
"... Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics. ..."
"... It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. ..."
"... The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present. ..."
"... Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'. ..."
"... Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote. ..."
"... Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'? ..."
"... I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective. ..."
"... In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s." ..."
"... Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate." ..."
"... In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.' ..."
"... In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power. ..."
"... To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay. ..."
"... This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it). ..."
"... You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all. ..."
"... You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem. ..."
"... One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party. ..."
"... Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery. ..."
"... None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it. ..."
"... . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part. ..."
"... This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them. ..."
"... Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win? ..."
"... "The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians." ..."
"... "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.' ..."
"... "One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken." ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... "At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..) ..."
"... " what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote. ..."
"... "The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened. ..."
"... "The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun." ..."
"... They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work. ..."
"... trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept. ..."
"... trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there. ..."
"... "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html ..."
"... Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. "" ..."
The question is no longer her neoliberalism, but yours. Keep it or throw it away?
I wish this issue was being seriously discussed. Neoliberalism has been disastrous for
the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial
heartland, now little more than its wasteland (cf. "flyover zone" – a pejorative term which
inhabitants of the zone are not too stupid to understand perfectly, btw).
The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied
them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary
production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent
living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate.
As noted upthread, two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair:
offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. The jobs that have been lost will not return,
and indeed will be lost in ever greater numbers – just consider what will happen to the trucking
sector when self-driving trucks hit the roads sometime in the next 10-20 years (3.5 million truckers;
8.7 in allied jobs).
Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable
giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that
would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations
for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum
wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence
life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime.
In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus,
a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal
distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic)
minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate,
stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined.
I appreciate and espouse the goals of identity politics in all their multiplicity, and also
understand that the institutions of slavery and sexism predated modern capitalist economies.
But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital
(which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired
as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their
capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse
or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century
capitalism.
Also: Faustusnotes@100
For example Indiana took the ACA Medicaid expansion but did so with additional conditions that
make it worse than in neighboring states run by democratic governors.
And what states would those be? IL, IA, MI, OH, WI, KY, and TN have Republican governors. Were
you thinking pre-2014? pre-2012?
To conclude and return to my original point: what's to become of the Rust Belt in future? Did
the Democratic platform include a New New Deal for PA, OH, MI, WI, and IA (to name only the five
Rust Belt states Trump flipped)?
" Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic
and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive
governments to deal with this.
Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization
launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial
and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though,
was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the
Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. "
What should have been one comment came out as 4, so apologies on that front.
I spent the last week explaining the US election to my students in Japan in pretty much the
terms outlined by Lilla and PIketty, so I was delighted to discover these two articles.
Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too,
along with a number of social drivers. It was therefore very easy to call for a show of hands
to identify students studying here in Tokyo who are trying to decide whether or not to return
to areas such as Tohoku to build their lives; or remain in Kanto/Tokyo – the NY/Washington/LA
of Japan put crudely.
I asked students from regions close to Tohoku how they might feel if the Japanese prime minister
decided not to visit the region following Fukushima after the disaster, or preceding an election.
The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an
apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained
that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans
did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico.
I then asked the students, particularly those from outlying regions whether they believe Japan
needed a leader who would 'bring back Japanese jobs' from Viet Nam and China, etc. Many/most agreed
wholeheartedly. I then asked whether they believed Tokyo people treated those outside Kanto as
'inferiors.' Many do.
Piketty may be right regarding Trump's long-term effects on income inequality. He is wrong,
I suggest, to argue that Democrats failed to respond to Sanders' support. I contend that in
some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root
and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed
was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision
appeared in sharp relief with Brexit.
Also worth noting is that the rust belts problems are as old as Reagan – even the term dates
from the 80s, the issue is so uncool that there is a dire straits song about it. Some portion
of the decline of manufacturing there is due to manufacturers shifting to the south, where the
anti Union states have an advantage. Also there has been new investment – there were no Japanese
car companies in the us in the 1980s, so they are new job creators, yet insufficient to make up
the losses. Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity,
so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions
that predate the emergence of identity politics.
It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves
on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the
plight of their cherished white working class. Suddenly it's not the forces of capital and
the objective facts of history, but a bunch of whiny black trannies demanding safe spaces and
protesting police violence, that drove those towns to ruin.
And what solutions do they think the dems should have proposed? It can't be welfare, since
we got the ACA (watered down by representatives of the rust belt states). Is it, seriously, tariffs?
Short of going to an election promising w revolution, what should the dems have done? Give us
a clear answer so we can see what the alternative to identity politics is.
basil 11.19.16 at 5:11 am
Did this go through?
Thinking with WLGR @15, Yan @81, engels variously above,
The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people
and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of
the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great
injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation
of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic
vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan
C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity.
Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory
present.
I get that the tropes around race are easy, and super-available. Privilege confessing is very
in vogue as a prophylactic against charges of racism. But does it threaten the structures that
produce this abjection – either as embittered, immiserated 'white working class' or as threatened
minority group? It is always *those* 'white' people, the South, the Working Class, and never the
accusers some of whom are themselves happy to vote for a party that drowns out anti-war protesters
with chants of USA! USA!
Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces
ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'.
--
Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making
that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness'
threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans
are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation.
Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like
a minority vote.
Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder
if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of
the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority,
much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are
denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape
really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'?
I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants
in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but
this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective.
The 'racialisation' of class in Britain has been a consequence of the weakening of 'class'
as a political idea since the 1970s – it is a new construction, not an historic one.
.
This is not to deny the existence of working-class racism, or to suggest that racism is
somehow acceptable if rooted in perceived socio-economic grievances. But it is to suggest that
the concept of a 'white working class' needs problematizing, as does the claim that the British
working-class was strongly committed to a post-war vision of 'White Britain' analogous to the
politics which sustained the idea of a 'White Australia' until the 1960s.
Yes, old, settled neighbourhoods could be profoundly distrustful of outsiders – all outsiders,
including the researchers seeking to study them – but, when it came to race, they were internally
divided. We certainly hear working-class racist voices – often echoing stock racist complaints
about over-crowding, welfare dependency or exploitative landlords and small businessmen, but
we don't hear the deep pathological racial fears laid bare in the letters sent to Enoch Powell
after his so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968 (Whipple, 2009).
But more importantly, we also hear strong anti-racist voices loudly and clearly. At Wallsend
on Tyneside, where the researchers were gathering their data just as Powell shot to notoriety,
we find workers expressing casual racism, but we also find eloquent expressions of an internationalist,
solidaristic perspective in which, crucially, black and white are seen as sharing the same
working-class interests.
Racism is denounced as a deliberate capitalist strategy to divide workers against themselves,
weakening their ability to challenge those with power over their lives (shipbuilding had long
been a very fractious industry and its workers had plenty of experience of the dangers of internal
sectarian battles).
To be able to mobilize across across racialised divisions, to have race wither away entirely
would, for me, be the beginning of a politics that allowed humanity to deal with the inescapable
violence of climate change and corporate power.
*To add to the bibliography – David R. Roediger, Elizabeth D. Esch – The Production of Difference
– Race and the Management of Labour, and Denise Ferreira da Silva – Toward a Global Idea of Race.
And I have just been pointed at Ian Haney-López, White By Law – The Legal Construction of Race.
FWIW 'merica's constitutional democracy is going to collapse.
Some day - not tomorrow, not next year, but probably sometime before runaway climate change
forces us to seek a new life in outer-space colonies - there is going to be a collapse of the
legal and political order and its replacement by something else. If we're lucky, it won't be violent.
If we're very lucky, it will lead us to tackle the underlying problems and result in a better,
more robust, political system. If we're less lucky, well, then, something worse will happen .
In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from
the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional
continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s."
Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly
important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the
Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When
they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the
basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote:
"the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly
legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate."
In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing
of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found,
a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a
period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative
and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.'
Given that the basic point is polarisation (i.e. that both the President and Congress have
equally strong arguments to be the the 'voice of the people') and that under the US appalling
constitutional set up, there is no way to decide between them, one can easily imagine the so to
speak 'hyperpolarisation' of a Trump Presidency as being the straw (or anvil) that breaks the
camel's back.
In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country,
and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral
result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious
democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time,
more and more power.
nastywoman @ 150
Just study the program of the 'Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland' or the Program of 'Die
Grünen' in Germany (take it through google translate) and you get all the answers you are looking
for.
No need to run it through google translate, it's available in English on their site. [Or one
could refer to the Green Party of the U.S. site/platform, which is very similar in scope and overall
philosophy. (www.gp.org).]
I looked at several of their topic areas (Agricultural, Global, Health, Rural) and yes, these
are general theses I would support. But they're hardly policy/project proposals for specific regions
or communities – the Greens espouse "think global, act local", so programs and projects must be
tailored to individual communities and regions.
To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the
Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their
2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced
to pay.
This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring
that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the
neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes
upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman
white underclass (or so they see it).
I expect at this point that Trump will be reelected comfortably. If not only the party itself,
but also most of its activists, refuse to actually change, it's more or less inevitable.
You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going
to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that
your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you),
you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't
stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or
not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back.
Nobody trusts the elite at all.
You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror
at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem.
One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016:
the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people.
This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party.
Folks, we have seen this before. Let's not descend in backbiting and recriminations, okay?
We've got some commenters charging that other commenters are "mansplaining," meanwhile we've got
other commenters claiming that it's economics and not racism/misogyny. It's all of the above.
Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists
also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has
happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising
to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the
existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able
to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery.
None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a
modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The
problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it.
Instead, what we're seeing is a whirlwind of finger-pointing from the Democratic leadership
that lost this election and probably let the entire New Deal get rolled back and wiped out. Putin
is to blame! Julian Assange is to blame! The biased media are to blame! Voter suppression is to
blame! Bernie Sanders is to blame! Jill Stein is to blame! Everyone and anyone except the current
out-of-touch influence-peddling elites who currently have run the Democratic party into the ground.
We need the feminists and the black lives matter groups and we also need the green party people
and the Bernie Sanders activists. But everyone has to understand that this is not an isolated
event. Trump did not just happen by accident. First there was Greece, then there was Brexit, then
there was Trump, next it'll be Renzi losing the referendum in Italy and a constitutional crisis
there, and after that, Marine Le Pen in France is going to win the first round of elections. (Probably
not the presidency, since all the other French parties will band together to stop her, but the
National Front is currently polling at 40% of all registered French voters.) And Marine LePen
is the real deal, a genuine full-on out-and-out fascist. Not a closet fascist like Steve Bannon,
LePen is the full monty with everything but a Hugo Boss suit and the death's heads on the cap.
Does anyone notice a pattern here?
This is an international movement. It is sweeping the world . It is the end of neoliberalism
and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp
out the authoritarian part.
Feminists, BLM, black bloc anarchiest anti-globalists, Sandernistas, and, yes, the former Hillary
supporters. Because it not just a coincidence that all these things are happening in all these
countries at the same time. The bottom 90% of the population in the developed world has been ripped
off by a managerial and financial and political class for the last 30 years and they have all
noticed that while the world GDP was skyrocketing and international trade agreements were getting
signed with zero input from the average citizen, a few people were getting very very rich but
nobody else was getting anything.
This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially
single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings
and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to
the Ivy League, which is 90% of them.
And the Democratic party is so helpless and so hopeless that it is letting the American Nazi
Party run to the left of them on health care, fer cripes sake! We are now in a situation
where the American Nazi Party is advocating single-payer nationalized health care, while the former
Democratic presidential nominee who just got defeated assured everyone that single-payer "will
never, ever happen."
C'mon! Is anyone surprised that Hillary lost? Let's cut the crap with the "Hillary
was a flawed candidate" arguments. The plain fact of the matter is that Hillary was running mainly
on getting rid of the problems she and her husband created 25 years ago. Hillary promised criminal
justice reform and Black Lives Matter-friendly policing policies - and guess who started the mass
incarceration trend and gave speeches calling black kids "superpredators" 20 years ago? Hillary
promised to fix the problems with the wretched mandate law forcing everyone to buy unaffordable
for-profit private insurance with no cost controls - and guess who originally ran for president
in 2008 on a policy of health care mandates with no cost controls? Yes, Hillary (ironically, Obama's
big surge in popularity as a candidate came when he ran against Hillary from the left, ridiculing
helath care mandates). Hillary promises to reform an out-of-control deregulated financial system
run amok - and guess who signed all those laws revoking Glass-Steagal and setting up the Securities
Trading Modernization Act? Yes, Bill Clinton, and Hillary was right there with him cheering the
whole process on.
So pardon me and lots of other folks for being less than impressed by Hillary's trustworthiness
and honesty. Run for president by promising to undo the damage you did to the country 25 years
ago is (let say) a suboptimal campaign strategy, and a distinctly suboptimal choice of presidential
candidate for a party in the same sense that the Hiroshima air defense was suboptimal in 1945.
Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a
"boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win?
Because we're back in the 1930s again, the economy has crashed hard and still hasn't recovered
(maybe because we still haven't convened a Pecora Commission and jailed a bunch of the thieves,
and we also haven't set up any alphabet government job programs like the CCC) so fascists and
racists and all kinds of other bottom-feeders are crawling out of the political woodwork to promise
to fix the problems that the Democratic party establishment won't.
Rule of thumb: any social or political or economic writer virulently hated by the current Democratic
party establishment is someone we should listen to closely right now.
Cornel West is at the top of the current Democratic establishment's hate list, and he has got
a great article in The Guardian that I think is spot-on:
"The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph
of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded
to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians."
Glenn Greenwald is another writer who has been showered with more hate by the Democratic establishment
recently than even Trump or Steve Bannon, so you know Greenwald is saying something important.
He has a great piece in The Intercept on the head-in-the-ground attitude of Democratic
elites toward their recent loss:
"It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political
force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite
a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the
Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local
levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced
no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of
rubble.'
"One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked
political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce
a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats,
one would be quite mistaken."
Last but far from least, Scottish economist Mark Blyth has what looks to me like the single
best analysis of the entire global Trump_vs_deep_state tidal wave in Foreign Affairs magazine:
"At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass
unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response,
governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to,
and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time,
is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon
known as Goodhart's law. (..)
" what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary
regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this
world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at
all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically,
and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right
to vote.
"The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary
order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as
the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from
those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that
are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened.
"In short, to understand the election of Donald Trump we need to listen to the trumpets blowing
everywhere in the highly indebted developed countries and the people who vote for them.
"The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism.
It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing
above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun."
You don't live here, do you? I'm really asking a genuine question because the way you are framing
the question ("SPECIFICS!!!!!!) suggests you don't. (Just to show my background, born and raised
in Australia (In the electoral division of Kooyong, home of Menzies) but I've lived in the US
since 2000 in the midwest (MO, OH) and currently in the south (GA))
If this election has taught us anything it's no one cared about "specifics". It was a mood,
a feeling which brought trump over the top (and I'm not talking about the "average" trump voter
because that is meaningless. The average trunp voter was a republican voter in the south who the
Dems will never get so examining their motivations is immaterial to future strategy. I'm talking
about the voters in the Upper Midwest from places which voted for Obama twice then switched to
trump this year to give him his margin of victory).
trump voters have been pretty clear they don't actually care about the way trump does (or even
doesn't) do what he said he would do during the campaign. It was important to them he showed he
was "with" people like them. They way he did that was partially racialized (law and order, islamophobia)
but also a particular emphasis on blue collar work that focused on the work. Unfortunately these
voters, however much you tell them they should suck it up and accept their generations of familial
experience as relatively highly paid industrial workers (even if it is something only their fathers
and grandfathers experienced because the factories were closing when the voters came of age in
the 80s and 90s) is never coming back and they should be happy to retrain as something else, don't
want it. They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue
collar work.
trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs
and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been
"correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about
how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic
party, have to accept.
The idea they don't want "government help" is ridiculous. They love the government. They just
want the government to do things for them and not for other people (which unfortunately includes
blah people but also "the coasts", "sillicon valley", etc.). Obama won in 2008 and 2012 in part
due to the auto bailout.
trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like
the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama
was defending keeping what was already there.
"Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the
automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable
labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses.
Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html
So yes. Clinton needed vague promises. She needed something more than retraining and "jobs
of the future" and "restructuring". She needed to show she was committed to their way of life,
however those voters saw it, and would do something, anything, to keep it alive. trump did that
even though his plan won't work. And maybe he'll be punished for it. In 4 years. But in the interim
the gop will destroy so many things we need and rely on as well as entrench their power for generations
through the Supreme Court.
But really, it was hard for Clinton to be trusted to act like she cared about these peoples'
way of life because she (through her husband fairly or unfairly) was associated with some of the
larger actions and choices which helped usher in the decline.
Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned
out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump
economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's
economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. ""
P. Bret Chiafalo, a Washington State elector who has already declared his opposition to Hillary Clinton,
and Micheal Baca of Colorado have launched what they've dubbed "Moral Electors," an attempt to persuade
37 of their Republican colleagues to bail on Trump - just enough to block Trump's election and leave
the final decision to the House of Representatives. They have the support of a
third elector , Washington State's Robert Satiacum.
Story Continued Below
"This is a longshot. It's a Hail Mary," Chiafalo said in a phone interview. "However, I do see
situations where - when we've already had two or three [Republican] electors state publicly they
didn't want to vote for Trump. How many of them have real issues with Donald Trump in private?" Chiafalo,
a self-described "regular nerdy dude who works for Microsoft" and Baca, a grad student and Marine
Corps veteran, insist they're not seeking the election of Clinton - or even a Democrat. Both, in
fact, had already been considering voting against her when the Electoral College meets in five weeks.
Rather, they intend to encourage Republican electors to write in Mitt Romney or John Kasich. If enough
agree, the election would be sent to the House of Representatives, which would choose from among
the top three vote-getters.
Both men acknowledge that their effort is unlikely to succeed.
"... " Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement ," he says. "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks . It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution - conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement." ..."
"... Nobody in the Democratic party listened to his speeches, so they had no idea he was delivering such a compelling and powerful economic message. He shows up 3.5 hours late in Michigan at 1 in the morning and has 35,000 people waiting in the cold. When they got [Clinton] off the donor circuit she went to Temple University and they drew 300 or 400 kids." ..."
"... Bannon on Murdoch: "Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump" ..."
"... " The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f-ed over . If we deliver-" by "we" he means the Trump White House "-we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed, they were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about ." ..."
"... ... I'd say, IMO, Steve Bannon is more than an excellent choice for President Trump's team ... Bannon's education, business, work and military experience speaks highly of his abilities ... I wish the MSM would stop labelling him a white nationalist and concentrate on his successful accomplishments and what he could contribute to Trump's cabinet. ..."
Bannon next discusses the "battle line" inside America's great divide.
He absolutely - mockingly - rejects the idea that this is a racial line. "I'm not a white nationalist,
I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist, " he tells me. " The globalists gutted the American
working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to
not get f-ed over . If we deliver-" by "we" he means the Trump White House "-we'll get 60 percent
of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years.
That's what the Democrats missed, they were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion
market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about
."
Bannon's vision: an "entirely new political movement", one which drives the conservatives crazy.
As to how monetary policy will coexist with fiscal stimulus, Bannon has a simple explanation: he
plans to "rebuild everything" courtesy of negative interest rates and cheap debt throughout the world.
Those rates may not be negative for too long.
" Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement
," he says. "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the
guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the
world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all
jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks . It will be
as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution - conservatives, plus populists,
in an economic nationalist movement."
How Bannon describes Trump: " an ideal vessel"
It is less than obvious how Bannon, now the official strategic brains of the Trump operation,
syncs with his boss, famously not too strategic. When Bannon took over the campaign from Paul
Manafort, there were many in the Trump circle who had resigned themselves to the inevitability
of the candidate listening to no one . But here too was a Bannon insight: When the campaign seemed
most in free fall or disarray, it was perhaps most on target. While Clinton was largely absent
from the campaign trail and concentrating on courting her donors, Trump - even after the leak
of the grab-them-by-the-pussy audio - was speaking to ever-growing crowds of thirty-five or forty
thousand. "He gets it, he gets it intuitively," says Bannon, perhaps still surprised he has found
such an ideal vessel. "You have probably the greatest orator since William Jennings Bryan, coupled
with an economic populist message and two political parties that are so owned by the donors that
they don't speak to their audience. But he speaks in a non-political vernacular, he communicates
with these people in a very visceral way. Nobody in the Democratic party listened to his speeches,
so they had no idea he was delivering such a compelling and powerful economic message. He shows
up 3.5 hours late in Michigan at 1 in the morning and has 35,000 people waiting in the cold. When
they got [Clinton] off the donor circuit she went to Temple University and they drew 300 or 400
kids."
Bannon on Murdoch: "Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump"
At that moment, as we talk, there's a knock on the door of Bannon's office, a temporary, impersonal,
middle-level executive space with a hodgepodge of chairs for constant impromptu meetings. Sen.
Ted Cruz, once the Republican firebrand, now quite a small and unassuming figure, has been waiting
patiently for a chat and Bannon excuses himself for a short while. It is clear when we return
to our conversation that it is not just the liberal establishment that Bannon feels he has triumphed
over, but the conservative one too - not least of all Fox News and its owners, the Murdochs. "They
got it more wrong than anybody," he says. " Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump.
To him, Trump is a radical. Now they'll go centrist and build the network around Megyn Kelly."
Bannon recounts, with no small irony, that when Breitbart attacked Kelly after her challenges
to Trump in the initial Republican debate, Fox News chief Roger Ailes - whom Bannon describes
as an important mentor, and who Kelly's accusations of sexual harassment would help topple in
July - called to defend her. Bannon says he warned Ailes that Kelly would be out to get him too
.
Finally, Bannon on how he sees himself in the administration:
Bannon now becomes part of a two-headed White House political structure, with Reince Priebus
- in and out of Bannon's office as we talk - as chief of staff, in charge of making the trains
run on time, reporting to the president, and Bannon as chief strategist, in charge of vision,
goals, narrative and plan of attack, reporting to the president too. Add to this the ambitions
and whims of the president himself, and the novel circumstance of one who has never held elective
office, the agenda of his highly influential family and the end runs of a party significant parts
of which were opposed to him, and you have quite a complex court that Bannon will have to finesse
to realize his reign of the working man and a trillion dollars in new spending.
"I am," he says, with relish, "Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors."
" The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia.
The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f-ed over . If we deliver-" by "we" he
means the Trump White House "-we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the
black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed, they
were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people.
It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about ."
... I'd say, IMO, Steve Bannon is more than an excellent choice for President Trump's team
... Bannon's education, business, work and military experience speaks highly of his abilities
... I wish the MSM would stop labelling him a white nationalist and concentrate on his successful
accomplishments and what he could contribute to Trump's cabinet.
........ from wiki ...
Stephen Kevin Bannon was born on November 27, 1953, in Norfolk, Virginia into a working-class,
Irish Catholic, pro-Kennedy, pro-union family of Democrats. He graduated from Virginia Tech in
1976 and holds a master's degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown University. In 1983,
Bannon received an M.B.A. degree with honors from Harvard Business School.
Bannon was an officer in the United States Navy, serving on the destroyer USS Paul F. Foster
as a Surface Warfare Officer in the Pacific Fleet and stateside as a special assistant to the
Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon.
After his military service, Bannon worked at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker in the Mergers
& Acquisitions Department. In 1990, Bannon and several colleagues from Goldman Sachs launched
Bannon & Co., a boutique investment bank specializing in media. Through Bannon & Co., Bannon negotiated
the sale of Castle Rock Entertainment to Ted Turner. As payment, Bannon & Co. accepted a financial
stake in five television shows, including Seinfeld. Société Générale purchased Bannon & Co. in
1998.
In 1993, while still managing Bannon & Co., Bannon was made acting director of Earth-science
research project Biosphere 2 in Oracle, Arizona. Under Bannon, the project shifted emphasis from
researching space exploration and colonization towards pollution and global warming. He left the
project in 1995.
After the sale of Bannon & Co., Bannon became an executive producer in the film and media industry
in Hollywood, California. He was executive producer for Julie Taymor's 1999 film Titus. Bannon
became a partner with entertainment industry executive Jeff Kwatinetz at The Firm, Inc., a film
and television management company. In 2004, Bannon made a documentary about Ronald Reagan titled
In the Face of Evil. Through the making and screening of this film, Bannon was introduced to Peter
Schweizer and publisher Andrew Breitbart. He was involved in the financing and production of a
number of films, including Fire from the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman, The
Undefeated (on Sarah Palin), and Occupy Unmasked. Bannon also hosts a radio show (Breitbart News
Daily) on a Sirius XM satellite radio channel.
Bannon is also executive chairman and co-founder of the Government Accountability Institute,
where he helped orchestrate the publication of the book Clinton Cash. In 2015, Bannon was ranked
No. 19 on Mediaite's list of the "25 Most Influential in Political News Media 2015".
Bannon convinced Goldman Sachs to invest in a company known as Internet Gaming Entertainment.
Following a lawsuit, the company rebranded as Affinity Media and Bannon took over as CEO. From
2007 through 2011, Bannon was chairman and CEO of Affinity Media.
Bannon became a member of the board of Breitbart News. In March 2012, after founder Andrew
Breitbart's death, Bannon became executive chairman of Breitbart News LLC, the parent company
of Breitbart News. Under his leadership, Breitbart took a more alt-right and nationalistic approach
towards its agenda. Bannon declared the website "the platform for the alt-right" in 2016. Bannon
identifies as a conservative. Speaking about his role at Breitbart, Bannon said: "We think of
ourselves as virulently anti-establishment, particularly 'anti-' the permanent political class."
The New York Times described Breitbart News under Bannon's leadership as a "curiosity of the
fringe right wing", with "ideologically driven journalists", that is a source of controversy "over
material that has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist." The newspaper also noted how
Breitbart was now a "potent voice" for Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
Bannon: " The globalists gutted the American working class ..the Democrats were talking
to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality.
They lost sight of what the world is about ."
Well said. Couldn't agree more.
Bannon: " Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political
movement I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan.
Dear Mr. Bannon, it has to be way more than $1trillion in 10 years. Obama's $831 billion American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) didn't make up the difference for all the job lost
in 2007/08. Manufacturing alone lost about 9 million jobs since 1979, when it peaked.
Trump needs to go Ronald Reagan 180% deficit spending. If Trump runs 100% like Obama, Trump
will fail as well.
The author mixes the notion of populism as a social protest against the excesses of the rule of
the current oligarchy, which enpoverish common people, with neofascism and far right nationalism, which are now popular forms of expression of this
protest
SANTIAGO – Many of the men and women who turned out for the annual meeting of the International
Monetary Fund in early October were saying something like this: "Imagine if the Republicans had nominated
someone with the same anti-trade views as Trump, minus the insults and the sexual harassment. A populist
protectionist would be headed to the White House."
The underlying view is that rising populism on the right and the left, both in the United States
and in Europe, is a straightforward consequence of globalization and its unwanted effects: lost jobs
and stagnant middle-class incomes. Davos men and women hate this conclusion, but they have embraced
it with all the fervor of new converts.
Yet there is an alternative – and more persuasive – view: while economic stagnation helps push
upset voters into the populist camp, bad economics is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition
for bad politics. On the contrary, argues Princeton political scientist
Jan-Werner
Mueller in his new book
: populism is a "permanent shadow" on representative democracy.
Populism is not about taxation (or jobs or income inequality). It is about representation – who
gets to speak for the people and how.
Advocates of democracy make some exalted claims on its behalf. As Abraham Lincoln put it at
Gettysburg
, it is "government of the people, by the people, for the people." But modern representative
democracy – or any democracy, for that matter – inevitably falls short of these claims. Voting in
an election every four years for candidates chosen by party machines is not exactly what Lincoln's
lofty words call to mind.
What populists offer, Mueller says, is to fulfill what the Italian democratic theorist Norberto
Bobbio calls the broken promises of democracy. Populists speak and act, claims Mueller, " as if
the people could develop a singular judgment,... as if the people were one,... as if
the people, if only they empowered the right representatives, could fully master their fates."
Populism rests on a toxic triad: denial of complexity, anti-pluralism, and a crooked version
of representation.
Most of us believe that social choices (Build more schools or hospitals? Stimulate or discourage
international trade? Liberalize or restrict abortion?) are complex, and that the existence of a plurality
of views about what to do is both natural and legitimate. Populists deny this. As
Ralf Dahrendorf
once put it, populism is simple; democracy is complex. To populists, there is only one right
view – that of the people.
If so, the complex mechanisms of liberal democracy, with its emphasis on delegation and representation,
are all unnecessary. No need for parliaments endlessly debating: the unitary will of the people can
easily be expressed in a single vote. Hence populists' love affair with plebiscites and referenda.
Brexit, anyone?
And not just anyone can represent the people. The claim is to exclusive representation. Remember
Trump's boast in his address
to the Republican National Convention: "I alone can fix it."
Politics is always about morality, Aristotle told us. But populists favor what Mueller calls a
particular moralistic interpretation of politics . Those who hold the right view about the
world are moral; the rest are immoral, lackeys of a corrupt elite. That was exactly the rhetoric
of the late Venezuelan ruler Hugo Chávez. When that failed, and when Chávez's sank his country's
economy, there was always US imperialism to blame. So populism is a kind of identity politics. It
is always us against them .
Viewed in this light, populism is not a useful corrective to a democracy captured by technocrats
and elites, as Marine Le Pen, Rafael Correa, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, or assorted Western intellectuals
want you to believe. On the contrary, it is profoundly anti-democratic, and hence a threat to democracy
itself.
What is to be done? My take (the prescription is my own, not Mueller's) is that democrats must
(and can) beat populists at their own game. The toxic triad can become salutary.
First, acknowledge complexity. The only thing that upsets voters as much as being lied to is being
treated like babies. People who lead challenging lives know that the world is complex. They do not
mind being told that. They appreciate being spoken to as the grownups they are.
Second, do not treat diversity of views and identities as a problem calling for a technocratic
solution. Rather, make respect for such diversity a profoundly moral feature of society. The fact
that we are not all the same and we can still get along is a tremendous democratic achievement. Make
the case for it. And do not fall for the tired cliché that reason is for democrats and emotion is
for populists. Make the case for pluralistic democracy in a way that inspires and stirs emotion.
Third, defend – and update – representation. Leave delegation to complex technical matters. Take
advantage of modern technologies to bring other choices – particularly those having to do with the
fabric of daily life – closer to voters. Tighten campaign finance laws, regulate lobbying better,
and enforce affirmative-action measures to ensure that representatives are of the people and work
for the people.
These measures alone will not ensure that all of democracy's broken promises are fulfilled. But
we cannot expect a single set of simple actions to solve a complex problem. Nor can we believe that
we alone can fix it.
If we believed that, we would be populists. For the sake of democracy, that is precisely what
we should not be.
Andrés Velasco, a former presidential candidate and finance minister of Chile, is Professor
of Professional Practice in International Development at Columbia University's School of International
and Public Affairs. He has taught at Harvard University and New York University, and is the author
of numerous studies on international economics and development.
"... 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.
Ellison is a dud, Bernie tweets support for Schumer "there's nobody I know better prepared
and more capable of leading our caucus than Chuck Schumer"!
Well there's a good chunder maker in that statement eh? Hope dashed!
There are no doubt many who are better informed, more progressive and principled, more remote
from Wall Street and oligarchic capture than Chuck Schumer and Ellison. So there you have it –
this is reform in the Democrats after a crushing defeat.
Vale democrats, and now the journey becomes arduous with these voices to smother hope. A new
party is urgently needed (I know how difficult that is) and these voices of the old machine need
to be ignored for the sake of sanity.
"... The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable
their dominance. ..."
"... It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal
turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income
between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe,
the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. ..."
"... When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of
his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money
center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal
Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration,
but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served
to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political
power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup. ..."
"... Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove
both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. ..."
"... It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences
were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified
this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for
economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened,
in a meteorological economics. ..."
"... This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid
the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints.
..."
"... No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw
attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization
of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political
problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or
coherence. ..."
"... If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power,
Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional
critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected,
Obama isn't really trying. ..."
"... Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because
it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference. ..."
At the center of Great Depression politics was a political struggle over the distribution of
income, a struggle that was only decisively resolved during the War, by the Great Compression.
It was at center of farm policy where policymakers struggled to find ways to support farm incomes.
It was at the center of industrial relations politics, where rapidly expanding unions were seeking
higher industrial wages. It was at the center of banking policy, where predatory financial practices
were under attack. It was at the center of efforts to regulate electric utility rates and establish
public power projects. And, everywhere, the clear subtext was a struggle between rich and poor,
the economic royalists as FDR once called them and everyone else.
FDR, an unmistakeable patrician in manner and pedigree, was leading a not-quite-revolutionary
politics, which was nevertheless hostile to and suspicious of business elites, as a source of
economic pathology. The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek
to side-step and disable their dominance.
It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the
neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution
of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments.
In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle.
In retrospect, though the New Deal did use direct employment as a means of relief to good effect
economically and politically, it never undertook anything like a Keynesian stimulus on a Keynesian
scale - at least until the War.
Where the New Deal witnessed the institution of an elaborate system of financial repression,
accomplished in large part by imposing on the financial sector an explicitly mandated structure,
with types of firms and effective limits on firm size and scope, a series of regulatory reforms
and financial crises beginning with Carter and Reagan served to wipe this structure away.
When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features
of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading
money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New
York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury
in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan
Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five
banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon
Johnson called it a coup.
I don't know what considerations guided Obama in choosing the size of the stimulus or its composition
(as spending and tax cuts). Larry Summers was identified at the time as a voice of caution, not
"gambling", but not much is known about his detailed reasoning in severely trimming Christina
Romer's entirely conventional calculations. (One consideration might well have been worldwide
resource shortages, which had made themselves felt in 2007-8 as an inflationary spike in commodity
prices.) I do not see a case for connecting stimulus size policy to the health care reform. At
the time the stimulus was proposed, the Administration had also been considering whether various
big banks and other financial institutions should be nationalized, forced to insolvency or otherwise
restructured as part of a regulatory reform.
Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980
drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. Accelerating
the financialization of the economy from 1999 on made New York and Washington rich, but the same
economic policies and process were devastating the Rust Belt as de-industrialization. They were
two aspects of the same complex of economic trends and policies. The rise of China as a manufacturing
center was, in critical respects, a financial operation within the context of globalized trade
that made investment in new manufacturing plant in China, as part of globalized supply chains
and global brand management, (arguably artificially) low-risk and high-profit, while reinvestment
in manufacturing in the American mid-west became unattractive, except as a game of extracting
tax subsidies or ripping off workers.
It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences
were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified
this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility
for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that
just happened, in a meteorological economics.
It is conceding too many good intentions to the Obama Administration to tie an inadequate stimulus
to a Rube Goldberg health care reform as the origin story for the final debacle of Democratic
neoliberal politics. There was a delicate balancing act going on, but they were not balancing
the recovery of the economy in general so much as they were balancing the recovery from insolvency
of a highly inefficient and arguably predatory financial sector, which was also not incidentally
financing the institutional core of the Democratic Party and staffing many key positions in the
Administration and in the regulatory apparatus.
This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could
aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting
constraints.
No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and
draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization
of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes
the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational
clarity or coherence.
The short version of my thinking on the Obama stimulus is this: Keynesian stimulus spending is
a free lunch; it doesn't really matter what you spend money on up to a very generous point, so
it seems ready-made for legislative log-rolling. If Obama could not get a very big stimulus
indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen
spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again,
if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really
trying.
Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism,
because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.
Great comment. Simply great. Hat tip to the author !
Notable quotes:
"… The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and
disable their dominance. …"
"… It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the
neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution
of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist
commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. …"
"… When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features
of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading
money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the
New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury
in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan
Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top
five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well.
Simon Johnson called it a coup. … "
"… Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980
drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. …"
"… It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences
were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified
this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility
for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces"
that just happened, in a meteorological economics. …"
"… This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could
aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting
constraints. …"
"… No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and
draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization
of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes
the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational
clarity or coherence. …"
"… If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of
power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular
and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic
Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying. …"
"… Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism,
because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.
…"
"... I can recall tales of insecure Eastern European Jewish immigrants pretending to be WASPS. ..."
"... To be blunt, Barack Obama was less "a president" than a talented actor playing at being presidential. ..."
"... Those of us who have encountered this deception are usually aware of its tell-tale signs, though, to be fair, it may have been diligently practiced for so long that it has become a "real" element of the perpetrator's core personality. For those unfamiliar with this deception, let me now offer a brief catalogue of these tactics. ..."
"... Central is the careful management of outward physical appearances. In theatrical terms, these are props and depending on circumstances, this might be a finely tailored suit, wingtip shoes, a crisp white shirt, a smart silk tie and all the rest that announce business-like competence. ..."
"... Mastering "white" language is equally critical and in the academy this includes everything from tossing around trendy terms, for example, "paradigmatic," to displaying what appears to be a mastering of disciplinary jargon. Recall how the Black Panthers seduced gullible whites with just a sprinkling of Marxist terminology. ..."
"... I recall one (white) colleague who gave a little speech praising a deeply flawed dissertation written by a black assistant professor up for tenure. He told the assembled committee that her dissertation reminded him of Newton's Principia Mathematica (can't make that stuff up). ..."
"... Obama as President repeatedly exhibits these characteristics. It is thus hardly accidental that he relies extensively on canned Teleprompter speeches. According to one compilation published in January 2013, Obama has used Teleprompters in 699 speeches during his first term in office. There is also his aversion to informal off-the-cuff discussions with the press and open mike who-knows-what-will-happen "Town Hall" meetings. Obama is also the first president I've ever seen who often favors a casual blue jacket monogrammed "President of the United States." ..."
"... I suspect that deep down Obama recognizes that almost everything is an act not unlike Eddy Murphy playing Professor Sherman Klump in The Nutty Professor . It is no wonder, then, that his academic records (particularly his SAT scores) are sealed and, perhaps even more important, many of his fellow college students and colleagues at the University of Chicago where he briefly taught constitutional law cannot recall him. It is hard to imagine Obama relishing the prospect of going head-to-head with his sharp-witted Chicago colleagues. ..."
"... As a mulatto raised by white grandparents in Hawaii, Obama is not a black American, with no cultural ties to black Americans and slavery, yet he later learned to throw out a black accent to fool the fools. As Stephen Colbert once observed, white Americans love Obama because he was raised the right way, by white people. That was intended as humor, but ..."
"... Obama has leased an ultra-expensive house in an exclusive neighborhood in DC just like the corrupt Bill Clinton prior to his multi-million dollar speaking and influence peddling efforts. Obama will not return to Chicago to help poor blacks, like Jimmy Carter did elsewhere after he left office. Obama doesn't need an Oscar, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for the same act. ..."
"... Congratulations on noticing what it takes to be a successful politician in ANY "Western" democracy. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, aquamarine or candy-striped, or whether you are a college professor, an "economist", or a "businessman". It's all bluff and acting. ..."
"... The single most critical element of a successful con is not the hucksters appearance, or mannerisms, or even the spiel, it is simply making the con something that the sucker wants to believe. ..."
"... I recognized Obama's type not from academia, but from corporate America. He was the token black higher up. He's smart enough not to obviously do something requiring termination (get drunk and harass a colleague at an office party, shred important document, etc.), and his mistakes can be blamed on team failures, so he gets "black guy's tenure"-a middle or upper management position after only a few years. ..."
"... This critique applies to almost every Presidential candidate, regardless of ethnicity. ..."
"... The most successful recent President was a former professional actor and thus well suited for the position. The latest President-elect is also a savvy media figure, and yet mocked for his obvious lack of intellectual heft. But in his case, he's not acting, it's reality TV. ..."
"... PS. Maybe some Jews around Trump are beginning to feel that China is the real danger to US power in the long run. So, what US should really do is patch things up with Russia for the time being, drive a wedge between China and Russia, and use Russia against China and then go after Russia. ..."
"... Really! Go after Russia? And how would you do that and why? What would "going after Russia" look like? What about the "horrific Rape of Russia" you spoke of? China and Russia have business to conduct, they're quite through with us, our dollar and our Fed. We'll be lucky if they allow us a piece of the action. Instead of Russia>China>Russia machinations, we might want to figure out strategies for doing some other business than patronizing our arms manufacturers. Hey, cap Jewish influence in the courts and business if you wish, but keeping the U.S. in an endless state of war, economic and otherwise is zero sum and worse for the little people. ..."
"... I've called him that for years. And Dubya was possibly our first "legacy" president: chosen entirely based on whom he's related to not on any individual qualities that would suit him for such a high office. Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware store manager. ..."
"... Amen to all. The whole deal is a fraud. All successful politicians are imposters, people who've mastered the art of deception. I'd go even further and say that the majority of "authority figures" are probably parasites and frauds to one degree or another. ..."
"... Overall, the current president has been a deception, a trivial self-absorbed person whose main concern has been himself turned outward onto issues of race and sexual orientation ..."
"... American politics at this level is fake. Everything is orchestrated, attire is handpicked, speeches are written by professionals and read off the teleprompter, questions from the public are actually from plants and rehearsed prior, armies of PR people are at work everywhere, journalists are just flunky propagandists, ..."
"... He will be the subject of future dissertations about the failure of the American political process and the influence of media and third parties like Soros. ..."
As the troubled Obama presidency winds down, the inevitable question is why so many people, including
a few smart ones were so easily fooled. How did a man with such a fine pedigree-Columbia, Harvard-who
sounded so brilliant pursue such political capital wasting and foolish policies as forcing schools
to discipline students by racial quotas? Or obsessing over allowing the transgendered to choose any
bathroom? And, of the utmost importance, how can we prevent another Obama?
I'll begin simply: Obama is an imposter, a man who has mastered the art of deception as a skilled
actor deceives an audience though in the case of Obama, most of the audience refused to accept that
this was all play-acting. Even after almost eight years of ineptitude, millions still want to believe
that he's the genuine article-an authentically super-bright guy able to fix a flawed America. Far
more is involved than awarding blacks the intellectual equivalent of diplomatic immunity.
When Obama first appeared on the political scene I immediately recognized him as an example of
the "successful" black academic who rapidly advances up the university ladder despite minimal accomplishment.
Tellingly, when I noted the paucity of accomplishment of these black academic over-achievers to trusted
professorial colleagues, they agreed with my analysis adding that they themselves had seen several
instances of this phenomenon, but admittedly failed to connect the dots.
Here's the academic version of an Obama. You encounter this black student who appears a liberal's
affirmative action dream come true -- exceptionally articulate with no trace of a ghetto accent, well-dressed,
personable (no angry "tude"), and at least superficially sufficient brain power to succeed even in
demanding subjects. Matters begin splendidly, but not for long. Almost invariably, his or her performance
on the first test or paper falls far below expectations. A research paper, for example was only "C"
work (though you generously awarded it a "B") and to make matters worse, it exhibited a convoluted
writing style, a disregard for logic, ineptly constructed references and similar defects. Nevertheless,
you accepted the usual litany of student excuses -- his claim of over-commitment, the material was unfamiliar,
and this was his first research paper and so on. A reprieve was granted.
But the unease grows stronger with the second exam or paper, often despite your helpful advice
on how to do better. Reality grows depressing -- what you see is not what you get and lacks any reasonable
feel-good explanation. The outwardly accomplished black student is not an Asian struggling with English
or a clear-cut affirmation action admittee in over his head. That this student may have actually
studied diligently and followed your advice only exacerbates the discomfort.
To repeat, the way to make sense out this troubling situation is to think of this disappointing
black student as a talented actor who has mastered the role of "smart college student." He has the
gift of mimicry, conceivably a talent rooted in evolutionary development among a people who often
had to survive by their wits (adaptive behavior captured by the phrase "acting white" or "passing").
This gift is hardly limited to blacks. I can recall tales of insecure Eastern European Jewish immigrants
pretending to be WASPS.
But what if the observer was unaware of it being only a theatrical performance and took the competence
at face value? Disaster. Russell Crowe as the Nobel Prize winning John Nash in A
Beautiful Mind
might give a stunning performance as a brilliant economist, but he would not last a minute
if he tried to pass himself off as the real thing at a Princeton economic department seminar.
To be blunt, Barack Obama was less "a president" than a talented actor playing at being presidential.
Those of us who have encountered this deception are usually aware of its tell-tale signs,
though, to be fair, it may have been diligently practiced for so long that it has become a "real"
element of the perpetrator's core personality. For those unfamiliar with this deception, let me now
offer a brief catalogue of these tactics.
Central is the careful management of outward physical appearances. In theatrical terms, these
are props and depending on circumstances, this might be a finely tailored suit, wingtip shoes, a
crisp white shirt, a smart silk tie and all the rest that announce business-like competence.
Future college or foundation president here we come (Obama has clearly mastered this sartorial ploy).
But for those seeking an appointment as a professor, this camouflage must be more casual but, whatever
the choice, there cannot be any hint of "ghetto" style, i.e., no flashy jewelry, gold chains, purple
"pimpish" suits, or anything else that even slightly hints of what blacks might consider authentic
black attire.
Mastering "white" language is equally critical and in the academy this includes everything
from tossing around trendy terms, for example, "paradigmatic," to displaying what appears to be a
mastering of disciplinary jargon. Recall how the Black Panthers seduced gullible whites with just
a sprinkling of Marxist terminology. Precisely citing a few obscure court cases or administrative
directives can also do the trick. Further add certain verbal styles common among professors or peppering
a presentation with correctly pronounced non-English words. I recall a talk by one black professor
from the University of Chicago who wowed my colleagues by just using-and correctly so-a few Yiddish
expressions.
Ironically, self-defined conservatives are especially vulnerable to these well-crafted performances.
No doubt, like all good thinking liberals, they desperately want to believe that blacks are just
as talented as whites so an Obama-like figure is merely the first installment of coming racial equality.
The arrival of this long-awaited black also provides a great opportunity to demonstrate that being
"conservative" does not certify one as a racist. Alas, this can be embarrassing and comical if over-done.
I recall one (white) colleague who gave a little speech praising a deeply flawed dissertation
written by a black assistant professor up for tenure. He told the assembled committee that her dissertation
reminded him of Newton's Principia Mathematica (can't make that stuff up).
Alas, the deception usually unravels when the imposter confronts a complicated unstructured situation
lacking a well-defined script, hardly surprising given the IQ test data indicate that blacks usually
perform better on items reflecting social norms, less well on abstract, highly "g" loaded items.
In academic job presentations, for example, a job candidate's intellectual limits often become apparent
during the Q and A when pressed to wrestle with technical or logical abstractions that go beyond
the initial well-rehearsed talk. Picture a job candidate who just finished reading a paper being
asked whether the argument is falsifiable or how causality might be established? These can be killer
questions that require ample quick footed intellectual dexterity and often bring an awkward silence
as the candidate struggles to think on his feet (these responses may rightly be judged far more important
than what is read from a paper). I recall one genuinely bewildered black job candidate who explained
a complicated measurement choice with "my Ph.D. advisor, a past president of the American Political
Science Association told me to do it this way."
Obama as President repeatedly exhibits these characteristics. It is thus hardly accidental
that he relies extensively on canned Teleprompter speeches. According to
one compilation published in January 2013, Obama has used Teleprompters in 699 speeches during
his first term in office. There is also his aversion to informal off-the-cuff discussions with the
press and open mike who-knows-what-will-happen "Town Hall" meetings. Obama is also the first president
I've ever seen who often favors a casual blue jacket monogrammed "President of the United States."
Perhaps the best illustration of these confused, often rambling moments occurs when he offers
impromptu commentary on highly charged, fast-breaking race-related incidents such as the Louis Henry
Gates
dustup
in Cambridge , Mass ("the police acted stupidly") and the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown shootings.
You could see his pained look as he struggles with being a "good race man" while simultaneously struggling
to sort out murky legal issues. This is not the usual instances of politicians speaking evasively
to avoid controversy; he was genuinely befuddled.
Similar signs of confused thinking can also be seen in other spontaneous remarks, the most famous
example might be his comment about those Americans clinging to their guns and Bibles. What was he
thinking? Did he forget that both gun and Bible ownership are constitutionally protected and the
word "cling" in this context suggests mental illness? Woes to some impertinent reporter who challenged
the President to clarify his oft-repeated "the wrong side of history" quip or explain the precise
meaning of, "That's not who were are"? "Mr. President, can you enlighten us on how you know you are
on the Right Side of History"?
I suspect that deep down Obama recognizes that almost everything is an act not unlike Eddy Murphy
playing Professor Sherman Klump in The Nutty
Professor . It is no wonder, then, that his academic records (particularly his SAT scores)
are sealed and, perhaps even more important, many of his fellow college students and colleagues at
the University of Chicago where he briefly taught constitutional law cannot recall him. It is hard
to imagine Obama relishing the prospect of going head-to-head with his sharp-witted Chicago colleagues.
Further add his lack of a publication in the Harvard Law Review, a perk as the President
of the Law Review (not Editor) and the credible
evidence that his two autobiographies where ghost written after their initial rejection as unsuitable
for publication. All and all, a picture emerges of an individual who knows he must fake it to convince
others of his intellectual talents, and like a skilled actor he has spent years studying the role
of "President." President Obama deserves an Academy award (which, of course would also be a step
toward diversity, to boot) for his efforts.
Carlton Meyer says: • Website
November 16, 2016 at 5:31 am GMT • 300 Words
This is why I often referred to Obama as a "Pentagon spokesman." Did you know his proposed
military budgets each year were on average higher than Bush or Reagan? People forget that is
first objective as President was to close our torture camp in Cuba. He could have issued an
Executive Order and have it closed in one day. DOJ aircraft could fly all the inmates away within
two hours before any court could challenge that, if they dared. It remains open.
Yet when Congress refused to act to open borders wider, he issued an Executive Order to grant
residency to five million illegals. And under Soros direction, he sent DoJ attack dogs after any
state or city that questioned the right of men who want to use a ladies room.
As a mulatto raised by white grandparents in Hawaii, Obama is not a black American, with no
cultural ties to black Americans and slavery, yet he later learned to throw out a black accent to
fool the fools. As Stephen Colbert once observed, white Americans love Obama because he was
raised the right way, by white people. That was intended as humor, but
Obama has leased an ultra-expensive house in an exclusive neighborhood in DC just like the
corrupt Bill Clinton prior to his multi-million dollar speaking and influence peddling efforts.
Obama will not return to Chicago to help poor blacks, like Jimmy Carter did elsewhere after he
left office. Obama doesn't need an Oscar, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for the same act.
3.anon says:
November 16, 2016 at 5:34 am GMT • 100 Words
What to make of the Michael Eric Dysons and the Cornell Wests of the world ?? How do they rise up the ranks of academia , become darlings of talk shows and news panels , all
the while dressed and speaking ghetto with zero talent or interest in appearing white . And zero
academic competency ??
6.CCZ, November 16, 2016 at 6:08 am GMT
Our first affirmative action President? I have yet to hear that exact description, even in a
nation with 60 million deplorable "racist" voters.
8.Tom Welsh, November 16, 2016 at 7:00 am GMT • 100 Words
Congratulations on noticing what it takes to be a successful politician in ANY "Western"
democracy. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, aquamarine or candy-striped, or whether you
are a college professor, an "economist", or a "businessman". It's all bluff and acting.
Why does anyone still find this surprising?
11.Alfa158, November 16, 2016 at 7:56 am GMT • 100 Words
The single most critical element of a successful con is not the hucksters appearance, or
mannerisms, or even the spiel, it is simply making the con something that the sucker wants to
believe. White people were desperate for a Magic Negro and they got one. Black people ended up
suffering from deteriorating economics and exploding intramural murder rates.
12.whorefinder, November 16, 2016 at 8:02 am GMT • 300 Words
Strikes a chord with me, and with Clint Eastwood (recall the 2012 RNC, where Eastwood mocked
Obama as an "empty chair").
I recognized Obama's type not from academia, but from corporate America. He was the token black
higher up. He's smart enough not to obviously do something requiring termination (get drunk and
harass a colleague at an office party, shred important document, etc.), and his mistakes can be
blamed on team failures, so he gets "black guy's tenure"-a middle or upper management position
after only a few years.
He then makes sure he shows up every weekday at 9am, but he's out the door at 5pm-and no weekends
for him. He's there for "diversity" drives and is prominently featured on the company brochures,
and might even be given an award or honorary title every few years to cover him, but he never
brings in clients or moves business positively in anyway. But he's quick to take the boss up on
the golfing trips. In short, he's realized he's there to be the black corporate shield, and
that's all he does. He's a lazy token and fine with being lazy.
It's why Obama had little problem letting Pelosi/Reid/Bill Clinton do all the heavy lifting on
Obamacare–not only was Obama out of his depth, he was just plain ol' fine with being out of his
depth, because someone else would do it for him. So he went golfing instead.
This is also why that White House press conference where Bill Clinton took over for him halfway
speaks volumes. Obama literally had no problem simply walking away from his presidential duties
to go party-because someone else would do it for him, as they always had.
It's also why he seems so annoyed when asked about the race rioting going on as a result of his
administration's actions. Hey, why do you think I gotta do anything? I just show up and people
tell me I did a great job!
13.Ramona, November 16, 2016 at 8:04 am GMT
It's been said for years that Obama amounts to no more than a dignified talk show host. The
observation has merit. Oscar-wise, though, only for ironic value.
15.Realist, November 16, 2016 at 9:50 am GMT • 100 Words
@Anon
"I think Obama is pretty smart if not genius. His mother was no dummy, and his father seems to
have been pretty bright too, and there are smart blacks."
Ann Dunham had a PhD in anthropology from a run of the mill university where she literally
studied women textile weaving in third world countries. Pure genius .right.
16.Fran Macadam, November 16, 2016 at 9:54 am GMT • 100 Words
This critique applies to almost every Presidential candidate, regardless of ethnicity. So few of
them have been other than those playing a role assigned by their donors. The most successful
recent President was a former professional actor and thus well suited for the position. The
latest President-elect is also a savvy media figure, and yet mocked for his obvious lack of
intellectual heft. But in his case, he's not acting, it's reality TV.
17.Jim Christian says:
November 16, 2016 at 9:59 am GMT • 200 Words @Anon
PS. Maybe some Jews around Trump are beginning to feel that China is the real danger to US power
in the long run. So, what US should really do is patch things up with Russia for the time being,
drive a wedge between China and Russia, and use Russia against China and then go after Russia.
Really! Go after Russia? And how would you do that and why? What would "going after Russia" look
like? What about the "horrific Rape of Russia" you spoke of? China and Russia have business to
conduct, they're quite through with us, our dollar and our Fed. We'll be lucky if they allow us a
piece of the action. Instead of Russia>China>Russia machinations, we might want to figure out
strategies for doing some other business than patronizing our arms manufacturers. Hey, cap Jewish
influence in the courts and business if you wish, but keeping the U.S. in an endless state of
war, economic and otherwise is zero sum and worse for the little people.
20.timalex, November 16, 2016 at 11:58 am GMT
Americans voted for and elected Obama because it made them feel virtuous in their mind and in the
eyes of the world. Obama has always been a psychopath. Psychopaths are good at lying and hiding things,even when
Presidents.
21.The Alarmist , November 16, 2016 at 12:03 pm GMT
So, you're saying he was an affirmative action hire.
22.Anon, November 16, 2016 at 12:28 pm GMT
Yeah and every white person in a position of power and privilege is "authentically intelligent".
America is a society run by and for phonies.
23.War for Blair Mountain, November 16, 2016 at 12:32 pm GMT • 100 Words
Barack Obama is a creation of the Cold War. His father was imported into the US through an
anti-commie Cold War foreign student program for young Africans. Barack Obama's nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc would not exist if the 1965 Immigration
Reform Act had not been passed. The 1965 Immigration Reform Act was another creation of the
anti-commie Cold War Crusade.
The anti-commie Cold War Crusade has been a Death sentence for The Historic Native Born White
American Majority.
It is now time to rethink the Cold War .very long overdue..
24.AndrewR, November 16, 2016 at 12:55 pm GMT • 100 Words
@CCZ
I've called him that for years. And Dubya was possibly our first "legacy" president: chosen entirely based on whom he's related
to not on any individual qualities that would suit him for such a high office. Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware store
manager.
25.Rehmat, November 16, 2016 at 1:36 pm GMT • 100 Words
I think after wining Nobel Peace Award without achieving peace anywhere in the world – Obama
deserve Oscar more than Nobel Prize for equating Holocaust as a religion with Christianity and
Islam in his speech at the UNGA in September 2012.
Oscar has a long tradition to award top slot for every Holocaust movie produced so far.
"There's no business like Shoah business," says YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, established
by Max Weinreich in Lithuania in 1925.
More than 70 movies and documentary on Jewish Holocaust have been produced so far to keep
Whiteman's guild alive. Holocaust Industry's main purpose is to suck trillions of dollars and
moral support for the Zionist entity. Since 1959 movie, The Diary of Anne Frank, 22 Holocaust
movies have won at least one Oscar ..
27.jacques sheete says: November 16, 2016 at 2:20 pm GMT • 200 Words
@Tom Welsh
Amen to all. The whole deal is a fraud. All successful politicians are imposters, people who've mastered the
art of deception. I'd go even further and say that the majority of "authority figures" are probably parasites and
frauds to one degree or another.
I enjoy democracy immensely. It is incomparably idiotic, and hence incomparably amusing. Does it
exalt dunderheads, cowards, trimmers, frauds, cads? Then the pain of seeing them go up is
balanced and obliterated by the joy of seeing them come down. Is it inordinately wasteful,
extravagant, dishonest? Then so is every other form of government: all alike are enemies to
laborious and virtuous men. Is rascality at the very heart of it? Well, we have borne that
rascality since 1776, and continue to survive. In the long run, it may turn out that rascality is
necessary to human government, and even to civilization itself – that civilization, at bottom, is
nothing but a colossal swindle.
- H. L. Mencken, Last Words (1926)
28.anonymous, November 16, 2016 at 2:34 pm GMT • 200 Words
The bar was set ridiculously low by his predecessor the village idiot Bush who could barely
put together a coherent sentence. After eight years of disaster people were hoping for
something different. Having a deranged person like McCain as his opposition certainly helped.
What choice did the American people have?
He received a Nobel Peace prize for absolutely nothing although I admit his reluctance to
barge into Syria was quite welcome. How many wars would we be in had the war-crazed McCain
gotten into office?
Overall, the current president has been a deception, a trivial self-absorbed person
whose main concern has been himself turned outward onto issues of race and sexual orientation.
American politics at this level is fake. Everything is orchestrated, attire is
handpicked, speeches are written by professionals and read off the teleprompter, questions
from the public are actually from plants and rehearsed prior, armies of PR people are at work
everywhere, journalists are just flunky propagandists, expressions of emotion are
calculated, the mass media is the property of the billionaire and corporate class and reflects
their interests, and so on down the line. The masses of Americans are just there to be managed
and milked. Look back at the history of the US: When haven't they been lying to us?
29.nsa, November 16, 2016 at 2:44 pm GMT • 100 Words
President is a very easy job. Almost anyone could fake it even actors, peanut farmers,
mulatto community organizers, illegitimate offspring of trailer park whores, haberdashers,
developers, soldiers, irish playboys, bicycle riding dry drunks, low rent CA shysters, daft
professors.
Play lots of golf. Hot willing young pussy available for the asking. Anyone call you a
name, have them audited. Invite pals onto the gravy train. Everyone kissing your ass and
begging for favors. Media nitwits hanging on every word. Afterwards, get filthy rich making
speeches and appearances. Tough job .
30.Anonymous, November 16, 2016 at 3:03 pm GMT • 100 Words
Manchurian Candidate, or Kenyan Candidate? Whatever he may be called, our current White
House resident is a colossal joke perpetrated on the world. Whoever covered all his tracks did
a masterful task. He will be the subject of future dissertations about the failure of the
American political process and the influence of media and third parties like Soros.
32.Lorax, November 16, 2016 at 3:17 pm GMT
Obama's grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, was a "furniture salesman," for which role he
deserved an Oscar as well. It takes real acting ability to
pull off a lifetime career in Intelligence Service:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/07/obama's-cia-pedigree/
34.JoeFour, November 16, 2016 at 3:56 pm GMT
@AndrewR
"Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware
store manager."
AndrewR, I know you didn't mean it, but you have just insulted all of the thousands of
hardware store managers in this country.
"... Where the Democrats went wrong CNBC. Obama: "[O]ne of the issues that Democrats have to be clear on is that given population distribution across the country, we have to compete everywhere, we have to show up everywhere." Throwing Clinton under the bus… ..."
"... he means just showing up, telling people what they want to hear, then doing whatever the hell you want after getting elected. Not one word about actually meeting peoples needs. EFF OBAMA and the DEMOCRATIC PARTY!! ..."
"... If you didn't read this (linked yesterday), you should consider both reading and sharing far and wide. The entire system is designed to be anti-representative. ..."
"... Don't just get/stay mad, quit expecting a bunch of gangsters to function democratically. ..."
Where the Democrats went wrong CNBC. Obama: "[O]ne of the issues that Democrats have to be
clear on is that given population distribution across the country, we have to compete everywhere,
we have to show up everywhere." Throwing Clinton under the bus…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I yelled at the radio after hearing this, because he means just showing up, telling people what
they want to hear, then doing whatever the hell you want after getting elected. Not one word about
actually meeting peoples needs. EFF OBAMA and the DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!
If you didn't
read this (linked yesterday), you should consider both reading and sharing far and wide. The
entire system is designed to be anti-representative.
Don't just get/stay mad, quit expecting a
bunch of gangsters to function democratically. Get out of their box.
"... Knowing how angry the working class has become, the deep state could not install Hillary, for that would have been a tiresome rehash of another Clinton presidency. With NAFTA, Bill launched the job offshoring that has wrecked this country, and those most affected by it, working class whites, know damn well who's responsible. The Clinton brand has become anathema to middle America. ..."
"... On the foreign front, America's belligerence will not ease up under a Trump presidency, for without a hyper kinetic military to browbeat and bomb, the world will stop lending us money. The US doesn't just wage wars to fatten the military banking complex, but to prop up the US Dollar and prevent our economy from collapsing. The empire yields tangible benefits for even the lowliest Americans. ..."
Michele
Paccione / Shutterstock.com
Universally, Trump was depicted as an anti-establishment candidate. Washington and Wall Street
hated him, and the media were deployed to vilify him endlessly. If they could not discredit Trump
enough, surely they would steal the election from him. Some even suggested Trump would be assassinated.
Acting the part, Trump charged repeatedly that the election was rigged, and he was right, of course.
During the primaries, Hillary Clinton received debate questions in advance from CNN. More seriously,
30 states used voting machines that could easily be hacked.
A leaked tape of Trump making obscene comments about groping women became further proof that the
establishment was out to get him. In spite of all this, Trump managed to win by a landslide, so what
happened?
To steal an American election, one only needs to tamper with votes in two or three critical states,
and since Hillary didn't win, we must conclude that she was never the establishment's chosen puppet.
As Trump claimed, the fix was in, all right, except that it was rigged in his favor, as born out
by the fact.
While everybody else yelped that Trump would never be allowed to win, I begged to differ. After
the Orlando false flag shooting on June 12th, 2016, I wrote:
In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody
criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools
still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking complex. Now, Trump
is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as
a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad
while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his election promises,
and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics.
On September 24th, I doubled down:
Mind-fucked, most Americans can't even see that an American president's only task is to disguise
the deep state's intentions. Chosen by the deep state to explain away its crimes, our president's
pronouncements are nearly always contradicted by the deep state's actions. While the president
talks of peace, democracy, racial harmony, prosperity for Main Street and going after banksters,
etc., the deep state wages endless war, stages meaningless elections, stokes racial hatred, bankrupts
nearly all Americans and enables massive Wall Street crimes, etc.
Only the infantile will imagine the president as any kind of savior or, even more hilariously,
anti-establishment. Since the deep state won't even tolerate a renegade reporter at, say, the
San Jose Mercury News, how can you expect a deep state's enemy to land in the White House?! It
cannot happen.
A presidential candidate will promise to fix all that's wrong with our government, and this
stance, this appearance, is actually very useful for the deep state, for it gives Americans hope.
Promising everything, Obama delivered nothing. So who do you think is being primed by the deep
state to be our next false savior?
Who benefits from false flag terrorist attacks blamed on Muslims? Who gains when blacks riot?
Why is the Democratic Party propping up a deeply-despised and terminally ill war criminal? More
personable Bernie Sanders was nixed by the deep state since it had another jester in mind.
The first presidential debate is Monday. Under stress, Hillary's eyes will dart in separate
directions. Coughing nonstop for 90 minutes, her highness will hack up a gazillion unsecured emails.
Her head will jerk spasmodically, plop onto the floor and, though decapitated, continue to gush
platitudes and lies. "A Very Impressive Performance," CNBC and CNN will announce. Come November,
though, Trump will be installed because his constituency needs to be temporarily pacified. The
deep state knows that white people are pissed.
The media were out to get Trump, pundits from across the political spectrum kept repeating, but
the truth is that the media made Trump. Long before the election, Trump became a household name,
thanks to the media.
Your average American can't name any other real estate developer, casino owner or even his own
senators, but he has known Trump since forever. For more than a decade, Trump was a reality TV star,
with two of his children also featured regularly on The Apprentice. Trump's "You're fired" and his
hair became iconic. Trump appeared on talk shows, had cameo roles in movies and owned the Miss Universe
pageant. In 2011, Obama joked that Trump as president would deck out the White House in garish fashion,
with his own name huge on the façade. The suave, slick prez roasted Trump again in 2016. Trump has
constantly been in the limelight.
It's true that during the presidential campaign, Trump received mostly negative press, but this
only ramped up support among his core constituency. Joe Sixpacks had long seen the media as not just
against everything they cherished, but against them as people, so the more the media attacked Trump,
the more popular he became among the white working class.
Like politicians, casinos specialize in empty promises. Trump, then, is a master hustler, just
like Obama, and with help from the media, this New York billionaire became a darling of the flyover
states. Before his sudden transformation, Trump was certainly an insider. He donated $100,000 to
the Clinton Foundation, and Bill and Hillary attended his third wedding. Golf buddies, The Donald
and Bill were also friends with one Jeffrey Epstein, owner of the infamous Lolita Express and a sex
orgy, sex slave island in the Caribbean.
In 2002, New York Magazine published "Jeffrey Epstein: International Money of Mystery." This asskissing
piece begins, "He comes with cash to burn, a fleet of airplanes, and a keen eye for the ladies-to
say nothing of a relentless brain that challenges Nobel Prize-winning scientists across the country-and
for financial markets around the world."
Trump is quoted, "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with.
It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger
side. No doubt about it-Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
Bill Clinton shouts out, "Jeffrey is both a highly successful financier and a committed philanthropist
with a keen sense of global markets and an in-depth knowledge of twenty-first-century science. I
especially appreciated his insights and generosity during the recent trip to Africa to work on democratization,
empowering the poor, citizen service, and combating HIV/AIDS."
Epstein gushes back, "If you were a boxer at the downtown gymnasium at 14th Street and Mike Tyson
walked in, your face would have the same look as these foreign leaders had when Clinton entered the
room. He is the world's greatest politician."
Even during a very nasty election campaign, Trump stayed clear of Clinton's association with
Epstein because he himself had been chummy with the convicted pervert. Trump also never brought up
the Clintons' drug running in Mena or the many mysterious deaths of those whose existence inconvenienced
their hold on power.
With eight years in the White House, plus stints as a senator then secretary of state, Clinton
is considered the ultimate insider. Though a novice politician, Trump is also an insider, and it's
a grand joke of the establishment that they've managed to convince Joe Sixpacks everywhere that Trump
will save them.
Knowing how angry the working class has become, the deep state could not install Hillary,
for that would have been a tiresome rehash of another Clinton presidency. With NAFTA, Bill launched
the job offshoring that has wrecked this country, and those most affected by it, working class whites,
know damn well who's responsible. The Clinton brand has become anathema to middle America.
While Clinton says America is already great, Trump promises to make America great again, but the
decline of the US will only accelerate. Our manufacturing base is handicapped because American workers
will not put up with Chinese wages, insanely long hours or living in cramped factory dormitories.
In a global economy, those who can suck it up best get the jobs.
On the foreign front, America's belligerence will not ease up under a Trump presidency, for
without a hyper kinetic military to browbeat and bomb, the world will stop lending us money. The
US doesn't just wage wars to fatten the military banking complex, but to prop up the US Dollar and
prevent our economy from collapsing. The empire yields tangible benefits for even the lowliest Americans.
With his livelihood vaporized, the poor man does not care for LGBT rights, the glass ceiling or
climate change. Supplementing his wretched income with frequent treks to the church pantry, if not
blood bank, he needs immediate relief. It's a shame he's staking his hopes on an imposter.
The deep state ushered in Trump because he's clearly their most useful decoy. As the country hopes
in vain, the crooked men behind the curtain will go on with business as usual. Trump is simply an
Obama for a different demographic. Nothing will change for the better.
Linh Dinh is the author of two books of stories, five of poems, and a novel,
Love Like Hate
. He's tracking our deteriorating socialscape through his frequently updated photo blog,
Postcards from the End of America
.
British diplomat John Glubb wrote a book called "The Fate of Empires and Search For Survival."
Glubb noted that the average age of empires since the time of ancient Assyria (859-612 B.C.)
is 250 years. Only the Mameluke Empire in Egypt and the Levant (1250-1517) made it as far as
267 years. America is 238 years old and is exhibiting signs of decline. All empires begin,
writes Glubb, with the age of pioneers, followed by ages of conquest, commerce, affluence,
intellect and decadence. America appears to have reached the age of decadence, which Glubb
defines as marked by "defensiveness, pessimism, materialism, frivolity, an influx of foreigners,
the welfare state, [and] a weakening of religion."
The most important is probably the fact that the ideology of the current US empire -- neoliberalism
(called here "liberal progressivism") -- became discredited after 2008. What happened after the
collapse of the Marxist ideology with the USSR is well known. It took 46 years (if we assume that
the collapse started in 1945 as the result of victory in WWII, when the Soviet army has a chance
to see the standard of living in Western countries). Why the USA should be different ? Decline
of empires is very slow and can well take a half a century. Let's say it might take 50 years from
9/11 or October 2008.
One telling sign is the end of "American hegemony" in the global political sphere. One telling
sign is the end of "American hegemony" in the global political sphere. As Lupita hypothesized
here Trump might be the last desperate attempt to reverse this process.
Another, the deterioration of the standard of living of the USA population and declining infrastructure,
both typically are connected with the overextension of empire. In Fortune (
http://fortune.com/2015/07/20/united-states-decline-statistics-economic/
) Jill Coplan lists 12 signs of the decline.
Trump election is another sign of turmoil. The key message of his election is "The institutions
we once trusted deceived us" That includes the Democratic Party and all neoliberal MSM. Like was
the case with the USSR, the loss of influence of neoliberal propaganda machine is a definite sign
of the decline of empire.
Degeneration of the neoliberal political elite that is also clearly visible in the current set
of presidential candidates might be another sign. Hillary Clinton dragged to the car on 9/11 commemorative
event vividly reminds the state of health of a couple of members of Soviet Politburo .
"... The second argument is the Bayesian vs frequentist debate on the foundations of probability theory, which has roots that go back centuries. Not that it matters, but I am in the Bayes-Laplace-Jeffreys-Jaynes camp. Evidently the author is a frequentist. But it is a vastly bigger intellectual issue than how some pollsters blew it and can't be settled in a blog post by someone proclaiming The Truth. ..."
"... It's no secret that U.S. election results can't be audited - the integrity of the data is unknowable - and is subject to pre-election manipulation, in the form of widespread voter suppression. Post-election manipulation of vote totals also can't be discounted, because in many election districts it wouldn't be difficult and motive exists. ..."
"... The general nature of humans is to "freak out" about big things and demand stuff like Brexit, then "calm down" and leave things roughly like they are maybe with a few touch-ups around the edges.* (This is the simplified basis of my "Brexit not gonna happen" stance. ..."
"... But this is saying that people at the last moment decided the status quo was so bad they realized they just had to make a very scary leap into something new. That, if true, says quite a lot about the status quo. ..."
"... "The Bradley effect" is the idea people are lying to pollsters. The problem is modeling, and unlike a few years ago, Gallup and others no longer do their daily tracking polls which give a better picture of the electorate. In the absence of a clear view of the electorate, the pollsters make up who will vote based on preconceived notions. ..."
"... I think this is a good point. My understanding of the polling methodology is that they sample the electorate then break their sampled voters into demographic bins, then they weight the bins based on expected participation by demographic to get a final expected vote. ..."
"... Putting blame for voter 'apathy' on Clinton's treatment of the Democratic base that supported Sanders, probably the most activist part of the party, or on Clinton's pivot to 'suburban republicans', or on the FBI, or Clinton's disastrous foreign policy record, or Clinton's unprecedentedly low favorability and trustworthiness numbers is difficult, but all of those problems were foreseen by Sanders supporters as well as by the DNC, but were ignored by the latter. That those problems were likely to depress turnout, which Democrats need to win elections was also fairly obvious, which is why I never believed the polls and believed Trump was indeed likely to win. ..."
"... Polling organizations are really political organizations that get paid to influence public opinion rather than measure it. Their models are garbage. It's a complete joke of an industry. ..."
I have a very different explanation of why the pollsters got it so wrong. My argument is based on
two statements which I hope to convince you of: That the pollsters were not actually using anything
resembling scientific methodology when investigating the polls. Rather they were simply tracking
the trends and calibrating their commentary in line with them. Not only did this not give us a correct
understanding of what was going on but it also gave us no real new information other than what the
polls themselves were telling us. I call this the redundancy argument . That the pollsters
were committing a massive logical fallacy in extracting probability estimates from the polls (and
whatever else they threw into their witches' brew models). In fact they were dealing with a singular
event (the election) and singular events cannot be assigned probability estimates in any non-arbitrary
sense. I call this the logical fallacy argument .
Let us turn to the redundancy argument first. In order to explore the redundancy argument I will
lay out briefly the type of analysis that I did on the polls during the election. I can then contrast
this with the type of analysis done by pollsters. As we will see, the type of analysis that I was
advocating produced new information while the type of approach followed by the pollsters did not.
While I do not claim that my analysis actually predicted the election, in retrospect it certainly
helps explain the result – while, on the other hand, the pollsters failed miserably.
... ... ...
Probability theory requires that in order for a probability to be assigned an event must be repeated
over and over again – ideally as many times as possible. Let's say that I hand you a coin. You have
no idea whether the coin is balanced or not and so you do not know the probability that it will turn
up heads. In order to discover whether the coin is balanced or skewed you have to toss it a bunch
of times. Let's say that you toss it 1000 times and find that 900 times it turns up heads. Well,
now you can be fairly confident that the coin is skewed towards heads. So if I now ask you what the
probability of the coin turning up heads on the next flip you can tell me with some confidence that
it is 9 out of 10 (900/1000) or 90%.
Elections are not like this because they only happen once. Yes, there are multiple elections every
year and there are many years but these are all unique events. Every election is completely unique
and cannot be compared to another – at least, not in the mathematical space of probabilities. If
we wanted to assign a real mathematical probability to the 2016 election we would have to run the
election over and over again – maybe 1000 times – in different parallel universes. We could then
assign a probability that Trump would win based on these other universes. This is silly stuff, of
course, and so it is best left alone.
So where do the pollsters get their probability estimates? Do they have access to an interdimensional
gateway? Of course they do not. Rather what they are doing is taking the polls, plugging them into
models and generating numbers. But these numbers are not probabilities. They cannot be. They are
simply model outputs representing a certain interpretation of the polls. Boil it right down and they
are just the poll numbers themselves recast as a fake probability estimate. Think of it this way:
do the odds on a horse at a horse race tell you the probability that this horse will win? Of course
not! They simply tell you what people think will happen in the upcoming race. No one knows the actual
odds that the horse will win. That is what makes gambling fun. Polls are not quite the same – they
try to give you a snap shot of what people are thinking about how they will vote in the election
at any given point in time – but the two are more similar than not. I personally think that this
tendency for pollsters to give fake probability estimates is enormously misleading and the practice
should be stopped immediately. It is pretty much equivalent to someone standing outside a betting
shop and, having converted all the odds on the board into fake probabilities, telling you that he
can tell you the likelihood of each horse winning the race.
There are other probability tricks that I noticed these pollsters doing too.
... ... ...
The Catechism of the Catholic Church in discussing the first commandment repeats the condemnation
of divination: "All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring
up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to 'unveil' the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology,
palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums
all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings,
as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. These practices are generally considered mortal sins.
Of course I am not here to convert the reader to the Catholic Church. I am just making the point
that many institutions in the past have seen the folly in trying to predict the future and have warned
people against it. Today all we need say is that it is rather silly. Although we would also not go
far wrong by saying, with the Church, that "recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over
time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings". That is a perfectly good secular
lesson.
I would go further still. The cult of prediction plays into another cult: the cult of supposedly
detached technocratic elitism. I refer here, for example, to the cult of mainstream economics with
their ever mysterious 'models'. This sort of enterprise is part and parcel of the cult of divination
that we have fallen prey to but I will not digress too much on it here as it is the subject of a
book that I will be publishing in mid-December 2016 – an overview of which can be found
here . What knowledge-seeking people should be pursuing are tools of analysis that can help them
better understand the world around us – and maybe even improve it – not goat entrails in which we
can read future events. We live in tumultuous times; now is not the time
The second argument is the Bayesian vs frequentist debate on the foundations of probability
theory, which has roots that go back centuries. Not that it matters, but I am in the Bayes-Laplace-Jeffreys-Jaynes
camp. Evidently the author is a frequentist. But it is a vastly bigger intellectual issue than
how some pollsters blew it and can't be settled in a blog post by someone proclaiming The Truth.
Bayesian analysis is frequently cited as an alternative to frequentist schools, although
only with prior awareness of the ontological challenges. Bwaaaaaaak!
The Philster is back! Dude, you've been gone a while.
If your title says we shouldn't listen to you, that might discourage readers before they read.
That's a Bayesian prior. LOL. Sort of anyway.
The probability of us reading, given the admonition not to read = the probability of the admonition
given the probability of us reading, divided by the probability of us reading. Or something like
that. ;-)
When i do the math I get lost. I'll read it later. Right now i can't
It's no secret that U.S. election results can't be audited - the integrity of the data
is unknowable - and is subject to pre-election manipulation, in the form of widespread voter suppression.
Post-election manipulation of vote totals also can't be discounted, because in many election districts
it wouldn't be difficult and motive exists.
The arguments above are convincing in principle, but when the outcomes against which we measure
polling predictions can't even be verified….
Letting others debate Bayesian models… this stood out:
> This suggested to me that all of those that were going to vote Remain had decided early on
and the voters that decided later and closer to the election date were going to vote Leave
Wow. Just wow. The general nature of humans is to "freak out" about big things and demand
stuff like Brexit, then "calm down" and leave things roughly like they are maybe with a few touch-ups
around the edges.* (This is the simplified basis of my "Brexit not gonna happen" stance.)
But this is saying that people at the last moment decided the status quo was so bad they
realized they just had to make a very scary leap into something new. That, if true, says quite
a lot about the status quo.
*Yes I've been married for quite a long time now. Why do you ask? :)
After some discussions about 'the inverse Bradley effect' some months ago, the press had been
strangely silent about the effect and whether it applied to Trump. Theoretically, Trump, more
than any other candidate I can name, should have enjoyed better support in the election than he
was polling, as people were uncomfortable admitting that he was their preference for fear of condescension
from pollsters. Ross Perot–to whom Trump is often compared– enjoyed a five point advantage 'inverse
Bradley effect' in 1992 over his last and best poll numbers. Bill Clinton experienced a straight
up 'Bradley effect' in both of his Presidential victories (off three points from his polling,
as I recall), though he still did well enough to win.
Nate Silver had an article that pretty much outlined what happened in the election back on
Sept 15th. I'm not sure why he isn't referring to this as a fig leaf today, perhaps because so
much of the rest of his reporting predicted Clinton's victory.
"The Bradley effect" is the idea people are lying to pollsters. The problem is modeling,
and unlike a few years ago, Gallup and others no longer do their daily tracking polls which give
a better picture of the electorate. In the absence of a clear view of the electorate, the pollsters
make up who will vote based on preconceived notions.
The LaT poll was very close this cycle and last cycle for the right reasons. Why didn't people
lie to them? Are they special? They used a cross section of the country as a sample based on the
census. They continued to talk to non voters or people who claimed to be non voters. They recognized
people turning their backs on Team Blue. In 2012, they predicted the decline of the white vote
for Team Blue and the rally of support from minorities because they talked to people.
In the case of the famed "Bradley effect," the pollsters in that race didn't account for high
republican turnout in connection to a statewide referendum expecting the usual city council turnout.
The Republicans simply weren't counted. The "lying" of secret racists excuse was cooked up by
pollsters and Bradley's campaign to avoid accountability for not working hard enough.
I don't know if this fits in, but this what I've been pondering.
For most of my life so far, lack of turnout has been assumed to be the result of 'voter apathy'.
It looks to me as if the democratic party's behavior this year, especially in suppressing the
Sanders campaign, had the ultimate effect of creating negative motivation on the part of many
otherwise democratic voters, who were excoriated with the warning that any vote not-for-HRC was
a vote for Trump.
It would seem that many of those voters accepted that reality, and by refusing to show up at
the polls, did indeed vote for Trump.
From my perspective, this is both a complete repudiation of the Third-Way politics of the Clintons,
and the beginning of a sea change.
What I'm saying is that we no longer have voter apathy to blame, but real evidence of deepening
engagement, which hopefully bodes well for Bernie's new project OR.
This wasn't a mysterious failure to excite voters, it was an obvious and monumental case of
ignoring the wishes of the electorate, and reaping a just reward.
In the end, faced with the prospect of the SOS, voters elected to take a chance on Change,
and this included many who could not bring themselves to vote for someone who obviously did not
respect them, and for whom they held no respect.
I don't know how much of the poor turnout over the past 2 decades was ever "your usual poor
turnout". Third Way servitors to the powerful were never beloved of the people, except perhaps
for the charismatic Bill Clinton. And there were many of us who never understood the love for
him.
Not voting has long been a conscious decision for many Americans, and when it's a conscious
decision, it's essential a vote.
I think this is a good point. My understanding of the polling methodology is that they
sample the electorate then break their sampled voters into demographic bins, then they weight
the bins based on expected participation by demographic to get a final expected vote. The
expected participation by demographic can really only be based on turnout from previous elections,
though presumably pollsters tweak things to account for expected differences, like assuming women
or latinos will be more motivated to vote in this election. If the actual turnout doesn't match
the pollsters expectation, as happened in this election, where many traditional democratic demographics
appeared to be demotivated, then the polls will all be systematically inaccurate.
Putting blame for voter 'apathy' on Clinton's treatment of the Democratic base that supported
Sanders, probably the most activist part of the party, or on Clinton's pivot to 'suburban republicans',
or on the FBI, or Clinton's disastrous foreign policy record, or Clinton's unprecedentedly low
favorability and trustworthiness numbers is difficult, but all of those problems were foreseen
by Sanders supporters as well as by the DNC, but were ignored by the latter. That those problems
were likely to depress turnout, which Democrats need to win elections was also fairly obvious,
which is why I never believed the polls and believed Trump was indeed likely to win.
And of course another major factor is that the polls were seemingly sponsored by media
organizations which have pretty openly declared their opposition to Trump. The obvious suspicion
was, then, that the polls were intended as campaign propaganda rather than objective information,
and were tweaked (via turnout models?) to make Hillary seem inevitable. I also believed this was
likely to lead to complacency among democrats, since Republicans are very reliable voters, and
Trump-inspired indies would not believe anything coming from the MSM anyway.
Most people I dared to explain this too were incredulous, and tended to write it off as more
of my characteristic weird logic… and now they are shocked, the idiots.
Polling organizations are really political organizations that get paid to influence public
opinion rather than measure it. Their models are garbage. It's a complete joke of an industry.
Actually that just under 2 percent win in the national polls is going to be correct. Also many
polls were vert close in PA were close as was FL and NC . Very few were done in Michigan which
AP may never call because it is close enough for a recount. In the national number it looks like
a 1 or 2 win
I thought the media and the both campaigns got it so wrong because they think everyone everywhere
is on Facebook and Twitter. The people that helped elect the Trumpeter aren't on social media
and didn't exist to those in power.
In his first post-election
interview , Bernie Sanders
has declared to
should-be-disgraced Wolf Blitzer that Trump seeking to indict Hillary Clinton for her crimes
would be "an outrage beyond belief".
When asked if President Obama should pardon Hillary Clinton, Sanders seems almost confused as
to why a pardon would even be needed.
Blitzer notes that Ford pardoned Nixon before he could be charged, to which Bernie seemed again
incredulous as to the comparison was even being made.
He goes on to state:
That a winning candidate would try to imprison the losing candidate – that's what dictatorships
are about, that's what authoritarian countries are about. You do not imprison somebody you ran
against because you have differences of opinion. The vast majority of the American people would
find it unacceptable to even think about those things.
Either Senator Sanders is a drooling idiot, or he is being willfully obtuse.
No one wants to imprison Hillary Clinton because of her opinion. They want to imprison Hillary Clinton because she has committed criminal actions that any other
person lacking millions of dollars and hundreds of upper-echelon contacts would be imprisoned for.
Apparently, according to progressive hero Bernie Sanders, holding the elites to the same level
of justice as the peons is undemocratic, authoritarian, and perhaps even dictatorial!
Enough with the damn emails?
Enough with any hope that the Democrats have retained a minute shred of credibility.
"... he Clinton camp, the media and the pollsters missed what we had anticipated as "not Clinton". A basic setting in a part of the "left" electorate that remember who she is and what she has done and would under no circumstances vote for her. Clinton herself pushed the "bernie bros" and "deplorables" into that camp. This was a structural change that was solely based in the personality of the candidate. ..."
"... Even then polls and their interpretation will always only capture a part of the story. Often a sound grasp of human and cultural behavior will allow for better prediction as all polls. As my friend the statistician say: "The best prognostic instrument I have even today is my gut." ..."
"... NeverHillary turned out to be bigger than NeverTrump. Hillary got less than 6 million votes compared to Obama. Trump got nearly as much as Romney. ..."
"... A good indicator was the size of the crowds each candidate drew to their rallies. Clinton tended to show more "bought" TV-ready extras. Bernie blew the walls out at his rallies, as did Trump. You can't look at that and say the polls are even close to accurate. ..."
"... When the Democrats unleashed thugs on Trump supporters while the media studiously looked away, it was not sensible to openly identify with Trump. ..."
"... On Wednesday after the election, I heard an interview with a woman reporter who worked with the 538 polling group. She said that it was impossible for most reporters to really investigate how voters in certain areas of the country were feeling about the election bcz newspapers and other news organizations, including the Big Broadcasters, did not have the ability to pay for enough reporters to actually talk to people. ..."
"... the Los Angeles Times polls were correct (although the paper was pro-Clinton); can't get the link now, but they explained how they weighted their polls on the basis of the enthusiasm displayed for the preferred candidate, and Trump supporters were more "charged" ..."
"... I read many stories about how the polls were fixed for Clinton for months before the election. ..."
"... The pollsters took the % of voters from the Obama election but they also added more Democrats than were representative in the 2012 election, thereby skewing the polls for Clinton. Many believed that the reason they did this was to try to manipulate the voting machines in Clinton's favour and have the polls match the result. ..."
"... i go back to what my sociology of the media instructor said.. polls are for massaging people's brains.. unless one knows who pays for them and what goes into them, they are just another propaganda tool for use.. ..."
"... It has been known for a long time in the polling world that polling numbers are getting more and more unreliable because fewer and fewer people are willing to complete polls. ..."
"... theory would also explain the newspaper polls largely rigged to correspond to the planned vote theft, as well as the idiotic magnitude of overconfidence seen in the Pol-Est/MS Media/Wall Street complex. ..."
"... 1. IBD/TIPP (A collaboration of Investors Business Daily and TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence). TechnoMetrica was consistent throughout – final poll for election day had Trump leading by 2%. Also predicted the last presidential elections back to 2004. ..."
"... This election candidates' crowd draw was a good indicator. It was very difficult to pre-program the Diebold machines. MSM polls were in the bag for Hillary, had her ahead. It backfired. ..."
"... A bit about polling methodology explains the bias we've seen this election cycle. Typically, the polling samples are not big enough to be representative, so the results are corrected (weighted) based on the participant responses. The polls assume certain turnout percentages for different groups (Democrats, Republicans, Independents, rural, urban, ethnicity, gender etc.). A lot of the polls were weighting the polls with turnouts similar to 2012, corrected for the expected demographic changes over the last 4 years. ..."
"... Poll weighing is a tricky business. This is why most polling has a 4% error margin, so it does not produce as accurate picture as is typically presented by the media. The error is not randomly distributed, it is closely related to the poll weighting. The weighting error was favouring Clinton in the polls as it assumed higher Democratic turnout, which ended up not being the case, she underperformed 2012 significantly and lost the election. ..."
"... Are the polls done to discover "what's up", or are they done to project the view that one side is winning? ..."
"... I go with the second view. That's what the 'corrections' are all about. The 'corrections' need to be dropped completely ..."
"... This. There was a Wikiliks Podesta email in whdich Clinton operatives discussed oversampling certain groups to inflate the poll in her favor. ..."
"... Hmm ... what can I say that no-one else has already said except to observe that the polling and the corporate media reporting the polling statistics were in another parallel universe and the people supposedly being polled (and not some over-sampled group in Peoria, Iowa, who could predict exactly what questions would be asked and knew what answers to give) live on planet Earth? ..."
"... I most certainly did not predict Trump would win. But I did question the polls. What I questioned a few weeks ago was the margin of victory for Hillary. ..."
"... This is because most of the polls were weighting more Democratic (based on the 2012 election), which overestimated Clinton's support. ..."
"... So the difference between the poll and the actual result is 1.2% in favour of Trump (1.7% lead to Clinton in poll vs. 0.5% in the election). All are well within the error of the poll, so 1.2% difference between the election and the poll is well within the stated 3% error margin of the poll. ..."
"... You assume public polls are conducted by impartial actors who wish to inform and illuminate..... your assumption is incorrect. ..."
"... The New York Times recent admission that it writes the narrative first, then builds the story to suit says about everything for me regarding polls. ..."
"... According to reports, the first leader Trump spoke to on the phone after his election victory was the Egyptian president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. Sisi congratulated him on the election victory, a spokesman for the Egyptian leader said. ..."
"... It may be unfortunate, but I can see Trump & Erdogan getting along very well. Although, if they bring Putin into that triumvirate that could actually be very beneficial for the Middle East. ..."
Today I discussed the U.S. election with a friend who studied and practices statistics. I asked
about the failure of the polls in this years presidential election. Her explanation: The polls are
looking at future events but are biased by the past. The various companies and institutions adjust
the polls they do by looking at their past prognoses and the real results of the past event. They
then develop correcting factors, measured from the past, and apply it to new polls. If that correcting
factor is wrong, possibly because of structural changes in the electorate, then the new polls will
be corrected with a wrong factor and thus miss the real results.
Polls predicting the last presidential election were probably off by 3 or 5 points towards the
Republican side. The pollsters then corrected the new polls for the Clinton-Trump race in favor of
the Democratic side by giving that side an additional 3-5 points. They thereby corrected the new
polls by the bias that was poll inherent during the last race.
But structural changes, which we seem to have had during this election, messed up the result.
Many people who usually vote for the Democratic ticket did not vote for Clinton. The "not Clinton"
progressives, the "bernie bros" and "deplorables" who voted Obama in the last election stayed home,
voted for a third party candidate or even for Trump. The pollsters did not anticipate such a deep
change. Thus their correction factor was wrong. Thus the Clinton side turned out to be favored in
polls but not in the relevant votes.
Real polling, which requires in depth-in person interviews with the participants, does not really
happen anymore. It is simply to expensive. Polling today is largely done by telephone with participants
selected by some database algorithm. It is skewed by many factors which require many corrections.
All these corrections have some biases that do miss structural changes in the underlying population.
The Clinton camp, the media and the pollsters missed what we had anticipated as "not Clinton".
A basic setting in a part of the "left" electorate that remember who she is and what she has done
and would under no circumstances vote for her. Clinton herself pushed the "bernie bros" and "deplorables"
into that camp. This was a structural change that was solely based in the personality of the candidate.
If Sanders would have been the candidate the now wrong poll correction factor in favor of Democrats
would likely have been a correct one. The deep antipathy against Hillary Clinton in a decisive part
of the electorate was a factor that the pseudo-science of cheap telephone polls could not catch.
More expensive in depth interviews of the base population used by a pollster would probably have
caught this factor and adjusted appropriately.
There were some twenty to thirty different entities doing polls during this election cycle. Five
to ten polling entities, with better budgets and preparations, would probably have led to better
prognoses. Some media companies could probably join their poll budgets, split over multiple companies
today, to have a common one with a better analysis of its base population.One that would have anticipated
"not Hillary".
Unless that happens all polls will have to be read with a lot of doubt. What past bias is captured
in these predictions of the future? What are their structural assumptions and are these still correct?
What structural change might have happened?
Even then polls and their interpretation will always only capture a part of the story. Often
a sound grasp of human and cultural behavior will allow for better prediction as all polls. As my
friend the statistician say: "The best prognostic instrument I have even today is my gut."
An equally interesting question about polls: what about the exit polls? If Greg Palast and others
are right, exit polls indicate that the voting was rigged. What does your statistics friend think
about that?
After the 1948 election, statisticians started to get rid of the quota sampling for electoral
polls. After this election, it's time to reassess Statistics.
A good indicator was the size of the crowds each candidate drew to their rallies. Clinton
tended to show more "bought" TV-ready extras. Bernie blew the walls out at his rallies, as did
Trump. You can't look at that and say the polls are even close to accurate.
I suspect that the future of polling isn't as dire as you're painting it, b. There was huge anti-Trump
bias in the Jew-controlled Christian-West Media from the beginning of the campaign. You drew attention
to negative MSM bias yourself in the post which pointed out how consistently wrong the Punditocracy
had been in predicting the imminent failure of the Trump campaign - thereby rubbing their noses
in their own ineptitude and tomfoolery.
One factor which seemed important to me was occasionally hilighted at regular intervals by
commenters here at MoA... The (apparent) fact that Trump addressed more, and bigger, crowds than
Mrs Clinton. I accepted those claims as fact, and didn't bother to check their veracity. But nevertheless
crowd size and frequency seems to have played a pivotal role in the outcome (as one would expect
in a political campaign).
Exit polls have provided checks on the accuracy of the vote count -- but are liable to the same
problem as the opinion pols, people who don't admit to their real position.
I'm not surprised that the polls fail badly in this presidential election. When the Democrats
unleashed thugs on Trump supporters while the media studiously looked away, it was not sensible
to openly identify with Trump. Even Trump was saying so through out the campaign.The Democrats
together with their media partners truly believed that Donald Trump's alleged character flaws
would be enough to win the election. Despite the fact that it was obvious to anyone without a
blinker on that the momentum was on the side of Trump all along. Obama's phenomenon of 08 was
nothing compared to Trump's phenomenon of this year, but because neither the MSM nor the Pollsters
liked him they transferred their biases to their jobs. In any case I'm sure happy that the result
of the election turned out different from the skewed prognosis.
On Wednesday after the election, I heard an interview with a woman reporter who worked with
the 538 polling group. She said that it was impossible for most reporters to really investigate
how voters in certain areas of the country were feeling about the election bcz newspapers and
other news organizations, including the Big Broadcasters, did not have the ability to pay for
enough reporters to actually talk to people.
Since statistics had worked so well, and were cheaper to deal with, they won the day. And lost
the battle.
Now, most people at this site seemed to base their decisions of whom to vote for based on stands
on issues and known actions of the various candidates. But, even so, we probably paid attention
to the polling results. I know I took into consideration that Hillary would win big in NJ, leaving
me free to vote for Jill Stein. Based on known actions of Trump I could not vote for him, even
tho' I hoped he would kill TPP and have better relations with Russia. I feared and still do fear
his nominations to the Supreme Court. (I am not religious, but if I were I would pray daily, perhaps
hourly, for the continued good health of the Justices Kennedy, GInsburg, and Breyer. I would hope
the other Dem appointed justices would take care to avoid, oh, small airplanes....
Would Hillary have adjusted her campaign if she could have seen the rising disappointment of
the working class Dems (even middle class to higher income Dems)? I don't know. I do know that
her husband ran his first campaign on the famous "It's the economy, stupid" reminder.
Somehow, I don't think it would have registered enough.
And Obama ran on Hope and Change, but was always the Corporatist Dem Wall Street wanted. What
a waste. And now we have four more years of doing essentially nothing aboug climate change. It
was have been a strategy to put off even regulatory actions to lessen CO2 emissions until near
the end of his second term, but, dang, it makes it easier for Trump to negate those efforts.
Again, what a waste. But I didn't vote for Obama for either term bcz I saw that his actions
as IL state senator and as US senator were always looking out for the Big Money, Big Corporations,
and seldom worked for anyone below the middle class, more the top of the middle class.
A long explanatory report which signifies nothing critical. "The polls were wrong??" No. The polls
reported by MSM were wrong.
Big time, including from those from Clinton loving CBC here in Canada, which for an extended
time was reporting Hillary with an 11% lead. That number was far beyond any minor adjustments,
for sure.
There were polls, such as Rasmussen, itself suspected of fiddling, which were reporting ups
and downs of 2%, and ended up tied election day.
So, please schemers, please do not try to cover up the MSM's deliberate attempt to influence
results by using garbage numbers. Figures can lie, and liars can sure figure.
the Los Angeles Times polls were correct (although the paper was pro-Clinton); can't get the
link now, but they explained how they weighted their polls on the basis of the enthusiasm displayed
for the preferred candidate, and Trump supporters were more "charged"
I disagree with your friend, b. I read many stories about how the polls were fixed for Clinton
for months before the election.
The pollsters took the % of voters from the Obama election but they also added more Democrats
than were representative in the 2012 election, thereby skewing the polls for Clinton. Many believed
that the reason they did this was to try to manipulate the voting machines in Clinton's favour
and have the polls match the result. I think that Trump crying foul so early got them worried
that they might be caught. Remember, voting machines in 14 states are run by companies affiliated
with Soros.
i go back to what my sociology of the media instructor said.. polls are for massaging people's
brains.. unless one knows who pays for them and what goes into them, they are just another propaganda
tool for use..
It has been known for a long time in the polling world that polling numbers are getting more
and more unreliable because fewer and fewer people are willing to complete polls.
I have a weird conspiracy hypothesis that I mainly made up on my own;
The last FBI "reopening" and the quick subsequent "close-down" felt all too counter-intuitive
and silly, when examined solely based on their face value.
However, what if there was more to this? What if this was a final threat from FBI to the Soros-Clinton
mafia to "quickly unrig the voting machines" OR we will arrest the lot of you? Which, once the
promises were made by "allow fair play", required FBI to pull back as their part of the deal?
This - admittedly conspiracy - theory would also explain the newspaper polls largely rigged
to correspond to the planned vote theft, as well as the idiotic magnitude of overconfidence seen
in the Pol-Est/MS Media/Wall Street complex.
I find it interesting b that you and your friend didn't seem to talk at all about the polling
questions....at least that you shared with us. It is my experience and education that even with
a "beauty contest" that we just had, that the structure of the polling questions make all the
difference in how people being polled respond.
Polls are funded by parties with agendas and the questions, assumptions and biases are baked
in to the result......IMO, they are all worthless or worse than that because folks see them, like
the media as being something of an authority figure and therefore believable which we know is
total BS.
Polls are just another propaganda tool of those rich enough to use them in their quiver of
control.
Timid Trumpists is the major factor, I would think. A factor already well known in UK. People
who are going to vote for a non-PC solution hesitate to admit it to poll questions.
All of the above is true, but - in addition - polls are used to manipulate campaigns.
People sympathize with someone who is considered a winner and when someone is considered likely
to lose people lose interest.
To get the vote out polls have to be tight. In addition to that polls are used to motivate
donors. In the end there has to be a reason pollsters get paid.
But even if polls would be done for purely scientific reasons, this election was impossible
to poll. The correct question would have been "Do you hate/fear candidate x enough to motivate
you to queue for voting for canditate y, or are you too disgusted to bother at all"
In the end, it was not the wrong polls that sank Clinton but the strategy to leave the anti-elitist
populist stuff to Trump and - unsuccessfully concentrate on winning the elitist Republican anti
Trump vote. That way she lost more of the Democrat Sanders vote than she could gain right wing.
The other factor was her reliance on television ads and media ties (they all backed her), a
reluctance to talk to large audiences and an inability to communicate via social media.
It is possible though she never had a chance against a well established reality show brand.
The good news is that after this election campaigns will be done mainly low cost social media.
The bad news is that these campaigns will be more fact free than ever and that the age of independent
quality newspapers is over.
So, you're saying that the age of independent quality newspapers has just ended, like about
now. Interesting pov...
Somehow, the last few years of the MSM coverage of the NATO-Salafist War on Syria have had
me convinced that the "independent quality newspapers" have become a*rse-wipe material a long
time ago. Instead, we get the Sorosoid ZioTakfirism.
But, yeah, maybe it's all Trump's fault. Hey I also blame Hezbollah for kicking Yisrael's arse
north of Litani in 2006. If they didn't piss of the Yivrim this much, maybe they wouldn't have
punitively collapsed the faith in the Western Society from the inside.
Ultimately, it's all Putin's fault. He started it all by beating the pro-Saudi Chechens into
a pulp back in 1999, and started the NATOQAEDA self-destruction.
1. IBD/TIPP (A collaboration of Investors Business Daily and TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence).
TechnoMetrica was consistent throughout – final poll for election day had Trump leading by 2%.
Also predicted the last presidential elections back to 2004.
Methodology
"Traditional Telephone method" includes cell –live interviews by Region; Age; Gender; Race;
Income; Education; Party; Ideology; Investor; Area Type; Parental Status; White – men, women;
Black/Hispanic; Women-single, married; Household description –Upper/Middle-Middle, Working, Lower;
Religion; Union Household; Intensity of Support.
This election candidates' crowd draw was a good indicator. It was very difficult to pre-program
the Diebold machines. MSM polls were in the bag for Hillary, had her ahead. It backfired.
Is Newsweek embarrassed yet? They forgot some history. Truman-Dewey. Madam President! How appropriate.
Some of b's posts regarding US politics seems naive but I chalk that up to his not being American.
But this technocratic excuse for the polling is just wrong. b, what happened to your skeptical
view of Western media????
virgile @ 9: An excerpt: " It was about the union men who refused to sell out their futures and
vote for a Democrat who is an agent of the One Percent."
And now, I fear, they still have no future.
James @ 15 said.." polls are for massaging people's brains.. unless one knows who pays for
them and what goes into them, they are just another propaganda tool for use..
How true..
Trumps choices for his cabinet don't leave much room for positive change, for the millions
of disaffected voters who put him in office. We'll see!
A bit about polling methodology explains the bias we've seen this election cycle. Typically,
the polling samples are not big enough to be representative, so the results are corrected (weighted)
based on the participant responses. The polls assume certain turnout percentages for different
groups (Democrats, Republicans, Independents, rural, urban, ethnicity, gender etc.). A lot of
the polls were weighting the polls with turnouts similar to 2012, corrected for the expected demographic
changes over the last 4 years.
Poll weighing is a tricky business. This is why most polling has a 4% error margin, so
it does not produce as accurate picture as is typically presented by the media. The error is not
randomly distributed, it is closely related to the poll weighting. The weighting error was favouring
Clinton in the polls as it assumed higher Democratic turnout, which ended up not being the case,
she underperformed 2012 significantly and lost the election.
It is important to stress that the election results ended up within the margin of error
(+-4%). The polls were not wrong, it is the media and the analyst who over-interpreted the data
and gave Clinton the win where she did not have a statistically significant (<4%) lead. This is
why if Nate Silver at 538 was consistently writing that the polls in many of the swing states
were within the error margin, although favouring Clinton, and their election prediction still
gave Trump a ~30% chance of victory. Other analysts were more careless (hello Huffington Post)
and even made fun of 538 for giving Trump any chance of victory.
There is no way to make more accurate polling for the future elections as the accuracy of the
poll is tied in to poll weighing, which is guesswork (although somewhat educated by the historical
data). Short of forcing everyone to vote, election-to-election turnout will change and affect
the accuracy of the polls.
Instead of interpreting every single of those Polls as plausibly biased on one side, why don't
you take the entire population of Western MSM Polls, and see if their median predicted outcome
vs actual final outcome difference is statistically significant?
I'd say you'd find their entire population to be likely biased at least to six-sigma level.
(I have no time to show this myself, just proposing someone's hypothesis, as a research idea
for someone's M Sci thesis for example)
I have lived in the D.C. area for the past 22 years with a land line phone and am listed in the
White Pages. I have never been called by a pollster, although I am often called by political campaigns.
I do not know anyone who has been called by a pollster.
More expensive in depth interviews of the base population used by a pollster would probably
have caught this factor and adjusted appropriately.
No more 'adjustments' allowed. A desire to actually discover the lay of the land and to publish
it is what's required. Good luck on getting that from the political class and/or their captive
msm. Everything they do is a lie, calculated to keep themselves in power.
The polls were obviously blatantly skewed towards urban Blue zones, and did not include working
adults in Red zones, then were 'massaged' by reporting media in clearly a Rodham-paid PAC marketing
campaign to brand the sheeples 'Wear Rodham!'
Only Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight even came close, but he had to rely on those same skewed
polls. After all, since 1990, you can buy a CD set of American voting records by street address,
it's not rocket science to be able to 'algo' that into a 'poll' that skews whichever way the highest
bidder's (Rodham) quants tell you to. https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/
As if on cue, or something. All of a sudden, S.U.R.P.R.I.S.E,… a litany of polls released today
show Donald Trump ahead in key battleground states (Ohio and Florida), and tied –or closer
than the margin of error– in new national polls…. […]
Remember what we stated on October 20th: […]
The real battle is the battle for your mind. The peak U.S. media false polling cycle is
thankfully in the rear-view mirror.
It was because I followed that right-wing blog that I ignored all polls other than the LA Times
tracking poll. (I didn't know about the IBD/TIPP poll until after the election.)
Hmm ... what can I say that no-one else has already said except to observe that the polling
and the corporate media reporting the polling statistics were in another parallel universe and
the people supposedly being polled (and not some over-sampled group in Peoria, Iowa, who could
predict exactly what questions would be asked and knew what answers to give) live on planet Earth?
I most certainly did not predict Trump would win. But I did question the polls. What I questioned
a few weeks ago was the margin of victory for Hillary.
There were two big variables that the pollsters had to guess at. One was the voter turnout
numbers for those precincts that had many working class people with a high school or less education
level. As it turns out those people came out in higher numbers than they have in elections over
the past two decades. The other was voter turnout for many precincts that supported Obama in 2008
and 2012. What happened here was many of those voters who did turn out voted for Trump, instead
of the Democrat. There was a third uncertainty here that no on has yet figured out. That was those
people who would never admit to a stranger that they were going to vote for Trump and simply lied
to the pollster.
In any case those three uncertainties worked in directions that none of the pollsters really
picked up on.
This is because most of the polls were weighting more Democratic (based on the 2012 election),
which overestimated Clinton's support. For example, the Rasmussen poll, which traditionally
weights more Republican, gave Clinton 1.7% lead, 44.8% to 43.1% (3% margin of error), so fairly
close to the election results (47.3% to 47.8%).
So the difference between the poll and the actual result is 1.2% in favour of Trump (1.7%
lead to Clinton in poll vs. 0.5% in the election). All are well within the error of the poll,
so 1.2% difference between the election and the poll is well within the stated 3% error margin
of the poll.
When you mention 6 sigma, you really don't really know what you are talking about. Typical
polling error is 3 - 4% and the election result was within this error for most polls in all of
the states. Standard deviation (sigma) that you mention is a random uncertainty associated with
a measurement and it does not apply here. As I tried to convey, the errors in polling tend to
be systematic, not random, because they are tied to weighting of the polls, not to the sample
of the population as this is mostly corrected by the weighting. So because most of the MSM polls
use similar weighting methodology based on the same historical data, they will all be off, there
will be no random distribution of some for Trump, some for Clinton. Weighing based on different
historical data skews the whole picture one way, it's not a random error. This is why pollster
slap a relatively large 3 - 4% error on their polls, it is meant to cover any systematic bias
of the weighting as well as random errors.
those three uncertainties worked in directions that none of the pollsters really picked
up on.
Have a loook at the
LA Times
tracking poll . It had Trump ahead by 3.2% on election day, which is close to the margin of
error. The graph there is interesting, because dates of various events, such as the debates are
marked. The poll figures moved in response to those events as one would expect.
Before the election, the people who do that poll said that they did best at predicting the
2012 election. Oh, in a
post about the
election's outcome, Alexander Dugin singled out that poll for praise.
I have a better idea--how about we stop the stupid polling altogether since there is only one
poll that really matters? Then the media would have to focus on the issues rather than the horserace.
Oh, the humanity!
Hypothesis A - that it's all explainable by random distribution of their samples.
If you use Hypotethesis A, and then disprove it in it's own game (be it 3, or 6 sigma), then
you have to suggest an alternative.
I don't know what the alternative is. I don't even claim I do. But you can more easily disprove
the veracity that the polls could have mostly been non-biased by showing that hypothesis is unlikely
to be RIGHT. That's where sigmas make absolute sense.
Furthermore, what you are proving here is that the POPULATION of ALL COMBINED polls has a mean
that must be different from the POPULATION of all actual voters, not of disproving the polls one
by one.
I think you've totally ignored my point, you keep looking at individual polls as trees, I am
looking at the poll forest and saying the entire forest is buggered if almost all polls erred
on one side, regardless of their individual margins of error.
The New York Times recent admission that it writes the narrative first, then builds the story
to suit says about everything for me regarding polls. 'Hey, my editor needs someone to come
out and say something, can you say this...?' <-- Now, if that is standard practice in journalism
at 'the paper of record', then skewing polls to suit a common agenda is a given, again in my opinion.
This of course is great news for sites like MofA.
Also impossible to capture The Don's campaign playing the electoral college system like an
old mandolin, as it turns out. 306 Trump bts 232 Hillary it looks like in the wash up. That's
old school work rate doing the job. Fair play. Great to see all the student debt laden brainwashed
libtards out there doing there nut. They don't even know what a bullet they dodged + shite like
the TPP is now dead. Some gratitude.
Hopefully in 2020 there are some more scientific polls like the USC Dornslife/LA Times poll,
each having their own differing methodologies preferably. This should give the punters a better
'feel' for the electorate.
In other news...
Assange is being interviewed tomorrow by Swedush police (for the 2nd time I should add). There
are and were no charges laid. I suspect their will be no charges brought tomorrow.
...so what happened...? Did The Rule of Law just...magically appear...?
The most extraordinary thing I learned about polls is that exit polls are altered as soon as the
official election or primary vote is in-- to match it.
According to reports, the first leader Trump spoke to on the phone after his election victory
was the Egyptian president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. Sisi congratulated him on the election victory,
a spokesman for the Egyptian leader said.
Ireland's government said the taoiseach, Enda Kenny, had a 10-minute call with Trump, and
was invited to visit the White House on St Patrick's Day.
Mexico's president, Enrique Peña Nieto, has said he and Trump agreed in their call to meet
before Trump takes office, while Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was invited to
the White House.
Other leaders to have a chat with Trump so far include the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip
Erdoğan, India's prime minister, Narendra Modi, the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe – they
reportedly talked for 20 minutes and agreed to meet soon in New York – and South Korea's president,
Park Geun-hye.
Australia's prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, was reported to have chatted with Trump about
security and trade in their call.
No surprises there.
It may be unfortunate, but I can see Trump & Erdogan getting along very well. Although,
if they bring Putin into that triumvirate that could actually be very beneficial for the Middle
East.
Concur with all your points. And yes, the timing of the Swedes finally deciding to interview
Assange is funny.
I never thought that Hillary would become president, btw., from the moment she declared
for 2016. Which is not to say that I was not concerned that the demonization of Trump might throw
the election. We'll never know, but it is possible that Trump wouldn't have won without Wikileaks.
And the two sets of leaks were very well timed.
To return to polls. It's not just most media polls that were off. The Clinton campaign's internal
polls were off, too. They didn't have much doubt that they would win. (The same thing happened
with Romney of course, but in their case, their internal polls differed from the media polls.)
Apparently, they really did believe they have a firewall, with redundancies no less.
By John Cassidy conviniently forget that Hillary was/is a neocon warmonger, perfectly
cable of unleashing WWIII. Instead he pushes "Comey did it" bogeyman"...
EMichael and im1dc would rather have their head in the sand. We were told confidently by Clinton
surrogates like Krugman and DeLong that Brexit wouldn't happen again.
Since Tuesday night, there has been a lot of handwringing about how the media, with all its fancy
analytics, failed to foresee Donald Trump's victory. The Times alone has published three articles
on this theme, one of which ran under the headline "How Data Failed Us in Calling an Election." On
social media, Trump supporters have been mercilessly haranguing the press for getting it wrong.
Clearly, this was a real issue. It's safe to say that most journalists, myself included, were
surprised by Tuesday's outcome. That fact should be acknowledged. But journalists weren't the only
ones who were shocked. As late as Tuesday evening, even a senior adviser to Trump was telling the
press that "it will take a miracle for us to win."
It also shouldn't be forgotten that, in terms of the popular vote, Clinton didn't lose on Tuesday.
As of 6:30 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, a tally by CNN showed that Hillary Clinton had received 60,617,062
votes, while Trump got 60,118,567. The margin in her favor-now at 498,495-is likely to grow as the
remaining votes are counted in California. At the end of the day, Clinton may end up ahead by two
per cent of the total votes cast. If the United States had a direct system of voting, Clinton would
have been the one at the White House on Thursday meeting with President Obama. But, of course, Trump
won the Electoral College. If the final count in Michigan remains in his favor, Trump will end up
with three hundred and six Electoral College votes, to Clinton's two hundred and twenty-six.
Still, as journalists and commentators, we all knew the rules of the game: if Trump got to two
hundred and seventy votes in the Electoral College, he'd be President. Why did so few observers predict
he'd do it? Many Trump supporters insist it was East Coast insularity and ideological bias, and many
in the media are now ready to believe that. To be sure, it's easy to get sucked into the media bubble.
But there are also strong professional incentives for journalists to get things right. Why did that
prove so difficult this year?
It wasn't because journalists weren't legging it to Michigan or Wisconsin or West Virginia. In
this magazine alone, a number of writers-including Larissa MacFarquhar, Evan Osnos, George Packer,
and George Saunders-published long, reported pieces about the Trump phenomenon in different parts
of the country. Many other journalists spent a lot of time talking with Trump supporters. I'd point
you to the work of ProPublica's Alec MacGillis and the photojournalist Chris Arnade, but they were
just two among many. So many, in fact, that some Clinton supporters, such as Eric Boehlert, of Media
Matters, regularly complained about it on social media.
To the extent that there was a failure, it was a failure of analysis, rather than of observation
and reporting. And when you talk about how the media analyzed this election, you can't avoid the
polls, the forecasting models, and the organizing frames-particularly demographics-that people used
to interpret the incoming data.
It was clear from early in the race that Trump's electoral strategy was based on appealing
to working-class whites, particularly in the Midwest. The question all along was whether, in the
increasingly diverse America of 2016, there were enough alienated working-class whites to propel
Trump to victory.
Some analysts did suggest that there might be. Immediately after the 2012 election, Sean Trende,
of Real Clear Politics, pointed out that one of the main reasons for Mitt Romney's defeat was that
millions of white voters stayed home. Earlier this year, during the Republican primaries, Trende
returned to the same theme, writing, "The candidate who actually fits the profile of a 'missing white
voter' candidate is Donald Trump."
The Times' Nate Cohn was another who took Trump's strategy seriously. In June, pointing to
a new analysis of Census Bureau data and voter-registration files, Cohn wrote, "a growing body of
evidence suggests that there is still a path, albeit a narrow one, for Mr. Trump to win without gains
among nonwhite voters." As recently as Sunday, Cohn repeated this point, noting that Trump's "strength
among the white working class gives him a real chance at victory, a possibility that many discounted
as recently as the summer."
Among analysts and political demographers, however, the near-consensus of opinion was that Trump
wouldn't be able to turn back history. Back in March, I interviewed Ruy Teixeira, the co-author of
an influential 2004 book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority," which highlighted the growing number
of minority voters across the country, particularly Hispanics. Drawing on his latest data, Teixeira,
who is a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress, offered some
estimates of how many more white working-class voters Trump would need to turn out to flip states
like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. "It's not crazy," he said. "But I think it would be very hard
to pull off."
Trump managed it, though. He enjoyed a thirty-nine-point advantage among whites without college
degrees, according to the network exit poll, compared to the twenty-six-point advantage Romney saw
in 2012. "What totally tanked the Democrats was the massive shift in the white non-college vote against
them, particularly in some of the swing states," Teixeira told me by telephone on Thursday. "And
that by itself is really enough to explain the outcome."
In the lead-up to the election, the possibility of Clinton winning the popular vote while losing
the Electoral College was well understood but, in hindsight, not taken seriously enough. In mid-September,
David Wasserman, an analyst at the Cook Political Report, laid out a scenario in which turnout among
white non-college voters surged and turnout among some parts of the Democratic coalition, particularly
African-Americans, fell. "Clinton would carry the popular vote by 1.5 percentage points," Wasserman
wrote. "However, Trump would win the Electoral College with 280 votes by holding all 24 Romney states
and flipping Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Maine's 2nd Congressional District."
In the days and weeks leading up to the election, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver also considered
the possibility of Clinton winning the popular vote and losing the election. But he, Wasserman, and
others who looked at the matter believed this was an unlikely outcome. On Tuesday, the FiveThirtyEight
forecasting model estimated that the probability of such a scenario happening was about one in ten.
There was a straightforward reason for all the skepticism about Trump's chances: when you looked
at the state-level polling, it looked like Clinton's "blue wall" was holding. Take Wisconsin, which
turned out to be a state that Trump won. The Huffington Post's polling database lists the results
of more than thirty polls that were taken in the Badger State since June: Trump didn't lead in any
of them. Three of the final four surveys showed Clinton ahead by six points or more, and the Huffpollster
poll average put her lead at 6.3 percentage points. Trump carried the state by one point. In other
key states, the pattern was similar. The final Huffington Post poll averages showed Trump losing
by nearly six points in Michigan, and by four points in Pennsylvania.
In a public statement issued on Wednesday, the American Association for Public Opinion Research
said bluntly, "The polls clearly got it wrong this time." The organization announced that it had
already put together a panel of "survey research and election polling experts" tasked with finding
some answers. Several possible explanations have already been floated.
First, it's possible there was a late swing to Trump among undecided voters, which the state polls,
in particular, failed to pick up. Another possibility is that some Trump voters didn't tell the pollsters
about their preferences-the "shy Trump supporter" hypothesis.
A third theory, which I suspect may be the right one, is that a lot of Trump voters refused
to answer the pollsters' calls in the first place, because they regarded them as part of the same
media-political establishment that Trump was out railing against on the campaign trail. Something
like this appears to have happened in Britain earlier this year, during the run-up to the Brexit
referendum. Turnout wound up being considerably higher than expected among lower-income voters in
the north of England, particularly elderly ones, and that swung the result.
Whatever went wrong with the polls in this country, they inevitably colored perceptions. "The
reason it surprised me was because, like everyone else, I was taken in by those pesky polls," Teixeira
told me. "It didn't look like, by and large, that he was running up as big a margin as he needed
among non-college whites."
The prediction models didn't help things. On Tuesday morning, FiveThirtyEight's "polls-only"
prediction model put the probability of Clinton winning the presidency at 71.4 per cent. And that
figure was perhaps the most conservative one. The Times' Upshot model said Clinton had an eighty-five
per cent chance of winning, the Huffington Post's figure was ninety-eight per cent, and the Princeton
Election Consortium's estimate was ninety-nine per cent.
These numbers had a big influence on how many people, including journalists and political professionals,
looked at the election. Plowing through all the new polls, or even keeping up with all the state
and national poll averages, can be a time-consuming process. It's much easier to click on the latest
update from the model of your choice. When you see it registering the chances of the election going
a certain way at ninety per cent, or ninety-five per cent, it's easy to dismiss the other outcome
as a live possibility-particularly if you haven't been schooled in how to think in probabilistic
terms, which many people haven't.
The problem with models is that they rely so much on the polls. Essentially, they aggregate
poll numbers and use some simulation software to covert them into unidimensional probabilistic forecasts.
The details are complicated, and each model is different, but the bottom line is straightforward:
when the polls are fairly accurate-as they were in 2008 and 2012-the models look good. When the polls
are off, so are the models.
Silver, to his credit, pointed this out numerous times before the election. His model also allowed
for the possibility that errors in the state polls were likely to be correlated-i.e., if the polls
in Wisconsin got it wrong, then most likely the Michigan polls would get it wrong, too. This was
a big reason why FiveThirtyEight's model consistently gave Trump a better chance of winning than
other models did. But the fact remains that FiveThirtyEight, like almost everyone else, got the result
wrong.
I got it wrong, too. Unlike in 2012, I didn't make any explicit predictions this year. But based
on the polls and poll averages-I didn't look at the models much-I largely accepted the conventional
wisdom that Clinton was running ahead of Trump and had an enduring advantage in the Electoral College.
In mid-October, after the "Access Hollywood" tape emerged, I suggested that Trump was done.
Clearly, he wasn't. In retrospect, the F.B.I. Director James Comey's intervention ten days before
the election-telling Congress that his agency was taking another look at e-mails related to Clinton's
private server-may have proved decisive. The news seems to have shifted the national polls against
Clinton by at least a couple of points, and some of the state polls-in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina,
and other places-also moved sharply in Trump's direction. Without any doubt, it energized Republicans
and demoralized Democrats.
One thing we know for sure, however, is that in mid-October, even some of the indicators that
the Trump campaign relied on were sending out alarm signals. "Flash back three weeks, to October
18," Bloomberg News's Joshua Green and Sasha Issenberg reported on Thursday. "The Trump campaign's
internal election simulator, the 'Battleground Optimizer Path to Victory,' showed Trump with a 7.8
percent chance of winning. That's because his own model had him trailing in most of the states that
would decide the election, including the pivotal state of Florida."
Of course, neither the Battleground Optimizer Path to Victory software nor I knew that fate, in
the form of Comey, was about to take a hand.
"... Ideally, the next step would be for Trump and Putin to meet, with all their key ministers, in a long, Camp David like week of negotiations in which everything, every outstanding dispute, should be put on the table and a compromise sought in each case. Paradoxically, this could be rather easy: the crisis in Europe is entirely artificial, the war in Syria has an absolutely obvious solution, and the international order can easily accommodate a United States which would " deal fairly with everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations " and " seek common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict ". ..."
"... The truth is that the USA and Russia have no objective reasons for conflict – only ideological issues resulting directly from the insane ideology of messianic imperialism of those who believe, or pretend to believe, that the USA is an "indispensable nation". What the world wants – needs – is the USA as a *normal* nation. ..."
"... The worst case? Trump could turn out to be a total fraud. I personally very much doubt it, but I admit that this is possible. More likely is that he just won't have the foresight and courage to crush the Neocons and that he will try to placate them. If he does so, they will instead crush him. It is a fact that while administrations have changed every 4 or 8 years, the regime in power has not, and that US internal and foreign policies have been amazingly consistent since the end of WWII. Will Trump finally bring not just a new administration but real "regime change"? I don't know. ..."
"... Alexander Solzhenitsyn used to say that regimes can be measured on a spectrum which ranges from regimes whose authority is their power and regimes whose power in in their authority. In the case of the USA we now clearly can see that the regime has no other authority than its power and that makes it both illegitimate and unsustainable. ..."
"... Finally, whether the US elites can accept this or not, the US Empire is coming to an end. ..."
"... With Hillary, we would have had a Titanic-like denial up to the last moment which might well have come in the shape of a thermonuclear mushroom over Washington DC. Trump, however, might use the remaining power of the USA to negotiate the US global draw-down thereby getting the best possible conditions for his country. ..."
So it has happened: Hillary did not win! I say that instead of saying that "Trump won" because
I consider the former even more important than the latter. Why? Because I have no idea whatsoever
what Trump will do next. I do, however, have an excellent idea of what Hillary would have done: war
with Russia. Trump most likely won't do that. In fact, he specifically said in his acceptance speech:
I want to tell the world community that while we will always put America's interests first,
we will deal fairly with everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations. We will seek
common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict .
And Putin's reply was immediate:
We heard the statements he made as candidate for president expressing a desire to restore relations
between our countries. We realise and understand that this will not be an easy road given the
level to which our relations have degraded today, regrettably. But, as I have said before, it
is not Russia's fault that our relations with the United States have reached this point.
Russia is ready to and seeks a return to full-format relations with the United States. Let
me say again, we know that this will not be easy, but are ready to take this road, take steps
on our side and do all we can to set Russian-US relations back on a stable development track.
This would benefit both the Russian and American peoples and would have a positive impact on
the general climate in international affairs, given the particular responsibility that Russia
and the US share for maintaining global stability and security.
This exchange, right there, is enough of a reason for the entire planet to rejoice at the defeat
of Hillary and the victory of Trump.
Will Trump now have the courage, willpower and intelligence to purge the US Executive from the
Neocon cabal which has been infiltrating it for decades now? Will he have the strength to confront
an extremely hostile Congress and media? Or will he try to meet them halfway and naively hope that
they will not use their power, money and influence to sabotage his presidency?
I don't know. Nobody does.
One of the first signs to look for will be the names and backgrounds of the folks he will appoint
in his new administration. Especially his Chief of Staff and Secretary of State.
I have always said that the choice for the lesser evil is morally wrong and pragmatically misguided.
I still believe that. In this case, however, the greater evil was thermonuclear war with Russia and
the lesser evil just might turn out to be one which will gradually give up the Empire to save the
USA rather than sacrifice the USA for the needs of the Empire. In the case of Hillary vs Trump the
choice was simple: war or peace.
Trump can already be credited with am immense achievement: his campaign has forced the US corporate
media to show its true face – the face of an evil, lying, morally corrupt propaganda machine. The
American people by their vote have rewarded their media with a gigantic "f*ck you!" – a vote of no-confidence
and total rejection which will forever demolish the credibility of the Empire's propaganda machine.
I am not so naive as to not realize that billionaire Donald Trump is also one of the 1%ers, a
pure product of the US oligarchy. But neither am I so ignorant of history to forget that elites
do turn on each other , especially when their regime is threatened. Do I need to remind anybody
that Putin also came from the Soviet elites?!
Ideally, the next step would be for Trump and Putin to meet, with all their key ministers,
in a long, Camp David like week of negotiations in which everything, every outstanding dispute, should
be put on the table and a compromise sought in each case. Paradoxically, this could be rather easy:
the crisis in Europe is entirely artificial, the war in Syria has an absolutely obvious solution,
and the international order can easily accommodate a United States which would " deal fairly with
everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations " and " seek common ground, not hostility;
partnership, not conflict ".
The truth is that the USA and Russia have no objective reasons for conflict – only ideological
issues resulting directly from the insane ideology of messianic imperialism of those who believe,
or pretend to believe, that the USA is an "indispensable nation". What the world wants – needs –
is the USA as a *normal* nation.
The worst case? Trump could turn out to be a total fraud. I personally very much doubt it,
but I admit that this is possible. More likely is that he just won't have the foresight and courage
to crush the Neocons and that he will try to placate them. If he does so, they will instead crush
him. It is a fact that while administrations have changed every 4 or 8 years, the regime in power
has not, and that US internal and foreign policies have been amazingly consistent since the end of
WWII. Will Trump finally bring not just a new administration but real "regime change"? I don't know.
Make no mistake – even if Trump does end up disappointing those who believed in him what happened
today has dealt a death blow to the Empire. The "Occupy Wall Street" did not succeed in achieving
anything tangible, but the notion of "rule of the 1%" did emerge from that movement and it stayed.
This is a direct blow to the credibility and legitimacy of the entire socio-political order
of the USA: far from being a democracy, it is a plutocracy/oligarchy – everybody pretty much accepts
that today. Likewise, the election of Trump has already proved that the US media is a prostitute
and that the majority of the American people hate their ruling class. Again, this is a direct blow
to the credibility and legitimacy of the entire socio-political order. One by one the founding
myths of the US Empire are crashing down and what remains is a system which can only rule by force.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn used to say that regimes can be measured on a spectrum which ranges
from regimes whose authority is their power and regimes whose power in in their authority. In the
case of the USA we now clearly can see that the regime has no other authority than its power and
that makes it both illegitimate and unsustainable.
Finally, whether the US elites can accept this or not, the US Empire is coming to an end.
With Hillary, we would have had a Titanic-like denial up to the last moment which might well
have come in the shape of a thermonuclear mushroom over Washington DC. Trump, however, might use
the remaining power of the USA to negotiate the US global draw-down thereby getting the best possible
conditions for his country. Frankly, I am pretty sure that all the key world leaders realize
that it is in their interest to make as many (reasonable) concessions to Trump as possible and work
with him, rather than to deal with the people whom he just removed from power.
If Trump can stick to his campaign promises he will find solid and reliable partners in
Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Neither Russia nor China have anything at all to gain from a confrontation
or, even less so, a conflict with the USA. Will Trump have the wisdom to realize this and use it
for the benefit of the USA? Or will he continue with his anti-Chinese and anti-Iranian rhetoric?
"... Uh, no. The Democratic party didn't demolish itself. It engaged willfully and knowingly in a radical makeover in the 90's. It wanted to be the political arm-candy of wall st. and global capital. Trump is one of the results. He is equally the result of a completely callow and hateful Republican party that never missed a chance to side with overweening wealth, power, and authority. ..."
"... And of course they didn't. The signs were there and have been perfectly transparent for some time now. Liberals, technocrats, and smart people might want to try on epistemic humility for a change to see how and why Brexit and Trump are deeply connected (besides or in addition to the blindingly shallow and obvious insight that "racists and sexists are racist and sexist"). From this they might begin to reevaluate what concrete coalitions are actually possible, whose interests they actually want to represent, and what problems they actually want to solve. ..."
"... There is a group dynamic when you try to use shaming as a main tool of control. Democrats failed to watch out for those who got hit hard by globalism–instead retreating into their increasingly expensive cities. ..."
The U.S. Democratic Party pretty much demolished itself. The process was in motion for a long time
and involved a lot of self-deception among its partisans about its declining credibility as the party
of the people and the devisive turn its rhetoric on racism and feminism had taken in covering for
its economic betrayals.
A tip of my hat to Kidneystones. I was wrong in my judgments about how the dynamics would add
up. He was right.
Uh, no. The Democratic party didn't demolish itself. It engaged willfully and knowingly
in a radical makeover in the 90's. It wanted to be the political arm-candy of wall st. and global
capital. Trump is one of the results. He is equally the result of a completely callow and hateful
Republican party that never missed a chance to side with overweening wealth, power, and authority.
BTW: I posted this in Bertram's thread on Brexit back in June (6/24/16 8.23 pm).
"And so it begins. First Brexit, the election of Trump is likely to be the next big 'shock.'
Who knows what else might happen in the intervening months. The global managers would do well
to start cramming for the test (standardized of course) in political theology that is coming–though
I have little doubt they won't."
And of course they didn't. The signs were there and have been perfectly transparent for
some time now. Liberals, technocrats, and smart people might want to try on epistemic humility
for a change to see how and why Brexit and Trump are deeply connected (besides or in addition
to the blindingly shallow and obvious insight that "racists and sexists are racist and sexist").
From this they might begin to reevaluate what concrete coalitions are actually possible, whose
interests they actually want to represent, and what problems they actually want to solve.
"I'm not sure why kidneystones should be thanked, or even congratulated. Before the new
comments policy here, his contributions were pretty consistently nasty, personally insulting,
and contemptuous of those with whom he disagreed. That his candidate won the election does
not seem a sufficient reason to forget his past behavior here."
This is an excellent example of a feature of [neo]liberal culture that is surely related to
this loss: [neo]liberals have become incapable of detaching evaluation generally from moral evaluation
specifically.
To complement Kidneystones on the accuracy of his predictions is not to complement his morals
or his rhetorical style or his political endorsements. To even complement him on his ability to
understand, even in a sympathetic way, the motivations of Trump supporters is not to complement
those supporters or endorse their motives.
We can complement Kidneystones for not having had his head in the sand about the reasons Trump
won, even if he has his head in the sand about what the consequences will be. And we'd do better
to try to get the rest of the democrats' heads out of the sand as soon as possible, so we can
stop using magical solutions against those oncoming consequences.
It is time for the left to become a reality based community again. And that begins by stopping
making excuses for what is at the end of the day a largely self incurred loss.
There is a group dynamic when you try to use shaming as a main tool of control. Democrats
failed to watch out for those who got hit hard by globalism–instead retreating into their increasingly
expensive cities.
Many of those people, but not all, are racist.
Clinton's general message was "more of the same" which wasn't going to help them.
The message of most of the elite media and political class was "more of the same, and if you
vote for him you're a racist".
Politics is tribal. Instead of trying to make them part of our tribe through inclusion and
signs that we were going to improve their lives, we tried to cleave them from the Republican tribe
by calling them racist.
That might have worked in concert with actively trying to get them in our tribe, but when you
are trying to call 50% of the population racist, the shame factor isn't likely to be successful.
The election was close. Winning over even a tiny portion of those people would have added up
to a win.
So go after those people.
You can choose to be sanctimonious about lumping them in with hardcore racists, or you can
try to woo them and win. You probably can't do both.
@ OP
> We should take seriously the risk of a Trump presidency ending in a large international conflict.
Actually, pretty much the only good thing about Trump's win is that it doesn't seem likely
to produce a large international conflict *quite* as soon as a HRC victory. An HRC presidency
appeared to entail a no-fly zone in Syria or an attack on the Syrian regime, meaning literally
an attack on the Russians, and certainly would have included an intensification of the existing
confrontation with Russia in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Therefore, it already seemed
disquietingly likely to end in a 'large international conflict', and more specifically in a direct
military confrontation with a nuclear power. Impressively, many talking heads representing the
mainstream conventional wisdom have claimed that what is dangerous is, instead, *not antagonising
Russia enough*: war is peace and peace is war (of course, this has to do with the fact that in
their alternative reality, Russia is the side that initiated the conflicts in Georgia and Ukraine,
as well as being about to invade the Baltics and Poland any minute now).
It is a testament to the madness of the course taken by the FP establishment that in this respect,
even a profoundly stupid and narcissistic wannabe tough guy exhibiting open disregard for human
rights and lives actually appeared a little bit less immediately dangerous than said 'reasonable'
establishment. Trump is still very scary, of course, and may well do everything wrong that Clinton
possibly could have done and then some more (even just letting Mike Pence call the shots in FP
would probably be enough to produce that effect). Things being as they are, all my hope for the
next four years is that Trump is a conman, but not a madman, and that he is just playing a madman
on TV (Godwin calling: 'You know about whom else they said this?'). I'd like to believe that he
wouldn't have survived in business cheating people for so long if he didn't possess at least a
modicum of common sense and self-preservation instinct, which would help him to avoid completely
catastrophic or suicidal moves in his bravado. Or, perhaps, the FP equivalent of his bankruptcies
will be that he causes a catastrophic conflict and then scoots off and hides in a 'yuge' bunker,
while others pay the price of his idiocy. Well, I never claimed that the situation looked good.
>Trump wants jobs for everyone, which is a good thing – although he only mentioned jobs in
public infrastructure works, which sounds like predominantly jobs for men. But then we know how
much he cares about women's interests.
If he truly launches such a deeply non-Republican, FDR-style policy, that would be an incredible
and very positive precedent that should be welcomed, even if the gender distribution of the jobs
leaves something to be desired. I still suspect that whatever he is saying now, in practice, he
simply won't do anything that deviates from Republican orthodoxy, and that would be terrible enough.
That's the path of least resistance, and it will be especially tempting for someone who is, in
the end of the day, not really a politician by vocation.
the soi disant left proposed Sanders and Corbin who, with all their defects, seem reasonable
candidate for a party that would care about these matters.
It just happens that the "progressive" parties did not like those proposals, and preferred
to push for Clinton in USA and to commit suicide in UK.
Trump is just the symptom not the disease. But the biggest cause of the disease is the two party
system. You (Americans) need to find a way to get rid of it.
Two parties are plenty. We just need at least one party that can actually engage the working-but-worried
members of the broad middle class. Trump offers one path there, but even the GOP don't seem too
interested in taking it. I think that there are other ones, and that the Democrats need to look
at them.
In a winner takes all system you are bound to end up with a two party system. If you have a direct
election of a President you eventually end up with a two party system. See what happened in Canada,
they had 3 parties with roughly 30, 30, 40% support each. Since the Conservatives were the 40%
they had 100% of the power for a long time. The only alternative to a two party system, is to
get rid of the winner takes all system and use the European model where the majority of legislators
are allocated by proportion of votes (nationally) and the leader of the executive branch is elected
by parliament.
The US Constitution needs better provisions for electoral democracy. The two party system is good
enough if kept honest.
1. End private campaign financing or at least end Super PACs (Citizen United decision) and
allow only private contributions of $100 or less per donor/candidate/election combination.
2. End gerrymandering.
3. Reasonable (12 to 20 years combined in both chambers) legislative term limits.
4. Ranked/preferential/instant runoff voting.
5. Popular petition and referendum to overturn SCOTUS.
Yeah, voting needs to be all about picking the most extreme winners possible to screw over
the maximum number of losers. It needs to be a bidding system to find the smallest faction that
can win based on promising to screw over the largest number while still winning.
A change that is the most republican democratic is approval voting. Candidates run seeking
to get the greatest approval possible, 99%, by speaking and acting in 99% of the people's interests.
That means no losers, by that also means no winners.
In an election, you vote for everyone you approve of, whether none, one, five, all of those
running. I would have "none" on the ballot directly or implicitly, by rerunning any election with
a totally new slate if no candidate fails to get votes from 50% plus 1. Ideally, all candidates
get 70% of voters to approve of them, with the winner getting 90% or 85%.
After all, once the election is over, the person selected will represent everyone, so everyone
is forced by law to approve of his legal actions.
Actually Ranked/preferential/instant runoff voting may allow people to vote their extreme ambitions,
but winning is relegated to the candidates that are least objectionable overall very much like
the intent of your approval voting. Everyone you misunderstand is not necessarily an ogre. You
just get too much of a reflection of yourself when you look at the ideas of others. Either that
or your capacity to comprehend the language is strikingly inferior to your ability to mangle it
with your eccentric pronouncements.
If we're talking wish lists, I don't see why we can't also radically increase the size of Congress
(more, smaller districts), and end the anachronism of lifelong terms for federal judges (lengthy,
not lifetime, terms are more than enough to assure independence).
Actually, I was going for a list that you could build a voting constituency behind that would
forsake partisan loyalty to use anti-incumbency as a solidarity rallying cry for the purpose of
literally extorting Congress to take desired action. That said, your ideas are as good as any
on a first cut. Ultimately the supporting voting constituency would need to decide.
I just picked from popular favorites that I was familiar with and then tested them here for
reactions off and on over the years. Many of our commenters want to have nothing to do with Constitutional
reform either because they are afraid of shaking the tree or because they believe it impossible.
The linchpin to achieving success is the critical mass necessary to deny most incumbents reelection.
The resistance to that proposition becomes less with each new Congress. Picking a list is as easy
as floating all the ideas and discarding any that would significantly rock the coalition of reformist
voters. Even if only one such reform passes the final test then it is still better than what we
got. Also, successfully demonstrating the power over Congress embodied in blocking reelection
would be empowering to the electorate for many years to come.
We have one party advocating free lunch social and economic policy.
On social policy, the conservative theory is tolerance takes away individual liberty, and true
liberty means you as an individual must be able to exclude, harm, kill, or otherwise screw over
anyone different from you because conservatives are superior individuals favored by God. White
people owning black people is in the bible and thus a god given right of white Christian men,
just as Jefferson wrote in the Constitution. (That Jefferson was not in American when it was written
is denied by conservatives, as is the far greater influence of Washington and Hamilton, both shaped
by the need for strong Federal power to tax and spend based on both running a war and then building
a nation. And ironically, Jefferson acted as president far more like Obama than like the small
government weak Federal advocate than he wrote of and that conservatives exaggerate.)
And on economics, the Republicans are pure free lunch. You as consumer will get rich by low
wages and zero government spending and zero regulation because that will mean you get rich with
slave labor producing goods your sell to rich consumers at high profit. Because after all, you
conservative workers are superior to all workers who vote for Democrats and join unions fighting
for higher wages and benefits.
As Republicans won elections based on their free lunch policies, liberals were marginalized
in the Democratic Party. Instead, progressives argued the Democrats needed to adopt better and
bigger free lunch policies.
Obama has been criticized for being a liberal instead of an angry black progressive revolutionary
who put blacks in power all over government so they can make black people rich by screwing white
people. That Obama treated everyone as having equal rights has outraged all the progressive activists.
In their view, they elected Obama to serve them, and he squandered the chance to screw over everyone
else. Blacks should have had the power to screw over whites and browns. Gays should have had the
power to jail every homophobe, etc.
Clinton is evil because she told Bernie TANSTAAFL just like those evil liberals.
Bernie promised to tax the rich to create millions of government jobs, I assume, so no worker
gets exploited by evil Wall Street corporations, and Bernie promises that he will be able to destroy
the rich, their wealth, and keep taxing them to pay for all the government that will serve only
workers.
Bernie promised to stop climate change by taxing the burning of fossil fuels to build alternatives
and subsidizing workers so they pay no more for every, plus give them lots of other benefits,
even after all the fossil fuel corporations are bankrupt because no one is burning fossil fuels.
After all, if a carbon tax generates a trillion dollars in revenue today, it will generate
a trillion dollars in revenue when all cars and homes have switched to electric power and stopped
burning fossil fuels. $100 a ton tax on 10 billion tons is the same as a $100 tax on 10 million
tons in terms of revenue according to progressives.
According to progressives, the Laffer curve is 1000% lie, and tax revenue will keep increasing
the higher the tax rate no matter how high the tax rate. But that's exactly identical to the conservative
claim that tax revenue will increase the lower the tax rate, and tax revenue is highest at zero
percent.
Bernie argues that only when you elect people who reject party politics, and all those elected
work to support only their community, will government be the most effective and powerful, because
when you agree to tax everyone but your voters and give free stuff to only your voters, can taxes
that tax everyone and no one, to fund giving free stuff to everyone and no one, be made into law,
with zero compromise.
Bernie and Trump are identities, just promising different winners they will screw different
losers.
Neither support parties, and neither can be supported by any feasible political party representing
more than the half the size of thone who will be the winners under their respective winners.
Do you think health care workers will support Bernie slashing their pay, or putting them out
of jobs? Wall Street profits and rent seeking are certainly less than 2% of the 16-18% of gdp
for health care, and most of that goes to paying workers. Bernie advocates killing jobs just as
much as Trump advocates killing jobs - deregulation only kills jobs, never creates jobs, unless
creating thieves is creating jobs, but not paying workers to cut health care costs also kills
jobs.
"I would love to share, my liberal friend, in your sense of incredulity about the election
of Donald Trump to the presidency of United States. I would love to stand with you in the sense
of woundedness that, while certainly painful up front, carries with it the secondary compensation
of a warm and nurturing solidarity. I would love to sit with you and fulminate in righteous anger
about the unparalleled vulgarity and cruelty of Trump and his followers.
As much as I'd like to do these things, I won't.
Why?
Because I know you, perhaps better than you even dare to know yourself. I know you well because
I have watched you with great and detailed care over the last three decades and have learned,
sadly, that you are as much if not more about image and self-regard as any of the laudable values
you claim to represent.
I have watched as you accommodated yourself to most of the retrograde social forces you claim
to abhor. I have seen you be almost completely silent before the world's greatest evil, unprovoked
war, going so far as to embrace as your presidential candidate this year a person who cold-bloodedly
carried out the complete destruction of Libya, a real country with real people who love their
children like you and me, in order-as the Podesta emails make clear-to further her personal political
ambitions.
I watched as you stood silent before this same person's perverse on-camera celebration of the
murder by way of a bayonet thrust to the anus of the leader of that once sovereign country, and
before the tens of thousand of deaths, and hundreds of thousands of refugees, that war provoked.
I watched during the last eight years as you sought refuge in the evanescent qualities of skin
color and smooth speechmaking so as to not to confront the fact that your "liberal" president
was almost totally lacking in actionable convictions regarding the values you claim to be about.
I watched as you didn't say a peep as he bailed out bankers, pursued whistleblowers and deported
desperate and downtrodden immigrants in heretofore unimaginable numbers.
And I didn't hear the slightest complaint (unlike those supposedly stupid and primitive libertarians)
as he arrogated to himself the right to kill American citizens in cold blood as he and he alone
deemed fit.
I monitored you as you not only completely normalized Israel's methodical erasure of the Palestinian
people and their culture, but made cheering enthusiastically for this campaign of savagery the
ultimate litmus test for social and political respectability within your ranks.
I watched as you breezily dispatched the memories of the millions of innocent people destroyed
by U.S. military aggression around the world and damaged police brutality here at home in order
to slavishly imitate the unceasing orgy of uniform worship set in motion by the right and its
media auxiliaries in the wake of September 11th, 2001.
In short, since 1992, I have watched as you have transformed a current of social thought once
rooted in that most basic an necessary human sentiment-empathy-into a badge of cultural and educational
superiority. And because feeling good about yourself was much more important to you than actually
helping the afflicted, you signed off, in greater or lesser measure to almost all of the life-sapping
and dignity-robbing measures of the authoritarian right.
And now you want me to share in your sense of shock and incredulity?
No, thanks, I'll save my tears for all of the people, ideas and programs you heedlessly abandoned
along the road to this day. "
Leaving aside black boxes, the Electoral College, swing state skewing and cumulative winner-take-allism
transformed an estimated TWO MILLION vote popular vote margin into a 306-232 electoral vote romp
for the LOSER.
As Leonard Cohen wrote, "Democracy is coming to the U.S.A."
It's coming from the sorrow in the street,
the holy places where the races meet;
from the homicidal bitchin'
that goes down in every kitchen
to determine who will serve and who will eat.
From the wells of disappointment
where the women kneel to pray
for the grace of God in the desert here
and the desert far away:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
The sad reality is that 46% of Americans simply did not vote, and most of them were Democratic
voters. Trump is winning with fewer votes than Romney got. When you run an uninspiring candidate
with high negatives, this is what happens.
With all the propaganda, emotion, idolizing 'experience', lusting for a first woman, and poor
pk whining he is a (I see him faux) librul a vote is never informed nor would it assure the "right"
outcome whomever might define that.
I am older than either Dr. Thoma or Dr. Krugman and have been retired for some years. I also believe
Mr. Trump, Speaker Ryan, and Leader McConnell, will do exactly what they said they would do. My
life will get much harder particularly with the end of Medicare and cuts to Social Security. I
do not see a chance of this improving in my lifetime. I have no illusions that anything I say
or do will change the direction just set. Dropping out seems to be the best course to save my
sanity.
Trump was in my city the night before election day, and I saw his speech on youtube... He made
a pretty clear campaign promise to protect medicare and social security.
Trump has been known both to ignore his promises but also to take revenge on those who say bad
things about him. My guess is that at some point in time he will smack Ryan badly by blocking
one of Ryans signature pieces. Privatizing social security might be the right issue for that revenge.
However, the destruction/privatization of social security and medicare is unlikely to make it
past a filibuster in the senate. It may not even be able to pass a straight majority in the senate.
McConnell may get rid of the filibuster but just like Reed hesitated to do so (knowing how often
the political winds change) my guess is that he may erode it further but not dare to totally get
rid of it. After all even though it may allow you to get all your "dream legislations" through,
it also will allow the other side to reverse all that you passed - and then get all their dream
legislation through as soon as the pendulum swings back.
I have no illusions that anything I say or do will change the direction just set. Dropping out
seems to be the best course to save my sanity.
[ Why should what a person says or does be predicated on being effective in ways that are impossible
to know? Saying and doing what is gratifying as such, when a person is able, would seem to be
or should be enough. ]
Dropping out is the worst thing you can do. That leave the other side emboldened and empowered.
If you worry what a president Trump and a GOP house + senate can do to your future, you need to
fight; not give up.
Fred, you and I and the others in the 55 and older group(maybe 60) will catch a break on SS and
Medicare.
If they can privatize it, they will build it on promises to those not in our age group that
it will be a "super terrific" change while insisting that those of our age group will keep the
benefits cause they will never, ever vote GOP again if they are taken away.
"When Trump was elected, I felt like I had failed..."
On the contrary, Paul, you succeeded beyond your wildest dreams. By equating pro-labor "populism"
with nativist, revanchist "populism" you succeeded in obstructing truly progressive economic policy
initiatives such as shorter working time.
By ridiculing Wm. Greider's prescient 1990s warnings about the consequences of neoliberal globalization
as the ravings of an "accidental theorist" you succeeded in preserving an expert consensus that
everything was fine and nothing could go wrong.
By relentlessly harping on Gerald Friedman's analysis of Bernie Sanders's economic program,
you succeeded in persuading rust belt voters that There Is No Alternative to the infallible wisdom
of the past and present Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers.
You succeeded in scoring so many goals that I am almost hesitant to tell you that they were
in the wrong end of the field. Please, though, have a look at my open letter to you from May 2011
to which you did not reply. Perhaps your only failure, among all those myriad successes.
Next: how shall we define the whale, by his obvious externals, so as conspicuously to label
him for all time to come. To be short, then, a whale is a spouting fish with a horizontal tail.
There you have him....
I am writing to you because three times over the last 14 months your authority has been invoked
to me on behalf of the assertion that people who advocate shorter working time as a remedy for
unemployment are guilty of a "lump-of-labor fallacy" assumption that there is only a fixed quantity
of work in the world. As did John Maynard Keynes, I believe that working less is one of "three
ingredients of a cure" for unemployment. I find it odd to learn that I (and presumably Keynes)
am thereby assuming a palpable absurdity: that the amount of work to be done is invariant.
I have researched the history of the fallacy claim and published two scholarly articles on
it and I have documented rather glaring discrepancies in the often-repeated claim. Because your
authority on the alleged fallacy is so frequently cited, I would be extremely grateful if you
would consider the evidence I outline below and respond to it. I believe the history is curious
enough to be entertaining and thought provoking, whether or not you are persuaded by my presentation.
A column by you that has been held up to me as authoritative appeared in The New York Times
on October 7, 2003. It was titled "Lumps of Labor." The first paragraph states as follows:
"Economists call it the 'lump of labor fallacy.' It's the idea that there is a fixed amount
of work to be done in the world, so any increase in the amount each worker can produce reduces
the number of available jobs. (A famous example: those dire warnings in the 1950's that automation
would lead to mass unemployment.) As the derisive name suggests, it's an idea economists view
with contempt, yet the fallacy makes a comeback whenever the economy is sluggish."
When Trump was elected, I felt like I had failed...
-- Mark Thoma
[ Who assuredly did not fail, quite the opposite. What Mark Thoma has been doing is a wild
success. Picasso painted or sketched or sculpted or constructed daily for decades. The work was
successful as such, the effectiveness is only measured by the self-satisfaction with the work
and the satisfaction of viewers of the work. ]
Picasso painted Guernica as a protest against war waged on Guernica. The painting became famous
and symbolic enough that a tapestry of the Guernica hangs outside of the United Nations Security
Council.
When Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the UN Security Council to make the case for waging
war on Iraq, the tapestry of Guernica was covered over. Sad, but no matter in that Picasso had
created a plea for peace that would endure even though there would be no peace in Iraq.
No matter, your writing is necessary and successful just as well. The criticism strikes me as
justified, but what it is beyond that is properly instructive.
It will indeed be interesting to see if Krugman and other 'liberals' can eventually acknowledge
their role in enabling a system that pissed so many off. It's not just his incessant boosterism
for a lousy candidate, even before a single vote had been cast in the primaries. It is also his
incessant boosterism of policies that overwhelmingly benefited the investor class and damaged
workers.
Krugman can talk all he wants about the truth...but the truth is that Democrats have been ignoring
workers for a long, long time.
Pavlina R. Tcherneva: "Democrats have not had an economic policy of their own for nearly half
a century, just an 'inferior' version of what Republicans usually champion-tax cuts on the wealthy,
dismantling the public safety-net, 'fighting' inflation by creating unemployment, market liberalization
and deregulation across the board, which among other things brought us a colossal financial sector
that has cannibalized the productive economy."
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/11/economic-consequences-donald-trump.html
Krugman was a major 'very serious person' promoting Republican-lite policies...
"It's an idea economists view with contempt..." -- Paul Krugman
June 24, "Lumps of Brexit"
"So it turns out the establishment telling people they are a bunch of foolish xenophobes is
not an effective electoral strategy. I wonder if the DNC is paying attention? I doubt it."
"Do you hear that, voters? The experts view your ideas with contempt. They brag about viewing
your ideas with contempt. They plagiarize each other bragging about how much contempt they have
for your ideas. Now what are going to do about it? Just ignore them?"
A scary thought just occurred to me. I believe the double austerity (monetary,fiscal) of the past
8 years played an huge role in getting us where we are.
Monetary hawks in particular basically jammed the investment markets in economic areas where
margins were already thin, meaning rural and less educated and inexperienced groups fell into
unemployment, hardship and misery for long periods of time.
Even if, unemployment wise, things were getting better in the end, these people were suffering
for years through no fault of their own. It wasn't clear things had changed enough to prevent
it from happening again. How much does unemployment set the average rural household back. Loosing
40000 a year for 8 years is 240000. Even if they now had a job they were starting out 240000 behind
in their career and it seemed like things could deteriorate again and vulnerable regions would
again be hit the hardest.
I don know how Trump is going to manage the economy, but many have pointed out that he may
not be an austerian.
Of course Trump doesn't have all the power, other republicans may push back on spending and
inflation but he seems to be good at manipulating others to get what he wants.
What if, despite the other things he is likely going to screw up, his policies end up being
very stimulative and the economy ends up doing very well? What if it ends up being like those
destructive wars that nonetheless boost the economy?
This might give legitimacy to his presidency and to other people like him.
There might not be anything we can do now. The monetary hawks should have been dealt with way
before. The government should have put much more emphasis on the unemployment part of the Fed
dual mandate and maybe raise the inflation target. By giving the opportunity to Trump to fix this
incredibly damaging yet easily fixable problem, he may have been set up for success. His success
could mean being stuck with people like him for a long time.
The only way to create real lasting growth is to change income and wealth distributions. Both
Regan and Bush II had economic growth, but not spectacularly- considering their increases in national
debt. Reagan presided over a 4-fold increase in national debt but had decent, not spectacular,
economic growth.
It is very unfortunate that the GOPsters blocked additional stimulus because they wanted Obama
(the nation) to fail for political reasons. The exact same infrastructure program that would have
been a great win-win-win 4 years ago (and was blocked by GOPsters), will likely be instituted
under Trump. Unfortunately, at this point we are close to full employment so the stimulus will
likely cause wage inflation and the Fed will raise rates in response to that. So we will not be
able to finance it by 0% interest and the growth effects of the infrastructure program will be
tempered by the Fed.
Isn't it likely that the Republicans are going to open the spigots and give Trump a couple of
years of "prosperity"? Republican "devotion" to "fiscal sanity" has been one of the most transparent
horseshit ploys of the last 25 years. Anyway, it seems like an obvious ploy to grease the skids
for the next midterm elections.
If that kind of short-term ploy leads to more constraints and difficulties later -- that's
**another** bonus. That means down the road we can stoke even more cynicism about public action.
"See? Government can't do anything! Told ya!"
Have Dems figured this out yet? To listen to them, I'm not sure.
Don't be so hard on yourself. This election was not about policy and being informed.
Almost the entire economic profession was unprecedentedly united against Trump. Rarely do you
have universal agreement among economists, but they agreed Trump would be terrible. Even Mankiw
said no to Trump.
Despite this, almost half of the voting population thought Trump would be better for the economy.
Then there were factors outside of Hilary's control. Since this was a marginal "victory" for
Trump, the Comey comment, the one-sided attack from wikileaks, and the years of hammering away
at non-scandals over email and Benghazi could have easily had marginal impacts enough to tilt
the election to Trump.
The exit polling I've seen this morning suggests that even most Trump supporters thought that
Clinton would be better for the economy than Trump. The election wasn't about that. Economic obviously
has a lot to do with how people feel, but the enormous anger of the Trump electorate had more
to do with cultural despair than dollars and cents. The decline of white Christian America wasn't
cooked up at Davos by a neoliberal cabal. Its causes lie in the relative decline of American power,
demographic changes, and the gradual triumph of secularization. This is an economics blog so perhaps
it's inevitable that everything gets seen here as depending on economics, but Trump didn't win
because Paul Krugman accused somebody of the lump of labor fallacy.
Most polls I saw put Trump anywhere to 40%-50% among all voters.
There was a lot of anger among Trump supporters. Some of the anger was because of demographics.
Some of it economics. Some of it against the establishment. Some of it was being angry for the
sake of being angry.
The deplorables did come out of the woodwork, but I don't think they alone put him power. There
is just not enough of them. They are loud and a minority. Sadly, the rest of the supporters were
largely complicit in their despicable behavior and it was not enough to sway them.
Given the tight margins in elections like this you can pick and choose half a dozen "causes" for
the Trump win. One thing that struck me was that compared to the 2012 election Trump had less
votes than Romney, but Hillary had much less than Obama. So it was about the balance between firing
up voters on your side and turning off voters on the other side.
Just a thought, can you name a Rep president who was in office when taxes on the super wealthy
were used to provide direct aid to the poorest in the country?
The biggest mistake made by many liberals and progressives is to think that there is no meaningful
difference between the two parties. That mistake may have destroyed the global climate by putting
Bush/Cheney in the white house rather than Gore. What damage it will do this time around is yet
to be determined, but I am not optimistic. Those morons need to grow up and understand that in
a two party system nobody gets even most of what they want.
This is a conversation I have with my 20 year old son who was passionate for Bernie. I kept telling
him if you think it is bad now just wait when a Republican gets in the White House (and with majorities
in congress no less!) Apparently it is OK to burn it all down in pursuit of the ideal which is
a very immature view of people who have no responsibilities or who do not have enough compassion
for the old, poor, disabled, homeless or sick people of this world. Republican policies crush
people in those categories and we are all in one of those categories at some point in our lives.
This is BS, most Democrats believe in the building up the working class. Republicans and Democrats
who might as well be Republicans never fight for the working class and actually conspire to make
their lives worse off.
"most Democrats believe in the building up the working class"
Sorry, but as far as I can tell, while it's true that professional Dems enjoy **talking about**
"building up the working class", they're not all that keen on actually doing anything about it.
Why can't all those rednecks learn JavaScript and live fat off of web design? Stupid rubes....
(That link may seem a bit
confusing. Ya gotta scroll down.)
Chuck Schumer backs Keith Ellison
to head of the D.N.C.
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the incoming Democratic leader, threw his weight behind
Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota on Friday to be the new chairman of the Democratic National
Committee, the clearest sign yet that, in defeat, the party will move to the left.
After losing the working-class Rust Belt to Mr. Trump, Democrats could have recruited an industrial-region
populist like Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio, who represents the Youngstown area. But Senator
Bernie Sanders of Vermont quickly backed Mr. Ellison, who is black, Muslim and an ardent progressive.
Two former governors, Howard Dean of Vermont and Martin O'Malley of Maryland, also expressed
interest Friday in being the party's new committee chairman.
Mark, thank you for your work here - I have learned a lot and deeply appreciate your efforts.
You have already done a great deal and helped to change the discourse. My thoughts from the Bush
presidency in 2007 are at the link from my name.
I grew up in a police state (apartheid South Africa) and was constantly oppressed by the awareness
that I wasn't doing enough, could not do enough, to stop the evil. Eventually it's necessary to
learn how "to care and not to care". Do what little I could, let it go and go to sleep, get up
and try again.
As I said in today's column, nobody who thought Trump would be a disaster should change his
or her mind because he won the election. He will, in fact, be a disaster on every front. And I
think he will eventually drag the Republican Party into the abyss along with his own reputation;
the question is whether he drags the rest of the country, and the world, down with him.
But it's important not to expect this to happen right away. There's a temptation to predict
immediate economic or foreign-policy collapse; I gave in to that temptation Tuesday night, but
quickly realized that I was making the same mistake as the opponents of Brexit (which I got right).
So I am retracting that call, right now. It's at least possible that bigger budget deficits will,
if anything, strengthen the economy briefly. More detail in Monday's column, I suspect.
On other fronts, too, don't expect immediate vindication. America has a vast stock of reputational
capital, built up over generations; even Trump will take some time to squander it.
The true awfulness of Trump will become apparent over time. Bad things will happen, and he
will be clueless about how to respond; if you want a parallel, think about how Katrina revealed
the hollowness of the Bush administration, and multiply by a hundred. And his promises to bring
back the good old days will eventually be revealed as the lies they are.
But it probably won't happen in a year. So the effort to reclaim American decency is going
to have to have staying power; we need to build the case, organize, create the framework. And,
of course, never forget who is right.
It's going to be a long time in the wilderness, and it's going to be awful. If I sound calm
and philosophical, I'm not - like everyone who cares, I'm frazzled, sleepless, depressed. But
we need to be stalwart.
Don't set your goals to high. The election of Trump is not something you alone could have prevented
- it is a collective failure of the progressive and fact-based community. Whatever you did it
pulled in the right direction. It's just that the load was to heavy and the forces pulling in
the other direction to strong. If you stop pulling it will be that more difficult for those of
us who continue the good fight.
I stopped fully reading Krugman's links in February. He has become illogical and filing
fallacies of argument (first sentence examples) based on blind loyalty to a personality party
that is not in the tiniest bit worse than the GOP.
His writings with the most of the NYT, mainstream media etc made me conclude they are a
Stalinist press machine.
There is an on-line petition up that directs the Electoral College to consider just the popular
vote of this weeks election, and when the time comes (Dec 19), cast their votes for Hillary Clinton.
"... 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.
The headline is "Did third-party candidates Jill Stein and Gary Johnson lose Clinton the election?"
and the short answer is no, but Chalabi takes the time to point out the reasoning behind the answer.
Thanks for the link. Don't get me wrong, there are 1 or 2 writers still worth reading and some
articles that actually provide content.
It's just that, overall, the jist the of paper seems to have established a deliberate policy
of contradictory messaging to cloud important issues, or momentarily providing balance to only
later use the apparent balance a to push a one-sided agenda.
The Blairite faction's attack on Corbyn and the guardian's coverage comes to mind. It was pure
hack journalism. The political careerists were so obviously in league with the hack journalist
careerists.
Apart from the Science & Tech stuff I've really only been reading the Graun recently (esp since
its utterly scandalous treatment of Corbyn (*)) for the Thomas Frank pieces. Is he publishing
these anywhere else on-line ?
(*) They're probably kicking themselves for not labeling them as `deplorables' & letting the
Clinton team get to this phrase first.
"... the more credible explanation is: 1) Barack Obama very eloquently promised Hope and Change in 2008 and 2012. 2) Barack Obama systematically broke his promises of hope and change. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton promised to continue Obama's policies. 4) Working people who had voted for Obama in the hope that he truly would change things lost patience and got sick of Democrats who (in the words of one millenial) "promise everything and change nothing." ..."
"... Populism is the real explanation for Trump's victory. ...he talked about stopping the globalization that's destroying the American middle class and ending our crazy endless unwinnable foreign wars. By contrast, Hillary Clinton gave $225,000 speeches to Goldman Sachs hedge fund traders in which she said the "banker-bashing so popular within both parties was unproductive and indeed foolish." ..."
Raven Oathill in #145 says: "Oh, for examples of Trumpian fascism I forgot advocating torture
…"
Barack Obama continued Bush-era torture, only slightly differently. Obama restricted torture
to Appendix M of the CIA's interrogation manual - that's the manual that the CIA created by studying
the Chinese communist's Mao-era thought reform torture methods. Appendix M prohibits cutting and
beating in favor of sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, cold, noise assault, and other methods
like the water drip method. These forms of torture leave no marks but drive people insane or destroy
their minds as surely as the standard three weeks of non-stop beatings favored in Lubyanka.
Let's not forget that the American president who began our current ride on the torture carousel
was Bill Clinton, who initiated "extraordinary rendition" (AKA fly prisoners to third world countries
in CIA chartered Lear jets and let third world dictators torture the victims for us).
The problem with the smug top-4% narrative of the Democratic elite's professional class that "It's
all about racism!" is that many of the counties in red states that went heavily for Trump in this
election went even more heavily for Bernie Sanders. A lot of states that voted for Trump in this
election voted for Obama in the last election.
What, did those Rust Belt states suddenly decide to not become racist when Obama ran, and then
became racist again when Trump ran? How does that work? "A black guy is running for president, so
I'm going to stop being a racist and vote for him. Oh, wait, now a white guy is running for president,
so I'm going to become a racist again." Does that make sense?
No, the more credible explanation is: 1) Barack Obama very eloquently promised Hope and Change
in 2008 and 2012. 2) Barack Obama systematically broke his promises of hope and change.
3) Hillary Clinton promised to continue Obama's policies. 4) Working people who had voted for
Obama in the hope that he truly would change things lost patience and got sick of Democrats who (in
the words of one millenial) "promise everything and change nothing."
Populism is the real explanation for Trump's victory. ...he talked about stopping the globalization
that's destroying the American middle class and ending our crazy endless unwinnable foreign wars.
By contrast, Hillary Clinton gave $225,000 speeches to Goldman Sachs hedge fund traders in which
she said the "banker-bashing so popular within both parties was unproductive and indeed foolish."
Meanwhile Bill Clinton dismissed the American population's rage at the bankers who crashed the
world economy with the comment: `"You could take Lloyd Blankfein in an alley and slit his throat,
and it would satisfy them for about two days," Clinton said. "Then the blood lust would rise again."'
Did I mention that Hillary's daughter Chelsea is married to former Goldman Sachs hedge fund
manager Mark Mezvinsky? They recently bought a pre-WW I ten million dollar townhouse overlooking
Madison Square Park. So much for Chelsea's "zero dollar salary." I don't know a lot of people with
a salary of zero dollars who can afford to buy 10.5 million dollar apartments in the upper West Side
of New York. Do you?
Hillary has wooed defense contractors with the love that dare not speak its name (the love
of foreign intervention, AKA burning brown babies by the bushel-load) and she has promised lots more
endless unwinnable wars around the globe, disguised as the sound-bite "America needs a more assertive
foreign policy."
`"It is clear that she is behind the use of force in anything that has gone on in this cabinet.
She is a Democratic hawk and that is her track record. That's the flag she's planted," said Gordon
Adams, a national security budget expert who was an associate director in President Bill Clinton's
Office of Management and Budget.
`Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who has spent her post-service days
protesting the war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, is more blunt.
"Interventionism is a business and it has a constituency and she is tapping into it," she
tells TAC. "She is for the military industrial complex, and she is for the neoconservatives."'
By way of contrast, here's Donald Trump giving a speech on foreign policy:
"Unfortunately, after the Cold War, our foreign policy veered badly off course. We failed to
develop a new vision for a new time. In fact, as time went on, our foreign policy began to make
less and less sense. Logic was replaced with foolishness and arrogance, and this led to one foreign
policy disaster after another. We went from mistakes in Iraq to Egypt to Libya, to President Obama's
line in the sand in Syria. Each of these actions have helped to throw the region into chaos, and
gave ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper.
"It all began with the dangerous idea that we could make Western democracies out of countries
that had no experience or interest in becoming a Western Democracy. We tore up what institutions
they had and then were surprised at what we unleashed. Civil war, religious fanaticism; thousands
of American lives, and many trillions of dollars, were lost as a result. The vacuum was created
that ISIS would fill. Iran, too, would rush in and fill the void, much to their unjust enrichment.
Our foreign policy is a complete and total disaster. No vision, no purpose, no direction, no strategy."
Do I believe that Trump meant any of that? Of course not. Did Trump change his foreign policy
stance five minutes after he gave that speech? Probably. Is the rest of that Trump foreign policy
speech crazy and counterfactual? Obviously - especially the part where Trump claims that America's
military is underfunded (!)
But the point here is that Trump actually at least talked about these screwups. He talked about
America's mad wars around the globe. He talked about how American leaders couldn't stop getting into
endless unwinnable foreign quagmires after the Cold War ended. Every ordinary American knows this
stuff. But no one in Washington was talking about it - except Trump. Hillary, who voted for the Iraq
war of 2003 and tried to convince president Obama to bomb Iran rather than negotiate, certainly never
wanted to mention any of these inconvenient problems. And our beloved president Obama's response
was "America is already great." Torture? Endless wars? Collapsing middle class? Burgeoning poverty?
Skyrocketing child malnutrition? Bankers asset-stripping the economy? No problem, America is already
great. Enjoy!
Sanders and Trump were the only candidates who talked about American corporations shipping
jobs overseas. Sanders and Trump were the only candidates who talked about bankers looting the population
and crashing the world economy and paying themselves bonuses out of the publicly-funded bailout money.
Sanders and Trump were the only candidates who talked about how globalization is destroying the U.S.
middle class.
The professionals with advanced degrees who make $80,000 a year or more (the top 4% of the
American population) are the ones who control the Democratic party today. And they made sure
Sanders never got the nomination. These self-styled Big Brains have decided to treat ordinary working
folks and peons who have a mere bachelor's degree and no professional credential (Ma, PhD, M.D.,
LLD, JD) the same way Jim Crow Southerners used to treat black people.
Everyone without an advanced degree is now treated by the leaders of the Democratic party as
one of "those people," ungrateful curs who have the unbelievable gall to criticize their betters.
"Those people" have the insufferable temerity to question the wiser and smarter and far more wealthy
doyens of the Democratic party, the masterminds with professional credentials, the geniuses who assure
them that the TPP is spiffy and globalization is absolutely marvy-doo and global wage arbitrage is
just dreamy.
To the professional class top-4% who run the Democratic party, working people and scum with a
mere bachelor's degree are inferior creatures, not ready for self-governance. "Those people" must
be guided by a superior breed, the elites with advanced degrees, those wise enough to have gotten
things right by invading Iraq. And deregulating the banks. And making sure Bernie Sanders never got
the Democratic nomination. And writing those marvelous zero-hours work contracts that let employers
force employees to call in every morning to see if they get a shift that day.
"Those people" without advanced degrees need careful management, since they have no impulse
control, they're filthy and smelly, they're really animals who can't help drinking and carousing
and breeding. "Those people" never had the discipline to get a masters or an M.D., so they need a
firm hand, and the strict guidance of the All-Powerful Market to keep them in check. Sound familiar?
Sort of like, oh, say, Deep South slaveowners talking about their slaves circa 1840?
Populism. That's the reason why Trump won. ... he's the only one of the two presidential candidates
who sounded any genuinely populist notes during the campaign. When Hillary was asked if she wanted
to break up the too-big-to-fail banks, she said "no." When Hillary was asked about foreign wars,
she lapsed into the old "indispensable nation" crap. When Hillary was asked about single-payer health
care she called it "something that will never, ever happen."
With all that said, today I break my silence, in order to comment briefly on the 2016 US presidential
election in the aftermath of Trump's victory. At the beginning of this presidential campaign, I thought
Donald Trump's candidacy might be a publicity stunt; like a bombastic prime time reality show. But
I was aware that the hard-core neocon, war mongering Hilary Clinton was the real danger, in terms
of foreign policy and international politics. Her policies and past crimes are completely in-line
with the current US-imperial agenda of endless war and military might, and this makes her
far
far more
dangerous than Trump. It also made her far more likely to win the election, I presumed.
His extreme outrageousness and egomania aside, I felt from the outset that Trump is perceived as
a threat to the global corporate, militarized establishment and its political allies, and that this
is the real reason he has been demonized adhominem by the political establishment and the media in
the US, across party lines. Most democratic and republican politicians and media pundits are part
of the global establishment machine.
Trump's greatest crime seemed to be his unwillingness to acquiesce to the global establishment.
His views on foreign policy, military spending and economic and trade policy demonstrate this. Because
of his apparent threat to the global military industrial, US-led, global banking/war empire, I was
certain that the deep state and global elites simply would not allow him to win. Even if they had
to rig the elections in an already rigged political system, I was certain they would not "let him"
win.
Now that he has, I'm not sure what to think, especially considering FBI director Comey's sudden
flip flop and condemnation of Clinton, reopening the investigation into the Clinton email (email
Gate) scandal, in the eleventh hour. Does the FBI wish to see Trump in office? If so, what does that
mean about his threat to the establishment? Is Trump the beginning of the end of the global establishment
or is he just a revision, a new direction, a preparation for a new iteration of the status quo? Of
course, Trump is part of the elite given his immense wealth and corporate muscle. But as the Centre
for Research on Globalization explains, the elites are not a monolith [1], and there may be divisions
and factions within the global elite that do indeed oppose the present and historical direction of
the global establishment. Is that what Trump represents, the division within the global power structure?
Does he have friends in high places that wish to revamp the current global militarized corporate
and banking oligarchy? Or, is he but its latest iteration of it? Is he a gateway to what is to come–Martial
Law, etc [2]? It remains to be seen.
For now, I'm guardedly optimistic about the new direction that economic policy and US foreign
policy could take under his presidency. If he is willing (and able) to rein in either, then he will
have surpassed the broken promises of the previous US administration. He has stated numerous times
that he opposes many elements of the war on terror (the invasion of Libya, current US operations
in Syria and attempts to oust the existing regime, covert support of ISIS by the US, etc) and the
military industrial complex. And while he is no doubt a capitalist, he is more of the old-school
nationalist capitalist or protectionist-isolationist kind, not the neoliberal
global capitalism
that has put everyone out of work. This alone made Trump better than Hilary, so to speak. But the
fact that he is no doubt part of the economic elite and that he was able to win at all, despite resistance
from all sides of the political and media spectrum (both democratic and republican), raises questions.
The Democrats did a fine job of stomping out any enthusiasm by sabotaging
Bernie Sanders.
The DNC became a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Family Inc. starting
in about 2008. Control the rulemakers/money flow, and you can control who
the nominee is. At least that is the conventional thinking, and Clinton Inc.
is nothing if not conventional.
To buy the DNC, she chose to go to the Wall Street banksters, and others.
Essentially an "up front" bribe. No smoking gun needed to be created. They
knew what they were paying for, without it being said.
(I'm curious to see how many "donations" the Clinton Foundation receives,
now that she's been pushed out on an ice floe.)
They never anticipated a challenger who didn't need the DNC, or it's
cash.
They ignored the stats showing how many people wouldn't vote for Hillary
Clinton under any circumstance. Just call them racist/sexist/dumbazz hicks,
and call them "deplorables". Ask Mitt Romney how that worked out for him.
She lost an election to DONALD TRUMP. Even without the airwaves filled
with Republican attack ads. (Lack of RNC enthusiasm for Trump? Or a
recognition that Hillary's negatives couldn't be covered in a 30 second
commercial?).
If it wasn't for the Clinton's collective ego, and lust for power/money
(after all, we all now that in the current state of affairs, the moneyed
class drives policy), we'd all (well, all of us who don't live in the
rarefied air of the 1%ers/Banksters) be celebrating the upcoming
inauguration of President Sanders.
It seems to me that early voting should be abolished, voter photo ID SHOULD BE required by
law in all states.
Also to keep things as clean as possible there should be a media "NO FLY ZONE" on polling outcomes
until ALL POLLS are closed in all states.
So much wag the dog it is just disgusting.
Praying for justice.
roddcarlson -> Scuba Steve •Nov 8, 2016 1:16 PM
The early vote (aka the mail in ballots) were compromised. Right the FBI kept sacking the Dems
with mail in ballot forms, it must've been like a drug bust all those voting confetti sitting
there like paper dollars. Dems crying you are hindering our right to vote! Hopefully the later
day voting goes in our favor, but considering Soros electioneering electronics machines with no
way to track it may not.
If we lose the vote then America is cooked literally. But the vote was cooked books if it does
happen, so we won't be judged for that. What we as a nation may be judged for is severe apathy
and embracement of things for our personal gain years earlier where it was obviously wrong. We
should have never let these politicians get away with things like Iraq after learning there were
no WMD. Or free trade that was exporting our manufacturing base to every totalitarian government
abroad. Or our keeping up with the Jones by bigger and bigger mortgages we could barely afford
the old one. Or uncontrolled immigration. We should have put our foot down a long time ago and
made these uppers fear like Vietnam the whole thing was unstable and going to capsize on their
butts.
But I can pretty much tell you that Americans (true ones) aren't guilty of this electioneering.
The invader Mexicans and other parasites think they are somehow going to get on top of this thing.
You know I still love them to this day. I remember falling down some stairs carrying a heavy desk,
while some legal Mexican American citizens came and picked me up and then helped carry the desk
too. So I'm not judging people individually based on their skin or ethnic background, I however
am not foolish to say there is a problem of means here either. Hope all the invader Mexicans like
Mexico II where they get to live out of cardboard boxes and railroad cars, because they killed
the American host and now get their very own Mexican culture that is wholly immoral here too.
Well don't worry because you get a taste of this Hillary invasion as well, with your nemesis the
Muslims she is going to import in here. You see parasite never stop loving bigger problems for
the host.
If we lose this election white people need to start taking care of their own. I've had many
races that were my best of friends, and I'm not at all going to say I hate those people I will
never hate them. But the white people are under attack by a systematic attempt to dispossess them
from people like Soros. We still hold the reigns of economic power, even in our weakened state.
We can still peacefully (hopefully) use that power to say no to the 3rd world takeover of our
country.
Again early vote may mean nothing given the found stuffed cheated ballots at Dem headquarters.
But do not think that we accept this NWO takeover, we've overlooked many previous incursion that
has let it get this bad but no more even with a Hillary win.
jcaz -> Ghost of PartysOver •Nov 8, 2016 12:02 PM
Bullshit.
The line I stood in this am was Trump up and down- everyone unhappy with the prospect of more
of the same corrupt shit.
Not buying this story.
Ghost of PartysOver d jcaz •Nov 8, 2016 12:14 PM
It is really pretty easy to understand. Wall Street, including all the Hedge Funds, Banks ....
have bought and paid for HRC. They control her. Wall Street will get what it wants which is more
of the same; market manipulation, inside dealings, payoffs, lack of perp walks. You name it. This
is a very good scenario for those bastards. Hence markets will rally.
Trump on the other hand will lock those bastards up. Markets will fall.
Pres HRC means outstanding next QTR reports and of course bonuses. Any illegal activity will
be met with a slap on the wrist (Corzine ring a bell)
Pres Trump means reigning in the the crap and the next QTR report will not be so rosy. And
bonuses will be much, much lower. Any illegal activity will be met with a perp walk.
"... It is shockingly disappointing that MOA, this otherwise intelligent incisive, a deeply intellectual and factual blog's readership exhibit a trait common to overall American anti-intellectual sheeple constituency as Gore Vidal posited decades ago, having no shame expressing their utter confusion and ignorance about one fundamental fact of reality they are facing. ..."
"... Those political puppets, stooges of oligarchy are no alternatives to the calcified imperial system itself, they never have been and they never will. They are new/old faces of the same old 240 y.o. Anglo-American imperial regime based on ancient and modern slavery and they already declared it by submitting to it via pledging to run in this farcical rigged electoral fallacy. ..."
It is shockingly disappointing that MOA, this otherwise intelligent incisive, a deeply intellectual
and factual blog's readership exhibit a trait common to overall American anti-intellectual sheeple
constituency as Gore Vidal posited decades ago, having no shame expressing their utter confusion
and ignorance about one fundamental fact of reality they are facing.
THE FACT: The US elections are a staged political farce with NO MATERIAL IMPACT on the US imperial
policies, domestic or international WHATSOEVER. And that's the fact based on rock solid empirical
evidences also MOA proliferates that only a mental patient can deny.
SO WHAT THE F.U.CK ALL OF YOU PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT? "Voting" for this or that? NONSENSE;
Those political puppets, stooges of oligarchy are no alternatives to the calcified imperial
system itself, they never have been and they never will. They are new/old faces of the same old
240 y.o. Anglo-American imperial regime based on ancient and modern slavery and they already declared
it by submitting to it via pledging to run in this farcical rigged electoral fallacy.
All at the end will openly pledge unwavering support for the regime and their rotten deeply
corrupted parties while abandoning their gullible voters.
Supporters of any of these plastic puppets of oligarchy not unlike a cargo cult, are impatient,
nervous, excited and scared sitting and waiting before an impregnable curtain of political deceit,
lies and manipulation by the ruling elite in front of their wide shut eyes , turning to magic,
superstition, appeasement, making up stories, poems out of their incoherent utterances filed with
tautologies, innuendos and absurd, begging for mercy or praying for a caprice of good will to
save them ultimately in a form of fake, meaningless political turds passing as empty "political"
platform promises while blatantly abandoning their unalienable rights to independence, self-determination
and democratic system of people's rule, based on equality in the law, and one voter one vote principle,
for a role of a meddlesome spectators to their own execution.
THE FACT: The democratic electoral system worth participating does not exist in the US but
none of the candidates would utter this truth as long as they can benefit from the fraud and that
includes third parties. If this was a true change or revolution, that we desperately need, honest
leaders would not run their campaign within the corrupted system set up by and for two oligarchic
parties but they would decry and utterly reject it.
Think people, all the so-called candidates even third party candidates are just nibbling on
the behemoth of abhorrent and brutal US imperial power mostly with utterances that they never
intended to follow if they wanted to survive terror of the US security apparatus, while peddling
the lies about small incremental changes and stealing ours and our children future by asking us
to wait, be patient, and begging ruling elite for mercy and may be for some crumbs from an oligarchs'
table after they are not able to gorge themselves anymore with our blood sweat and tears.
Unfortunately, this time as well, millions of irrational, desperate and helpless in their daily
lives electoral zombies such as those, under a spell of exciting political masquerade, regrettably
also on this blog, will be aligning themselves with one or the other anointed by establishment
winner [whoever it will be] of a meaningless popularity/beauty contest, in a delusional feat of
transference of a fraction of elite's power to themselves just for a second of a thrill of illusion
of power, illusion of feelings that something depends on me, that I can make a difference, a delusion
of holding skies from falling and by that saving the world common among paranoid mental patients.
And they will continue to authorize their own suicide mission, since even baseless, continually
disproved hope of Sisyphus, of any chance of influencing of the political realm via means of begging
is the last thing that dies.
THE LOUD POLITICAL BOYCOTT OF THIS FARCE, UTTER REJECTION OF THIS FACADE OF DEMOCRATIC CHOICE,
REJECTION OF ANY POLITICAL LEGITIMACY OF THIS SORRY SPECTACLE IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE
TO ANY DECENT PERSON, INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN CITIZEN WHO TAKES A MORAL STAND REJECTING ENSLAVEMENT
RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW.
THE REST WILL JUST PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR OWN CHAINS.
"... I think Mormons are ticked over Romney losing in 2012 and blame Evangelicals ask when there was fear Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a Mormon. Romney did as well as a non Mormon robber baron would have done in 2012. Trump trashing Romney annoyed Mormons who probably aren't going to get another shot at the Oval Office any time soon. ..."
"... the Romney, Will, Kristol, McCain, Graham, Paulson, Blankfein NEVER TRUMP brigades are up to their sleazy behinds in the Clinton Foundation FRAUD. ..."
"... The Foundation is under very very strict rules but has ignored all of them, putting all their contributors at risk. If Trump wins – a grand jury will have all the necessary ammunition to bring down a whole lot of people, here and abroad. ..."
Shouldn't Utah be considered a swing state in 2016? Some Mormons are unhappy with aspects of
Trump's behavior, and wild card McMullin is a member of the LDS church.
Nate Silver's site gives Trump an overwhelming advantage in Utah, but I still think that surprises
are possible. See this article (which admittedly also shows a significant polling advantage for
Trump):
An Emerson College poll released on November 3 shows him at 28 percent to Trump's 40 percent
and Clinton's 20 percent.
Jason Perry, the director of Utah's bipartisan Hinckley Institute, says there is a large
percentage of voters who do not even know who McMullin is, "but they know who he is not. He's
not Trump, and he's not Hillary".
With 67 percent of Utah voters viewing Trump unfavourably according to a Monmouth University
poll, voting for the Republican candidate does not appear to sit well with Utah's value-minded
voters.
…
Becky Rasmussen, 37, of Highland City, is one such voter who could not see herself voting for
Trump, in part because of her Mormon faith.
While she also sees Clinton as unfit for the presidency, Trump, she says, is "completely
morally bankrupt …You see framed in his office him on the cover of Playboy Magazine".
…
But Porter Goodman, 28, from Provo – who believes that voting for McMullin "is the only way
to not throw away your vote" – says it is not his Mormon beliefs that cause him to view Trump
as having a "lack of morality".
"I say he lacks morality because he lies and because he abuses other people with his words
and actions," Goodman says. "Savour the magnificent irony of Trump supporters who say, 'Yeah,
Trump may be a pathological liar, but set that aside and focus on the great things he says
he'll do as president."
I think Mormons are ticked over Romney losing in 2012 and blame Evangelicals ask when there
was fear Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a Mormon. Romney did as well as a non Mormon robber baron
would have done in 2012. Trump trashing Romney annoyed Mormons who probably aren't going to get
another shot at the Oval Office any time soon.
Nate doesn't do a why or how of trends and just focuses on raw numbers based on previous polls.
It's why he never landed a baseball job when other Stat geeks did. If there was an usual trend
in Utah, Nate would miss it.
The key issue is are Mormons "Republicans" or "conservative" when they describe themselves.
If their identity is "conservative," I could see them not voting for Trump. If being a "Republican"
matters, they will vote. They voted for McCain, and the fundies hated that guy.
the Romney, Will, Kristol, McCain, Graham, Paulson, Blankfein NEVER TRUMP brigades are up to
their sleazy behinds in the Clinton Foundation FRAUD.
The Foundation is under very very strict rules but has ignored all of them, putting all their
contributors at risk. If Trump wins – a grand jury will have all the necessary ammunition to bring
down a whole lot of people, here and abroad.
It's the great untold story of this election. IT's also the spit and glue that holds the Clinton
coalition of media, government, Wall St, Dems and Goper royalty together in this fight to the
death to keep a "friendly" administration in DC. This is kill or be killed time.
"... "Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to attribute Donald Trump's success to anger, authoritarianism, or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of the extent to which Mr. Sanders's support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected white men." ... ..."
"... poor pk a leader of the Stalinist press ..."
"... the surprising success of Bernie Sanders -- a Brooklyn-born, Jewish socialist -- in the primaries is solid proof that the electorate was open to a coherent argument for genuine progressive change, and that a substantial portion of that electorate is not acting on purely racist and sexist impulses, as so many progressive commentators say. ..."
"... "I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine. I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine." That assumes you're about 85 years old...and don't have long to live! ..."
"... Laid out by whom? By the commercial "media" hype machine that has 12-16 hours of airtime to fill every day with the as sensationalized as possible gossip (to justify the price for the paid advertisements filling the remaining hours). ..."
"... Killary Clinton got no closer than Ann Arbor this weekend, a message! ..."
"... Mr. Krugman forgot to list the collusion of the DNC and the Clinton campaign to work against Sanders. ..."
"... putting crooked in the same sentence as Clinton or DNC is duplicative wording. This mortification is brought to US by the crooked and the stalinist press that calls crooked virtue. ..."
"... Krugman did so much to help create the mass of white working class discontent that is electing Trump. Krugman and co cheering on NAFTA/PNTR/WTO etc, US deindustrialization, collapse of middle class... ..."
"... Hopefully the working class masses will convince our rulers to abandon free trade before every last factory is sold off or dismantled and the US falls to the depths of a Chad or an Armenia. ..."
The Truth About the Sanders Movement
By Paul Krugman
In short, it's complicated – not all bad, by any means, but not the pure uprising of idealists
the more enthusiastic supporters imagine.
The political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels have an illuminating discussion
of Sanders support. The key graf that will probably have Berniebros boiling is this:
"Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to attribute Donald Trump's success to
anger, authoritarianism, or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of the extent
to which Mr. Sanders's support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected
white men." ...
[ Yes, I do find defaming people by speculation or stereotype to be beyond saddening. ]
The fact that Obama either won, or did so much better than Hillary appears to be doing with, the
white working-class vote in so many key battleground states, as well as the surprising success
of Bernie Sanders -- a Brooklyn-born, Jewish socialist -- in the primaries is solid proof that
the electorate was open to a coherent argument for genuine progressive change, and that a substantial
portion of that electorate is not acting on purely racist and sexist impulses, as so many progressive
commentators say.
And her opponent was/is incapable of debating on substance, as there was/is neither coherence
nor consistency in any part of his platform -- nor that of his party....
Question is, will Krugman be able to move on after the election...and talk about something useful?
Like how to get Hillary to recognize and deal with inequality...
Barbara Ehrenreich: "Forget fear and loathing. The US election inspires projectile vomiting. The
most sordid side of our democracy has been laid out for all to see. But that's only the beginning:
whoever wins, the mutual revulsion will only intensify... With either Clinton or Trump, we will
be left to choke on our mutual revulsion."
"I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine. I will live my life calmly
and my children will be just fine." That assumes you're about 85 years old...and don't have long
to live!
Laid out by whom? By the commercial "media" hype machine that has 12-16 hours of airtime to
fill every day with the as sensationalized as possible gossip (to justify the price for the paid
advertisements filling the remaining hours).
Something interesting today.... President Obama came to Michigan. I fully expected him to speak
in Detroit with a get out the vote message. Instead he is in Ann Arbor, speaking to an overwhelmingly
white and white-collar audience. On a related note, the Dems have apparently written off
the white blue collar vote in Michigan, even much of the union vote. the union leaders are pro
Clinton, but the workers not so much. Strange year.
The real danger of serious election-rigging: electronic voting machines. How do we know the machine
*really* recorded everyone's votes correctly? (Did any Florida county ever give Al Gore negative
something votes?)
That's a big subject but you are right, that is the biggest risk of significant fraud. Not just
the voting machines, but the automatic counting systems. Other forms of possible election fraud
are tiny by comparison.
Here is the transcript from 60 Minutes about the Luntz focus group rancor. Instructive to read
about the depth of feeling in case you didn't see the angry, disgusted faces of citizens.
putting crooked in the same sentence as Clinton or DNC is duplicative wording. This mortification
is brought to US by the crooked and the stalinist press that calls crooked virtue.
Before the 1970s the US was both rich and protectionist - no look at our horrible roads and hopeless
people - the miracle of free trade! : ,
November 07, 2016 at 07:13 PM
Krugman did so much to help create the mass of white working class discontent that is electing
Trump. Krugman and co cheering on NAFTA/PNTR/WTO etc, US deindustrialization, collapse of
middle class...
Hopefully the working class masses will convince our rulers to abandon free trade before
every last factory is sold off or dismantled and the US falls to the depths of a Chad or an Armenia.
"... We don't want World War 3 with Russia. We want our factories and jobs back, we would like to spend $1 trillion a year on infrastructure instead of blowing up yet another Middle Eastern nation. ..."
"... Fuck Hillary, Fuck the neolibcons, Fuck al-CIAda, Fuck the fascist banksters who eat our children for breakfast. ..."
"... Vote Trump in swing states. Vote Jill everywhere else. ..."
The heartland of the US is RED, solid RED.
The neolibcons are printing up their Newsweek mags with Madam President on the cover.
They don't have a clue about how pissed off the people in the "flyover states" are.
Fuck their rigged polls and lying news.
Sure Trump is behind or neck-and-neck . . . Just like we have 5% unemployment.
As long as you don't count the 1/3 of working age people who DON"T HAVE A JOB.
The deplorables can think of 650,000 reasons why Hillary should be in PRISON, even if the FBI
can't.
We don't want World War 3 with Russia. We want our factories and jobs back, we would like
to spend $1 trillion a year on infrastructure instead of blowing up yet another Middle Eastern
nation.
Fuck Hillary, Fuck the neolibcons, Fuck al-CIAda, Fuck the fascist banksters who eat our
children for breakfast.
Do not blow shit up, like the political system, without a clear idea where the pieces will
land and how you will put them back together. Crisis would benefit the right, not the left, given
the current correlation of class and political forces.
The best result. sadly, would be a resounding win for Mrs. Clinton. As the comment at 11 shows,
anything less than a crushing defeat will enable the alt-right and embolden the most reactionary
and nativist elements in society.
The notion that worsening conditions will automatically produce progressive revolution is a
pipe-dream. Beaten-down folks struggling to survive don't have the time or energy to organize.
Vote your conscience, your hopes. Takingg the long view, I am again voting, as I have for years,
for the Socialist Workers Party.
Tuesday on Fox News Channel, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump offered
his thoughts on how the campaign proceeded as Election Day has finally come.
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
One of his criticisms was how the polls had been handled, which he called in
some cases "phony" and "purposefully wrong."
Partial transcript as follows:
DOOCY: A couple of weeks ago you know it was revealed that part of Hillary
Clinton's game plan was to try, you know, to talk up the polls and make it seem
like the show's over, no way you can win. Then of course the polls for the most
part right now are too close to call. Ultimately though do you think the polls
that we've seen over the last week or two, going back, are wrong because the
pollsters are not factoring in how many Democrats are going to be voting for
you?
You know all this early voting stuff, they say well this many Democrats
requested ballots, this many Republicans. And also just the gigantic number of
Republicans who have turned out to see you, the enthusiasm level. Do you think
those things the pollsters are getting wrong?
TRUMP:
I do think a lot of the polls are purposefully wrong. I think I
can almost tell you by the people that do it. The media is very dishonest,
extremely dishonest. And I think a lot of the polls are phony. I don't even
think they interview people.
DOOCY: Right.
TRUMP:
I think they just put out phony numbers. I do think this, after
the debates, I think my numbers really started to go up well. And then I did a
series over the last two weeks, only of you know, really important speeches I
think. 20,000, 25,000 people, 31,000 people were showing up to these speeches.
You saw yesterday, you saw the kind of crowds we're getting. I said
something's happening here. Something incredible is happening here. And tell
you the enthusiasm and the love in those rooms, in those arenas, they're really
arenas, I mean in New Hampshire last night it was a tremendous arena, beautiful
arena. And same thing, we had a big convention center last night in Michigan.
But they're packed. I mean we have thousands of people.
DOOCY: Right.
TRUMP: We had last night in Michigan we had 10,000 people outside that
couldn't get in.
DOOCY: Wow.
EARHARDT: Wow.
TRUMP: 10,000 people. It's been amazing. So I said something's happening.
Something's really going on.
This important article was first published by Global Research in
November 2004 in relation to the 2004 presidential race.
A 'president' who takes office through fraud and usurpation can
make no legitimate claim to exercise the stolen power of his office.
Imagine the sensation that would have ensued if a United States
Senator had declared, less than three weeks after the 2004 U.S.
presidential election, that "It is now apparent that a concerted and
forceful program of election-day fraud and abuse was enacted with
either the leadership or co-operation of governmental authorities."
The story would have made banner headlines around the world.
As a matter of fact, on November 22, 2004, BBC News attributed
these very words to Republican Senator Richard Lugar. However, Lugar
was speaking in his capacity as Chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign
Relations Committee-and he was referring, not to the U.S. presidential
election of November 2, but to the Ukrainian presidential election of
November 21, 2004.
The primary evidence for Lugar's charge of electoral fraud is a
striking divergence between exit poll data and official vote tallies.
As it happens, wide divergences of just this kind have also been a
feature of two other important recent elections: the Venezuelan recall
referendum over President Chávez's mandate held on August 15, as well
as the U.S. presidential election of November 2. In all three cases
there is substantial evidence of fraud-though the dishonesty appears
to be very differently distributed. In brief: the Venezuelan election
was clean and the exit poll flagrantly dishonest; the Ukrainian vote
tallies and exit polling seem both to have been in various ways
corrupted; the American election, despite the Bush Republicans' pose
as international arbiters of integrity, was manifestly stolen, while
the U.S. exit polling was professionally conducted (and though it was
subsequently tampered with, accurate results had in the mean time been
made public).
Hugo Chávez's landslide victory in August was a surprise only to
the hostile U.S. corporate press, which had represented the Venezuelan
election campaign as a dead heat: the last opinion poll prior to the
referendum in fact showed Chávez leading by a wide margin, with 50
percent of registered voters to the opposition's 38 percent. In the
official tally, Chávez won 58.26 percent of the votes, while 41.74
percent were cast against him. International observers, including the
Organization of American States and the Carter Center, declared that
the election had been fair: in ex-U.S. President Jimmy Carter's words,
"any allegations of fraud are completely unwarranted" (see Rosnick).
But on election day the leading New York polling firm Penn, Schoen
& Berland disgraced itself by releasing (before the polls closed, and
hence in violation of Venezuelan law) a purportedly authoritative exit
poll, with a claimed margin of error "under +/-1%," according to which
Chávez had been defeated, gaining a mere 41 percent of the vote to the
opposition's 59 percent. The exit polling, it emerged, had been
conducted-though not in Chavista neighbourhoods, where the pollsters
did not venture (Gindin [15 Aug. 2004])-by an opposition group named
Súmate, which had been formed to agitate for a recall referendum, and
whose leadership had been implicated in the 2002 anti-Chávez coup.
Súmate appears to have been largely funded by the U.S. National
Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has been aptly described as "the
CIA's 'civilian arm'" (Chossudovsky [28 Nov. 2004]), and by the CIA
itself (see "Súmate"); in the period leading up to the election,
Venezuelan opposition groups like Súmate received altogether more than
$20 million from the U.S., including over $3 million funneled through
the NED (see
www.venezuelafoia
).
As had been understood prior to the event (see Stinard [10 Aug.
2004]), fraudulent exit polling was part of a concerted U.S.-backed
project of delegitimizing and destabilizing the government of a
geopolitically important oil-producing nation. Had the election been
less of a landslide, and had it not been conducted with what appears
to have been scrupulous correctness, the plan might have succeeded.
Ukraine is likewise recognized as a country of pivotal geopolitical
importance (see Aslund [12 May 2004], Chin [26 Nov. 2004], and
Oliker); it is a key element in the U.S.'s Silk Road Strategy for
domination of central Asia (see Chossudovsky,
War and
Globalization
, pp. 65-75). Here the election results were much
closer, and have been more vigorously contested. Viktor Yanukovych,
the candidate favoured by Ukraine's Russian neighbours, was declared
the winner, with 49.4 percent of the vote to the Western-leaning
Viktor Yushchenko's 46.7 percent. But Yushchenko and his
party-supported by a growing chorus of Western commentators and
governments-have cried foul.
While the Ukrainian exit poll figures publicized in the Western
media do support claims of electoral fraud, the exit polls themselves
are not above suspicion. The most widely disseminated claim has been
that an authoritative exit poll showed Yushchenko to have won the
election with a 6 percent lead; Yanukovych's governing party would
thus have stolen the election, fraudulently swinging the vote by 8.7
percent. According to better-informed reports, however, two distinct
exit polls were conducted. One of these, organized by the right-wing
U.S. think-tank Freedom House and the U.S. Democratic Party's National
Democratic Institute (NDI), and carried out by the Kyiv Democratic
Initiatives Foundation (see Vasovic), perhaps as part of a group
calling itself the Exit Pollconsortium (see Kubiniec), found that
Yushchenko won 54 percent of the vote to Yanukovych's 43 percent. (It
may be this poll that is referred to by the University of British
Columbia's Centre for Public Opinion and Democracy in its claim that
"an exit poll conducted by independent research firms" showed
Yushchenko to have won by 54 to 42 percent.) The other national exit
poll, based on interviews rather than questionnaires, was conducted by
Sotsis Company and the Social Monitoring Center, and gave Yushchenko
49.4 percent of the vote to Yanukovych's 45.9 percent.
It is not my purpose to attempt an unraveling of the complexities
of the Ukrainian election. The British Helsinki Human Rights Group has
challenged the validity of the exit polls, claiming that in at least
one city the exit pollsters were open Yushchenko supporters, and did
not observe proper methodological protocols (see "Ukraine: 2nd
Round"). While Western observers have reported major irregularities in
the government's conduct of the election, Michel Chossudovsky and Ian
Traynor have on the other hand adduced strong evidence of
interventions in the Ukrainian electoral process by U.S. governmental
and quasi-governmental agencies that resemble the same agencies'
interventions in Serbia, Georgia, Belarus, and Venezuela. The voter
turnout figures of 96 percent recorded in Yanukovych strongholds in
eastern Ukraine are strongly indicative of fraud; so likewise may be
"the 90% pro-Yushchenko results declared in western Ukraine," where
the British Helsinki Group observed that Yushchenko's opposition party
"exercised disproportionate control over the electoral process in many
places." I would like merely to suggest that the interview-based exit
poll which gave Yushchenko a 3.5 percent lead over Yanukovych-and
hence indicated an irregular swing of 6.2 percent in the latter's
favour-is more likely to have been properly conducted than the exit
poll which was organized by Freedom House and the NDI, and which may
well have been marked by Súmate-type improprieties.
Let us turn to the American presidential election, where the same
kind of data has encouraged similar suspicions-though thanks to the
soothing ministrations of the U.S. corporate media, with nothing
resembling the massive public outcry in Ukraine. George W. Bush was
hailed the winner on November 2, with 51 percent of the vote to John
Kerry's 48 percent. But there are good reasons to be skeptical of the
official vote tallies. The last wave of national exit polls published
on the evening of November 2-polls which appear to have been duly
weighted to correct for sampling imbalances-showed Kerry, not Bush,
leading by 51 to 48 percent (see 'Mystery Pollster'). A divergence of
6 percent between weighted exit polls and the official numbers is a
strong indicator of electoral fraud.
At the decisive point, moreover, the divergence between the exit
poll results and the vote tally was wider still (see S. Freeman [21
Nov. 2004]). Prior to the election, political analysts identified
Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania as the three key swing states: the
candidate who carried these states, or a majority of them, would win
the election.
Bush won Florida, with 52.1 percent of the vote to Kerry's 47.1
percent. (This tally, by the way, diverges by 4.9 percent in Bush's
favour from the state exit poll, which gave Bush a paper-thin 0.1
percent lead.) Kerry won Pennsylvania, with 50.8 percent of the vote
to Bush's 48.6 percent. (Here again the vote tally differs in Bush's
favour from the exit poll results-this time by 6.5 percent.)
That left Ohio as the deciding state, the one on which the national
election results depended. George W. Bush won Ohio, according to the
official vote tally, with 51 percent of the vote to John Kerry's 48.5
percent. The divergence in this case between the vote tally and the
exit poll, which showed Kerry as winning by 52.1 percent to Bush's
47.9 percent, is fully 6.7 percent.
Is it possible that these three divergences in Bush's favour
between exit polls and vote tallies could have occurred by chance? I
wouldn't bet on it. Dr. Steven Freeman of the University of
Pennsylvania's Center for Organizational Dynamics has calculated that
the odds against these statistical anomalies occurring by chance are
662,000 to 1 (S. Freeman [21 Nov. 2004]).
Or are exit polls perhaps just not as reliable as people think? Dr.
Freeman has an answer to this question as well. In the last three
national elections in Germany, the differential between the exit polls
and the vote tallies was, on average, 0.27 percent; and in the last
three elections to the European Parliament, the differential in
Germany was 0.44 percent (S. Freeman [21 Nov. 2004]). Professionally
conducted exit polls are highly accurate-which is why they have been
used (in some cases more honestly than in Venezuela and Ukraine) as a
measure of electoral integrity in places where improprieties have been
anticipated. The U.S. exit polls were conducted by Mitofsky
International, a survey research company founded by Warren J.
Mitofsky, who as the company's website proclaims "created the Exit
Poll research model" and "has directed exit polls and quick counts
since 1967 for almost 3,000 electoral contests. He has the distinction
of conducting the first national presidential exit polls in the United
States, Russia, Mexico and the Philippines. His record for accuracy is
well known" (see "National Election Pool").
The fact that Mitofsky International systematically altered the
U.S. presidential exit poll data early on the morning of November 3,
contaminating the exit poll figures by conflating them with the vote
tally percentages, has quite rightly become a matter of controversy
(see Keefer [5 Nov. 2004], and Olbermann, "Zogby Vs. Mitofsky"). But
there seems no reason to doubt that the Mitofsky exit poll data made
available by the CNN website on the evening of November 2 was
professionally gathered.
Mightn't one propose, as a last resort, that Bush's
election-winning divergence of 6.7 percent between the Ohio exit poll
results and the Ohio vote tally was, at any rate, somewhat less
scandalous than the 13.7 percent swing Yanukovych's party was blamed
for by the Freedom House-NDI exit poll? (Ignore, if you like, the
lesser 6.2 percent swing indicated by the Sotsis and Social Monitoring
exit poll-which, if accurate, shows the Freedom House-NDI poll to be
skewed in Yushchenko's favour by fully 7.5 percent.) But if stealing
elections is like knocking off banks, the fact that one practitioner
can dynamite the vault of the central bank and get away with it, while
his less fortunate compeer draws unwanted attention by blowing out all
of the windows of the neighbourhood Savings-and-Loan, doesn't make the
former any less a bank robber than the latter.
The parallels between the Ukrainian and the U.S. presidential
elections extend beyond the exit poll divergences. Ballot-box stuffers
appear to have achieved a 96 percent turnout in parts of eastern
Ukraine, with turnout figures in some areas exceeding 100 percent.
There is evidence of similar indiscretions on the part of Bush's
electoral fraud teams. Twenty-nine precincts in a single Ohio county
reported more votes cast than there are registered voters-to a
cumulative total of over 93,000 votes (see Rockwell). And in six
Florida counties the total number of votes reported to have been cast
exceeded by wide margins the total number of registered voters (see
Newberry). Senator John McCain, manifesting the same stunning lack of
irony as other Republican spokesmen, has weighed in on the issue: "IRI
[the International Republican Institute] found that in a number of
polling stations, the percentage of votes certified by the Central
Election Commission exceeded 100% of total votes. This is simply
disgraceful" (see "McCain"). McCain is of course referring to eastern
Ukraine; when it comes to Florida or Ohio, he keeps his eyes wide
shut.
The question of advance indications of electoral fraud offers a
final point of comparison. In the United States, as in Ukraine (where
international observers described the polls and vote-counts in
previous elections as deeply flawed), electoral fraud was widely
anticipated prior to the 2004 presidential election. As the materials
itemized in the first three sections of this Reading List make clear,
the electronic voting technologies in use in the U.S. were widely
denounced by electronic security experts months and even years in
advance, as permitting, indeed facilitating, electoral fraud; there is
clear evidence that the 2000 election and the 2002 mid-term elections
were marked by large-scale fraud on the part of the Bush Republicans;
and U.S. computer scientists and informed analysts warned insistently
that fraud on an unprecedented scale was likely to occur in this
year's election.
How has it been possible for the massive ironies arising out of the
similarities between the elections in the U.S. and Ukraine to pass
unobserved in the corporate media? Have the media been simple-mindedly
buttering their bread on both sides? If so, it is a habit that makes
for messy eating. On November 20, an article in
The Washington
Post
informed those who might question the U.S. election that
"Exit Polls Can't Always Predict Winners, So Don't Expect Them To"
(Morin). Two days later,
The Washington Post
carried breaking
news of the early election results from Ukraine-and quoted a purported
election-stealer who holds exactly the same opinion of exit polls:
"'These polls don't work,' said Gennady Korzh, a spokesman for
Yanukovych. 'We will win by 3 to 5 percent. And remember, if Americans
believed exit polls, and not the actual count, John Kerry would be
president'" (see Finn).
Key Issues and Evidence of Electoral Fraud in the US
Mainstream media assessments of the integrity of the 2004 U.S.
presidential election have tended to focus on particular and local
problems-computer errors or 'glitches' for the most part-that came to
light on the day of the election or shortly afterwards. Naturally
enough, the fact that these problems were noticed, and in some cases
corrected, works if anything to enhance public confidence in the
integrity of the electoral system.
The stance of the mainstream media is inadequate in at least two
respects. First, some of the 'problems' were not mere accidents, but
open and flagrant violations of democratic principles. Prominent among
these was the election-night 'lockdown' of the Warren County, Ohio
administrative building, on wholly spurious grounds of a 'terrorist
threat': as a result, the public, the press, and the local legal
counsel for the Kerry-Edwards campaign were prevented from witnessing
the vote count (see Solvig & Horn, and Olbermann [8 Nov. 2004]). This
maneuver generated widespread outrage: Warren County's Republicans may
perhaps have 'misoverestimated' the degree to which previous
conveniently timed 'terror alerts' and Osama bin Laden's late-October
Jack-in-the-Box act had tamed the electorate.
But more importantly, while 'problems' and 'glitches' have commonly
been covered by the corporate media as local issues, they can be
recognized as belonging to a larger pattern. As James Paterson's
compelling analysis of
The Theft of the 2004 US Election
makes
clear, Republican intentions were evident well before the election.
And as Joseph Cannon has remarked, "An individual problem can be
dismissed as a glitch. But when error after error
after error
favors
Bush and not a single 'accident' favors Kerry, we've left
glitch-land."
There is widespread evidence, which goes well beyond any mere
accumulation of local problems, that "glitch-land" is indeed far
behind us. The landscape to which the 2004 U.S. presidential election
belongs includes the murky swamps of Tammany Hall-style
election-fixing-and the still more sinister morasses of 'Jim Crow' as
well.
It has been reported that Republican-controlled counties in Ohio
and elsewhere sought to reduce the African-American vote by
deliberately curtailing the numbers of polling stations and voting
machines in working-class precincts: large numbers of would-be voters
were effectively disenfranchised by line-ups that were many hours long
(see Fitrakis [7, 16, 22 Nov. 2004]). The Republican Party's purging
of African Americans from voters' lists gained the 2000 election for
George W. Bush (see Conyers [21 Aug. 2001]); as informed observers had
anticipated (Palast [1 Nov. 2004], King & Palast), this shameful
illegality was repeated in 2004 on a wider scale. Large-scale
polling-station challenges were used to further slow the voting, and
to turn the new provisional ballots into a mechanism for effectively
disenfranchising minority voters. In the swing state of Ohio this
year, it appears that fully 155,000 voters-most of them
African-Americans-were obliged as a result of polling-station
challenges to cast provisional ballots (see Palast [12 Nov. 2004],
Solnit). Although it is becoming clear that the great majority of
these citizens were legally entitled to vote (see Williams), the
likelihood that their votes will be fairly counted, or that Ohio's
Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell will permit them to be
included in the official tally, remains slender. The effect of this
Jim Crow mechanism appears to be compounded by racially-biased
judgments of ballot spoilage. As Greg Palast reports, 54 percent of
all ballots judged 'spoiled' in the 2000 election in Florida were cast
by African-American voters, and similarly scandalous percentages are
expected in key states this time round. Nor have African Americans
been the sole victims of these tactics: it appears that in New Mexico,
where Hispanics' ballots are five times more likely to be laid aside
as 'spoiled' than those of white voters, 13,000 Hispanics were
effectively disenfranchised by means of provisional ballots (Palast
[12 Nov. 2004]). Bush won New Mexico by less than half that number of
votes.
But it is the co-presence of other forms of corruption, in addition
to all these, that establishes the difference between an election
dirtied by illegalities, and one that was not merely soiled and
distorted by fraud but actually stolen. The evidence presented within
the texts listed here suggests with gathering strength that the Karl
Rovian maneuvers alluded to above were supplemented on November 2,
2004 by less conspicuous-and yet decisive-manipulations of the
machines that recorded and tabulated the votes.
How precisely this apparent manipulation may have been carried out
in different jurisdictions-by rigging machines in advance to
mis-record or delete votes, by configuring proprietary software so as
to allow 'back-door' access for unrestrained vote-tampering, or by
hacking into the notoriously insecure vote-tabulation systems-remains
as yet undetermined. However, the evidence has been coming to light
with surprising rapidity.
As observers and analysts noted at once, troubling discrepancies
were apparent between the exit poll results published by CNN on the
evening of November 2 and the official vote tallies (see DeHart,
Dodge, S. Freeman, Otter, and Simon). No less disturbing, as I
observed in my article on the subject, is the fact that the exit poll
data was systematically tampered with early on November 3 to make the
figures conform to the vote tallies. At 1:41 a.m. EST on November 3,
for example, the Ohio exit poll was altered: Kerry, who had previously
been shown as leading Bush by 4 percent in that state, was now
represented in the revised exit poll as trailing him by 2.5 percent.
And yet the number of respondents in the poll had increased from 1,963
to only 2,020. An additional 57 respondents-a 2.8 percent increase-had
somehow produced a 6.5 percent swing from Kerry to Bush. At 1:01 a.m.
EST on November 3, the Florida exit poll was likewise altered: Kerry,
who had previously been shown in a near dead heat with Bush, now
trailed him by 4 percent. In this case, the number of respondents rose
only from 2,846 to 2,862. A mere 16 respondents-0.55 percent of the
total-produced a 4 percent swing to Bush.
However, the key exit-poll issue remains the divergence between the
November 2 exit polls and the vote tallies. Steven Freeman concluded,
in the first draft of his judicious study of the November 2 exit poll
data, that "Systematic fraud or mistabulation is a premature
conclusion, but the election's unexplained exit poll discrepancies
make it an unavoidable hypothesis, one that is the responsibility of
the media, academia, polling agencies, and the public to investigate"
(S. Freeman [11 Nov, 2004]).
Other evidence points toward a strengthening, indeed to a
substantial confirmation of this "unavoidable hypothesis" of
systematic fraud. Some of this evidence has been emerging from the
swing state of North Carolina, and from the two key swing states of
Florida and Ohio-either one of which, had John Kerry won it, would
have made him the acknowledged President-elect.
In North Carolina, the tell-tale marks of electronic electoral
fraud have been brought to light by an analyst who publishes at the
Democratic
Underground
site under the name of 'ignatzmouse'. ("Ignatz,"
remember, is the name of the mouse who in the
Krazy Kat
cartoons
smacks the unhappy cat with the inevitable brick. That pesky mouse is
once again on target.)
What gives the game away in the North Carolina election data is the
disparity within the presidential and senatorial vote-counts between
the so-called "absentee" votes-a category that apparently includes the
early voting data as well as votes cast by citizens living abroad and
military personnel-and the polling-day votes cast on November 2.
In the race for Governor, 30 percent of the votes cast for the
Republican and the Democratic candidate alike were absentee votes; the
other 70 percent were cast on November 2. The Democrat won with 55.6
percent of both the absentee and the polling-day votes. In most of the
other statewide races in the North Carolina election there were
similarly close correlations between absentee and polling-day votes.
For example, Democrats won the post of Lieutenant Governor, with 55.7
percent of absentee and 55.5 percent of polling-day votes; the post of
Secretary of State, with 58 percent of absentee and 57 percent of
polling-day votes; and the post of Attorney General, with 56.7 percent
of absentee and 55.2 percent of polling-day votes. In three other
statewide races, and in the voting for three constitutional
amendments, the correlation between absentee and polling-day votes
remains very close (though tight races for three other positions in
the state administration were won by Republicans with polling-day
swings in favour of the Republican candidates of 4.2, 5.2, and 5.4
percent respectively).
Given the close correlations between absentee and polling-day votes
in ten of the thirteen statewide races, the senate result looks
suspicious: the Democrat's narrow lead in the absentee voting became a
clear defeat on November 2, with a 6.4 percent swing in the
polling-day votes to the Republican. And the presidential results look
more seriously implausible. In the absentee votes, Kerry trailed by 6
percent, a result that 'ignatzmouse' remarks "is consistent with the
pre-election polls and most importantly with the exit polls of
November 2
nd
." But in the election day voting, there was a
further swing of fully 9 percent to Bush. Bush led in the absentee
votes (30 percent of the total) by 52.9 percent to Kerry's 46.9
percent; but on polling day he took 57.3 percent of the remaining
votes, while Kerry received 42.3 percent. In the absence of any other
explanation, these figures point to electronic fraud-and, more
precisely, to "a 'date-specific' alteration in the software, a hack,
or a specific [software] activation just prior to the election."
The Florida evidence is, if anything, more flagrant. On November
18, Professor Michael Hout of the University of California at Berkeley
released a statistical study indicating that electronic voting
technology had produced a very substantial distortion of the
presidential vote tally in Florida. According to the analyses
conducted by Hout and his team, irregularities associated with
electronic voting machines accounted for at least 130,000 votes in
Bush's lead over Kerry in Florida-and possibly twice that much. (The
uncertainty stems from the fact that the machines may have awarded
Bush "ghost votes" which increased his tally without reducing Kerry's,
or they may have misattributed Kerry votes as Bush votes. As Hout
explains, the disparities "amount to 130,000 votes if we assume a
'ghost vote' mechanism and twice that-260,000 votes-if we assume that
a vote misattributed to one candidate should have been counted for the
other.")
Hout's results have not gone unchallenged (see Strashny); obviously
enough, the validity of statistical analyses depends on the extent to
which all possible causal factors have been accounted for. But other
data indicates that the 'haunting' of Florida's electronic voting
tabulators was if anything more serious than Hout and his associates
believe. As I have already noted, in six Florida counties the number
of votes purportedly cast exceeded the number of registered voters-by
a cumulative total of 188,885 (see Newberry). These are apparently
"ghost votes," and unless we're willing to assume a level of electoral
participation resembling those claimed by totalitarian states like
Ceaucescu's Romania or Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a significant percentage
of the other votes cast in these counties must also represent the
electoral choice not of human beings but of Republican hackers.
Further evidence which may help to identify the agents involved in
Florida's electronic voting fraud has in fact begun to emerge. Brandon
Adams, for example, has noted striking divergences among Florida
voters according to the makes and models of the voting machines they
used in different counties; and a heavy hacking of vote-tabulation
systems used in conjunction with the older optical-scan voting
machines is now well-established (see Paterson).
Moreover, statistically-based work is being complemented by
acquisitions of direct material evidence. In Volusia County, one of
Florida's six most seriously 'haunted' counties, where 19,306 more
votes were cast than there are registered voters, Bev Harris's
BlackBoxVoting team caught county election officials red-handed on
November 16 in the act of trashing original polling-place tapes which
BlackBoxVoting had asked for in a Freedom of Information request. In
addition to filming the behaviour of county officials, her team was
able to establish that some copies of the tapes that officials had
prepared to give them in response to the Freedom of Information Act
request had been falsified in favour of George W. Bush-in one precinct
alone by hundreds of votes (see Harris [18 Nov. 2004], Hartmann [19
Nov. 2004]). The Volusia County materials provide proof, moreover,
that the GEMS central vote-tabulation system, which was supposedly
"stand-alone" and non-networked, was remotely accessed during the
election (Harris [24 Nov. 2004]).
Ohio, remember, was the deciding state. John Kerry conceded the
election after calculating that the some 155,000 provisional ballots
cast in Ohio would not suffice-even if they were properly counted, and
even if, as expected, they were very largely cast by Kerry
supporters-to overturn the tallied results, according to which Bush
had won the state by 136,483 votes.
However, the exit poll data indicates that it was Kerry who won the
state, and by a comfortable margin. Once again, there is substantial
evidence of electronic electoral fraud. Teed Rockwell found, after
careful study of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections website, that
twenty-nine precincts in this county "reported votes cast IN EXCESS of
the number of registered voters-at least 93,136 extra votes total."
The same website he studied (
http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/BOE/results/currentresults1.htm#top
)
also repays further study, for Rockwell's tallying of 'ghost votes' is
in fact conservative. To cite just one example, Brook Park City is
listed as having 14,491 registered voters, of whom it is claimed that
fully 14,458 exercised their civic duty and cast ballots-for a
turn-out rate of 99.4 percent. I leave it to the curious to discover
how many of these high-minded but possibly nonexistent citizens
supported their incumbent President.
Those who want to pursue the questions of vote fraud and
suppression in Ohio may also want to consult the studies carried out
by Richard Philips, whose work, together with the data available on
the websites of Cuyahoga and other counties, provides depressing
evidence of successful vote suppression in urban precincts. (It has
been estimated that vote suppression tactics may have cost Kerry
45,000 votes across the whole state of Ohio [see Bernstein].)
The Green Party and Libertarian Party presidential candidates,
belatedly followed by the Kerry/Edwards campaign, have called for a
recount in Ohio. But if Ohio's Republican Secretary of State Blackwell
permits no more than a recount, without a rigorous audit of the
electronic voting machines and tabulators as well, the numbers for a
reversal of the election results are probably not there. On the
optimistic assumption that a fair count of the 155,000 provisional
ballots would result in 10 percent of them being disqualified and 70
percent of the remainder being validated as Kerry votes, those ballots
might reduce Bush's lead in Ohio by as much as 55,800 votes. However,
it seems unlikely that a recount, including a re-examination of the
more than 96,000 Ohio votes (most of them cast on old punch-card
machines) that were discarded as spoiled, would turn up the almost
81,000 additional Kerry votes that would still be needed.
Together with the principle that every duly cast vote must be
counted, advocates for democracy need to assert another complementary
principle: the principle that votes cast not in polling booths, but in
the hard drives of voting-tabulation machines; and not by citizens,
but rather by ghosts summoned into existence by Republican hackers'
nimble fingers, have no business getting counted, and should be
removed from the tally.
The effect of turning a 'Ghostbuster' computer-auditing team like
Bev Harris's BlackBoxVoting organization loose on the Ohio results, to
carry out a serious audit of any polling precinct and computer-log
data that hasn't already been quietly destroyed, might well be
startling. For while a simple recount would probably leave Kerry
trailing by several tens of thousands of votes, a thorough
computer-audit 'exorcism' of the vote tallies, should such a thing
ever be permitted, might well lead to a reversal of the national
election results.
Whatever the finally certified results may be, a larger informing
context should not be forgotten. The regime of George W. Bush has made
no secret of its scorn for the American Constitution and Bill of
Rights, its hostility to any notion of international law, its
contemptuous dismissal of the decent opinion of humankind both at home
and abroad, its contempt, in the most inclusive sense, for truth.
Bush has claimed that the 2004 election gave him "capital"-which he
now will not hesitate to spend. An early instance of this expenditure
has been the assault on the city of Fallujah, and a compounding of the
manifold war crimes of which Bush and those who serve him are already
guilty.
But what is this "capital"? As the evidence is revealing with
growing clarity, the 2004 presidential election was not in fact a
victory for Bush, but rather the occasion for an insolent usurpation.
A 'president' who takes office through fraud and usurpation can
make no legitimate claim to exercise the stolen power of his office.
As the knowledge of his offence becomes ever more widely
disseminated, he may yet come, like Shakespeare's Macbeth, "[to] feel
his title / Hang loose upon him, like a giant's robe / Upon a dwarfish
thief."
After all, Clinton is not going to make it into the Oval Office unless she can secure the votes of
those who backed the far-more progressive Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries.
Clinton's camp have wielded various sticks to beat these voters into submission. Not least they
have claimed that a refusal to vote for Clinton is an indication of one's
misogyny . But it has not been an easy task. Actor Susan Sarandon, for example, has
stated that she is not going to "vote with my vagina". As she notes, if the issue is simply about
proving one is not anti-women, there is a much worthier candidate for president who also happens
to be female: Jill Stein, of the Green Party.
Sarandon, who supported Sanders in the primaries, spoke for a vast swath of voters excluded by
the two-party system when she told BBC Newsnight:
I am worried about the wars, I am worried about Syria, I am worried about all of these things
that actually exist. TTP [Trans-Pacific Partnership] and I'm worried about fracking. I'm worrying
about the environment. No matter who gets in they don't address these things because money has
taken over our system.
Given that both Donald Trump and Clinton represent big money – and big money only – Clinton's
supporters have been forced to find another stick. And that has been the "lesser evil" argument.
Clinton may be bad, but Trump would be far worse. Voting for a non-evil candidate like Jill Stein
– who has no hope of winning – would split the progressive camp and ensure Trump, the more evil candidate,
triumphs. Therefore, there is a moral obligation on progressive voters to back Clinton, however bad
her track record as a senator and as secretary of state.
There is nothing new about this argument. It had been around for decades, and has been corralling
progressives into voting for Democratic presidents who have still advanced US neoconservative policy
goals abroad and neoliberal ones at home.
America's pseudo-democracy
So is it true that Clinton is the lesser-evil candidate? To answer that question, we need to examine
those "policy differences" with Trump.
On the negative side, Trump's platform poses a genuine threat to civil liberties. His bigoted,
"blame the immigrants" style of politics will harm many families in the US in very tangible ways.
Even if the inertia of the political system reins in his worst excesses, as is almost certain, his
inflammatory rhetoric is sure to damage the façade of democratic discourse in the US – a development
not to be dismissed lightly. Americans may be living in a pseudo-democracy, one run more like a plutocracy,
but destroying the politics of respect, and civil discourse, could quickly result in the normalisation
of political violence and intimidation.
On the plus side, Trump is an isolationist, with little appetite for foreign entanglements. Again,
the Washington policy elites may force him to engage abroad in ways he would prefer not to, but his
instincts to limit the projection of US military power on the international stage are likely to be
an overall good for the world's population outside the US. Any diminishment of US imperialism is
going to have real practical benefits for billions of people around the globe. His refusal to demonise
Vladimir Putin, for example, may be significant enough to halt the gradual slide towards a nuclear
confrontation with Russia, either in Ukraine or in the Middle East.
Clinton is the mirror image of Trump. Domestically, she largely abides by the rules of civil politics
– not least because respectful discourse benefits her as the candidate with plenty of political experience.
The US is likely to be a more stable, more predictable place under a Clinton presidency, even as
the plutocratic elite entrenches its power and the wealth gap grows relentlessly.
Abroad, however, the picture looks worse under Clinton. She has been an enthusiastic supporter
of all the many recent wars of aggression launched by the US, some declared and some covert. Personally,
as secretary of state, she helped engineer the overthrow of Col Muammar Gaddafi. That policy led
to an outcome – one that was entirely foreseeable – of Libya's reinvention as a failed state, with
jihadists of every stripe sucked into the resulting vacuum. Large parts of Gadaffi's arsenal followed
the jihadists as they exported their struggles across the Middle East, creating more bloodshed and
heightening the refugee crisis. Now Clinton wants to intensify US involvement in Syria, including
by imposing a no-fly zone – or rather, a US and allies-only fly zone – that would thrust the US into
a direct confrontation with another nuclear-armed power, Russia.
In the cost-benefit calculus of who to vote for in a two-party contest, the answer seems to be:
vote for Clinton if you are interested only in what happens in the narrow sphere of US domestic politics
(assuming Clinton does not push the US into a nuclear war); while if you are a global citizen worried
about the future of the planet, Trump may be the marginally better of two terribly evil choices.
(Neither, of course, cares a jot about the most pressing problem facing mankind: runaway climate
change.)
So even on the extremely blinkered logic of Clinton's supporters, Clinton might not be the winner
in a lesser-evil presidential contest.
Mounting disillusion
But there is a second, more important reason to reject the lesser-evil argument as grounds for
voting for Clinton.
Trump's popularity is a direct consequence of several decades of American progressives voting
for the lesser-evil candidate. Most Americans have never heard of Jill Stein, or the other three
candidates who are not running on behalf of the Republican and Democratic parties. These candidates
have received no mainstream media coverage – or the chance to appear in the candidate debates – because
their share of the vote is so minuscule. It remains minuscule precisely because progressives have
spent decades voting for the lesser-evil candidate. And nothing is going to change so long as progressives
keep responding to the electoral dog-whistle that they have to keep the Republican candidate out
at all costs, even at the price of their own consciences.
Growing numbers of Americans understand that their country was "stolen from them", to use a popular
slogan. They sense that the US no longer even aspires to its founding ideals, that it has become
a society run for the exclusive benefit of a tiny wealthy elite. Many are looking for someone to
articulate their frustration, their powerlessness, their hopelessness.
Two opposed antidotes for the mounting disillusionment with "normal politics" emerged during the
presidential race: a progressive one, in the form of Sanders, who suggested he was ready to hold
the plutocrats to account; and a populist one, in the form of Trump, determined to deflect anger
away from the plutocrats towards easy targets like immigrants. As we now know from Wikileaks' release
of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta's emails, the Democats worked hard to rig their own primaries
to make sure the progressive option, Sanders, was eliminated. The Republicans, by contrast, were
overwhelmed by the insurrection within their own party.
The wave of disaffection Sanders and Trump have been riding is not going away. In fact, a President
Clinton, the embodiment of the self-serving, self-aggrandising politics of the plutocrats, will only
fuel the disenchantment. The fixing of the Democratic primaries did not strengthen Clinton's moral
authority, it fuelled the kind of doubts about the system that bolster Trump. Trump's accusations
of a corrupt elite and a rigged political and media system are not merely figments of his imagination;
they are rooted in the realities of US politics.
Trump, however, is not the man to offer solutions. His interests are too close aligned to those
of the plutocrats for him to make meaningful changes.
Trump may lose this time, but someone like him will do better next time – unless ordinary Americans
are exposed to a different kind of politician, one who can articulate progressive, rather regressive,
remedies for the necrosis that is rotting the US body politic. Sanders began that process, but a
progressive challenge to "politics as normal" has to be sustained and extended if Trump and his ilk
are not to triumph eventually.
The battle cannot be delayed another few years, on the basis that one day a genuinely non-evil
candidate will emerge from nowhere to fix this rotten system. It won't happen of its own. Unless
progressive Americans show they are prepared to vote out of conviction, not out of necessity, the
Democratic party will never have to take account of their views. It will keep throwing up leaders
– in different colours and different sexes – to front the tiny elite that runs the US and seeks to
rule the world.
According to a new Wikileaks email, Bernie Sanders was just a Manchurian candidate and a
Clinton puppet all along. We finally have confirmation of what we have suspected since Bernie
said "people are sick of hearing about your damn emails" all the way back in 2015 during one
debate. That was a big give-away and a huge red flag which many have raised back then but now we
finally have irrefutable proof that Bernie Sanders was just a SCAM candidate and a con artist.
"... Well, two can play at tendentiousness. I'd say that American populism, in its various guises, has been distinguished by three basic beliefs: ..."
"... Concentrated wealth and power are pernicious, so widespread distribution of both is the proper condition; ..."
"... War and militarism are ruinous to the republic and to the character (not to mention physical health) of the people; and ..."
"... Ordinary people can be trusted to make their own decisions. ..."
"... The Democratic candidate this time around is the most hawkish nominee of her party since LBJ in 1964 and its most pro-Wall Street standard bearer since John W. Davis in 1924. She is, in every way, including her "the peasants are revolting" shtick, the compleat anti-populist. ..."
"... Place-based populism, seeded in love, defends a people against the powerful external forces that would crush or corrupt or subjugate them. It's Jane Jacobs and her "bunch of mothers" fighting Robert Moses on behalf of Greenwich Village. It's the people of Poletown, assisted by Ralph Nader, defending their homes and churches against the depredations of General Motors and the execrable Detroit Mayor Coleman Young. It's parents-whether in South Boston, Brooklyn, or rural America-championing their local schools against berobed bussers, education bureaucrats, and Cold War consolidators. ..."
With every generational populist efflorescence (those who disapprove call it a "recrudescence")
two things are guaranteed:
First, the prosy men with leaden eyes of the New York Times will rouse themselves from
complacent torpor into a Cerberus-like defense of the ruling class against the intruder. The Times
of 1896 on William Jennings Bryan (a "cheap and shallow … blatherskite" with an "unbalanced and
unsound mind," though whether or not Bryan was "insane," the Times editorialist of 1896 conceded,
"is a question for expert alienists") is no different than the Times in 2016 on Donald Trump.
For his part, Trump probably thinks Bryan's Cross of Gold would make a classy adornment to the Mar-a-Lago
Club chapel.
The second certainty is that middlebrow thumb-suckers and chin-pullers will invoke midcentury
historian Richard Hofstadter, whose 1964 essay that refuses to die, "The Paranoid Style in American
Politics," ascribed dissent from the Cold War Vital Center consensus to mental illness. In your guts,
as LBJ backers said of Barry Goldwater, you know he's nuts.
Or they'll quote Hofstadter's The Age of Reform , winner of the Pulitzer Prize-always a
bad sign-in which populism is merely "the simple virtues and unmitigated villainies of a rural melodrama"
writ large, and it ulcerates with "nativist phobias," "hatred of Europe and Europeans," and resentment
of big business, intellectuals, the Eastern seaboard, the other bulwarks of Time-Life culture,
circa 1955. (Only a Vital Centurion could believe that wishing to refrain from killing Europeans
in wars is evidence of "hatred of Europe and Europeans.")
Well, two can play at tendentiousness. I'd say that American populism, in its various guises,
has been distinguished by three basic beliefs:
Concentrated wealth and power are pernicious, so
widespread distribution of both is the proper condition;
War and militarism are ruinous to the
republic and to the character (not to mention physical health) of the people; and
Ordinary people
can be trusted to make their own decisions.
The Democratic candidate this time around is the most hawkish nominee of her party since LBJ in
1964 and its most pro-Wall Street standard bearer since John W. Davis in 1924. She is, in every way,
including her "the peasants are revolting" shtick, the compleat anti-populist.
But Hillary's awfulness should not obscure the truth that a healthy populism requires anchorage.
It must be grounded in a love of the particular-one's block, one's town, one's neighbors (of all
shapes and sizes and colors)-or else it is just a grab bag of resentments, however valid they may
be.
An unmoored populism leads to scapegoating and the sputtering fury of the impotent. Breeding with
nationalism, it submerges local loyalties and begets a blustering USA! USA! twister of nothingness.
From out of that whirlwind spin the faux-populists of the Beltway Right: placeless mountebanks
banking the widow's mite in Occupied Northern Virginia. To a man they are praying for a Hillary Clinton
victory, which would be the Clampetts' oil strike and the winning Powerball ticket all rolled into
one. President Clinton the Second would be the most lucrative hobgoblin for the ersatz populists
of Birther Nation since Teddy Kennedy crossed his last bridge.
Place-based populism, seeded in love, defends a people against the powerful external forces that
would crush or corrupt or subjugate them. It's Jane Jacobs and her "bunch of mothers" fighting Robert
Moses on behalf of Greenwich Village. It's the people of Poletown, assisted by Ralph Nader, defending
their homes and churches against the depredations of General Motors and the execrable Detroit Mayor
Coleman Young. It's parents-whether in South Boston, Brooklyn, or rural America-championing their
local schools against berobed bussers, education bureaucrats, and Cold War consolidators.
For a span in the early 1990s, Jerry Brown dabbled in populism. Alas, the protean Brown, once
returned to California's governorship, became his father, the numbingly conventional liberal hack
Pat Brown, though the chameleonic Jesuit may have one final act left him, perhaps as a nonagenarian
desert ascetic.
A quarter-century ago, Brown spoke of the populists' struggle against "a global focus over which
we have virtually no control. We have to force larger institutions to operate in the interest of
local autonomy and local power. Localism, if you really take it seriously, is going to interrupt
certain patterns of modern growth and globalism."
The harder they come, the harder they fall, as Jimmy Cliff sang.
The two self-styled populists who made 2016 interesting never so much as glanced at, let alone
picked up, the localist tool recommended by Jerry Brown in one of his previous lives. Their populism,
dismissive of the local, is hollow. It's all fury and no love. But tomorrow, as a Georgia lady once
wrote, is another day.
Sanders had non-aggression pact with Clinton who had "leverage" to enforce it Robby Mook
("re47") email reveals https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47397#efmAAAAB2 …
Robert.
@robbiemakestees · Nov 4
@wikileaks the plot thickens. He basically handed her this nomination. What did he honestly
think was gonna happen?
"... Trump has by mere existance dragged the shadow state out of the shadows. Sweet know thy enemy for they will always be thy enemy. Off to restock me popcorn ... 1 week supply will do after that forget it it will be long past popcorn. dinkum Nov 5, 2016 8:27 PM , We were taught at the kitchen table that the "Current Tax Payment Act of 1943", aka employee withholding taxes, would allow the shadow government dominate over the de jure government. Reason given was that the easier to not have to save money themselves to pay taxes, the less interest taxpayers would have in government. Every year, often in April, my Dad would say that he earned the first dollar for our family that year. Now, about 2 or 3 generations later with celebrations for lowering of the labor participation rates below 63%, shadow government is protected by those either not knowing or unable to know how to register to vote. Ripe pickings for One World Government advocates. Seems most Americans do not understand the concept of independence and have little or no interest in understanding. RaceToTheBottom Nov 5, 2016 8:17 PM , I'm sorry, but I am going to love pointing out to you Trumpsters that it makes absolutely no difference who gets elected, the State still wins..... ..."
"... I haven't voted for the main election in probably 20 years, except in the primary for Ron Paul. I figure 1 minute of my time for a lottery ticket is worth the shot. But yeah I don't think we should go full Nazi mania about the guy, or be like the Obamaites with their messiah. ..."
"... There are alot of people probably unhealthy optimistic about the guy. ..."
"... We are winning because we are breaking people's stockholm syndromes. Apathy is a bad thing, even if the vote is rigged it's better to stay positive that something can be done. Because something can always be done if people want it bad enough. ..."
In previous elections, well, what's the difference really between Bush and Gore? Bush and Kerry?
They went to the same school, and take orders from the same masters. This election is different.
Trump is a real 'trump' card. What does this word mean? It's an ironic name for the candidate who
intentionally or not opened the shadow government for the world to see.
2 : a sound of or as if of trumpeting <the trump of doom>
1 a : a card of a suit any of whose cards will win over a card that is not of this suit -called
also trump card
b : the suit whose cards are trumps for a particular hand -often used in plural
2 : a decisive overriding factor or final resource -called also trump card
3 : a dependable and exemplary person
There are multiple game-changers here, and although Trump himself personally deserves the credit
for being the punching bag at a huge personal sacrifice, Trump himself is not the primary cause of
this paradigm shift. He's just the catalyst, and in the right place at the right time.
As explained eloquently by Peter Thiel, if it's not Trump this time , it will be someone else
next time, or some alternative non-career politician who represents the same things that Trump does.
In fact, Trump probably doesn't know half of what he's getting himself into. He can be the first
President that ushers in a new age of 'reality' (for lack of a better word).
First let's give credit where credit is due. What has made this possible is sites like Zero Hedge,
and more importantly Wikileaks. Clinton Foundation as a model for pay-for-play politics was certainly
not invented by the Clintons, or the Bushes. In fact, in America's Romanesque ideology, a good metaphor
is the business of the Roman empire. Most Roman senators were in fact, super rich.
The Romans really
invented the system of power politics, where politics became big business. The Greeks were too philosophical
and practical to make a business out of it. While the Greeks spent all night debating what is the
prime mover, Romans seized territory, built roads and bridges, and most importantly - got rich.
The country is less a melting pot today, but a stew of competing ethnic, racial, and social
divisions
National, state, and local debt loads are unsustainable
Our elementary and secondary educational system ranks behind many of the other industrialized
countries, even as the costs of a post-secondary education require students to assume thousands
of dollars in personal student loan debt
Our national infrastructure – roads and bridges – is falling apart from neglect and lack
of maintenance even as our electronic infrastructure lags many of our international competitors
Our healthcare system is the most expensive in the world, but mediocre by many world standards
Political corruption is rife and influence is based by the size of financial donation to
the political party and candidate
Many political observers believe that in the era of rampant partisanship, America's system
of checks and balances in government is no longer operative
The growing disparity income inequality creates class tension and social stress
Combine this with various Roman symbolism, in Washington DC, and in the cult sects the Elite participate
in (various forms of the Occult) - a picture emerges of a "New Rome" which may be have been the Illuminati
plan all along for America. But the problem is that, the corruption, the debasement of the currency
(today, we have Quantitative Easing) it can't continue. It's a simple problem of physics, the laws
of gravity cannot be violated. The value of the US Dollar is guaranteed to crash. There's no question
about it. It's because of the math and structure of the debt based money system. The future, is Bitcoin
- not the Clinton Foundation. Clinton Foundation is a representation of how the Elite evolved from
a direct rule class system during Medieval Europe to a 'Shadow Government' system that we use today.
Now many ZH readers and traders know this for a long time. What this election has done, is popularized
and exposed this 'shadow government' which really is an entire 'shadow system' because it's not only
about the government. For example in Forex business, on the surface, banks are cashing checks and
loaning money. But 'behind the scenes' they are involved in much more sinister, often illegal, activities.
And the bank fraud cases have been eye-popping, record setting, numbers like "$5.6 Billion" .
Washington DC is a big customer of the banks, of the Elite. But by far, not the only one. And certainly
not the most powerful. It's just what the public thinks. The President of the United States. It's
a powerful person. No, it's not. Presidents (at least, previously) have been mostly puppets that
take orders from "Shadow People" - Presidents have become like Actors and accordingly, our most popular
President, Ronald Reagan, was an actor. A good actor. Everyone loves an actor! But remember what
an ACTOR does - an actor reads his lines, and pretends very convincingly. Actors are not script writers,
producers, artists - they are the only part of the creative process that's not creative. Real insiders
in Hollywood for example know the real genius to making magic are the writers, producers, music composers
like Ennio Morricone. Who is that? Ennio Morricone is a "Shadow Person" - this is the REAL genius
and creative talent behind the Hollywood machine. That background music, it's not something just
thrown together by some executives. Ennio Morricone is a musical genius, he works behind the scenes,
99% of people never heard of him. But we've all heard about some jerks like Robert DeNiro, who are
paid to make fools of themselves and make foolish and childish statements about Trump and how the
Establishment is good and you should enjoy how the system services your account even though you live
worse every year and it hurts when they do it.
As we wait for the grand finale to the play we call "Politics" enjoy this composition, let it
be the background music you remember as the Shadow People are exposed this next week. Turn off your
TVs and listen to something that can actually increase your IQ! Yes - it's true!
Now for the real test of the Election. Now that the Shadow System has been exposed, will people
openly accept it? There's no more conspiracy theories, most of the facts are now available online
for all to see. Will they turn a blind eye - and vote for the Establishment? How deep does the programming
go? VERY DEEP, if you are on meds and have a TV.
We were taught at the kitchen table that the "Current Tax Payment Act of 1943", aka employee withholding
taxes, would allow the shadow government dominate over the de jure government. Reason given was
that the easier to not have to save money themselves to pay taxes, the less interest taxpayers
would have in government.
Every year, often in April, my Dad would say that he earned the first dollar for our family
that year.
Now, about 2 or 3 generations later with celebrations for lowering of the labor participation
rates below 63%, shadow government is protected by those either not knowing or unable to know
how to register to vote. Ripe pickings for One World Government advocates.
Seems most Americans do not understand the concept of independence and have little or no interest
in understanding.
Voting by mail ballot was easy enough for me to do. Took about 1 minute of my time. Assuming it
doesn't make a difference I'm out 1 minute. But just what if it does matter and it changed the
direction and course we find ourselves on? I haven't voted for the main election in probably 20
years, except in the primary for Ron Paul. I figure 1 minute of my time for a lottery ticket is
worth the shot. But yeah I don't think we should go full Nazi mania about the guy, or be like
the Obamaites with their messiah.
There are alot of people probably unhealthy optimistic about the guy. But as the above comment,
I think the election sure has been entertaining seeing all the bad info come out.
As a Ron Paul
supporter, it's like confirmation that us uniquely different types that everyone thought we were
when we talked about the whole thing being rigged and economics and the war mongering has wings
and been lifted by Trump. Believe me it took Trump for my mother-in-law to see what is going on.
People always were reserved to believe that it was this depraved. I'm sure you are right Clinton
might be just the tip of the iceberg. But even if Clinton goes to jail for conspiring against
Americans considering her terrible lists of crimes against us, that would be well worth it. This
is all about making people believe that conspiracies happen, it took Enron for me to wake up.
What comes next if not Trump is real change, one way or another things are not going back to the
old way.
We are winning because we are breaking people's stockholm syndromes. Apathy is a bad
thing, even if the vote is rigged it's better to stay positive that something can be done. Because
something can always be done if people want it bad enough.
So you will lose like you were always going to lose ... yupper, dam straight, same game same
play, YOY decade after decade.
But all those standing before you, from FBI to MSM, be you DOJ or the Clinton Crime family.
YOU NOW KNOW WHO YOUR FUCKING ENEMY IS because they all crawled out from under the rock.
That was the next step in this game ... know thy enemy for he always knew who you were but
you in kindness now know them. Worse for them is actually your realisation of the truth.
So I ask this question when you were born are you more or less worthy a human being than an
elite child?
I was thinking the same thing. All those foundations that help fund PBS are behind a lot of the
crap we see in America today. And he doesn't mention the biggest source of corruption - the federal
reserve and our banking system. Who owns all those corporations? The owners of the big banks -
those that make up the federal reserve.
P.S. I vote NO FRNs aka US dollars; NO Euros; NO Yens; NO Saudi Rials; NO Chinese Yuans; NO
British pounds; NO Russian roubles; and NO Israeli Shekels.
"... Clearly the Oligarchy does not want Donald Trump in the White House as they are unsure that they could control him, and Hillary is their agent. ..."
"... With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's own interests. ..."
"... Image as well as money is part of Oligarchic power. The image of America takes a big hit if the American people elect a president who is currently under felony investigation. ..."
"... Moreover, a President Hillary would be under investigation for years. With so much spotlight on her, she would not be able to serve the Oligarchy's interests. She would be worthless to them, and, indeed, investigations that unearthed various connections between Hillary and oligarchs could damage the oligarchs. ..."
"... In other words, for the Oligarchy Hillary has moved from an asset to a liability. ..."
"... In the speech, Vanfosson said while Donald Trump, a "part-time reality star and full-time bigot," doesn't care about student loan debt, neither does Clinton. "She is so trapped in the world of the elite," Vanfosson said. "She has completely lost grip of what it's like to be an average person." ..."
"... Vanfosson said the only thing Clinton cares about is the billionaires that fund her election. The student added there was no point in voting for the "lesser of two evils." ..."
"... "She would be worthless to them," They would love all the focus on her and not on their work. Their work will continue regardless of who is president. It becomes easier if the president is HillBillery, but it will happen either way. ..."
"... "Something about this was backward. A gay white man and a white woman asking a multi-billionaire how he knows the system is rigged and insisting it's not. Does that sound right to you?" ..."
"... They asked him how he knows the system is rigged and he said, 'Because I take advantage of it.'" ..."
"... Can The Oligarchy Still Steal The Presidential Election? Yes. But in the words of the economic-philosopher The Bernanke "It would be... disorderly." ..."
"... everything they do is for the children! ..."
"... Can they steal the election? They have to try. Their life depends on it. This is big time. Deep State has trillions and decades invested in this election. ..."
"... Thoughtful and interesting take as always by PCR. They may not want Trump, but better to delay their plans than let HRC blow them up by being under the ultimate spotlight. ..."
"... Thinking that this will not be a video game with the better hackers winning is probably either not paying attention or in some kind of "democracy speaks" denial. ..."
"... Roberts is right, of course. The rigged polls and media bias were prelude to the rigged election. ..."
The election was set up to be stolen from Trump. That was the purpose of the polls rigged by overweighting
Hillary supporters in the samples. After weeks of hearing poll results that Hillary was in the lead,
the public would discount a theft claim. Electronic voting makes elections easy to steal, and I have
posted explanations by election fraud experts of how it is done.
Clearly the Oligarchy does not want Donald Trump in the White House as they are unsure that
they could control him, and Hillary is their agent.
With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all
around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's own
interests.
Image as well as money is part of Oligarchic power. The image of America takes a big hit if
the American people elect a president who is currently under felony investigation.
Moreover, a President Hillary would be under investigation for years. With so much spotlight
on her, she would not be able to serve the Oligarchy's interests. She would be worthless to them,
and, indeed, investigations that unearthed various connections between Hillary and oligarchs could
damage the oligarchs.
In other words, for the Oligarchy Hillary has moved from an asset to a liability.
A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently
stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the
investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him.
Moreover, the Republicans in the House and Senate would not stand for it. House Committee on oversight
and Government Reform chairman Jason Chaffetz has already declared Hillary to be "a target-rich environment.
Even before we get to day one, we've got two years worth of material already lined up." House Speaker
Paul Ryan said investigation will follow the evidence.
If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you were Hillary,
would you want to be under this kind of pressure?
What happens if the FBI recommends the indictment of the president? Even insouciant Americans
would see the cover-up if the attorney general refused to prosecute the case. Americans would lose
all confidence in the government. Chaos would rule. Chaos can be revolutionary, and that is not good
for oligarchs.
Moreover, if reports can be believed, salacious scandals appear to be waiting their time on stage.
For example, last May Fox News reported:
"Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender's
infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at
least 26 trips aboard the "Lolita Express" - even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail
for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.
"Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported,
but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included
extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by
their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired
nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young
girls."
Fox News reports that Epstein served time in prison for "solicitation and procurement of minors
for prostitution. He allegedly had a team of traffickers who procured girls as young as 12 to service
his friends on 'Orgy Island,' an estate on Epstein's 72-acre island, called Little St. James, in
the U.S. Virgin Islands."
This kind of behavior seems reckless even for Bill and Hillary, who are accustomed to getting
away with everything. Nevertheless, if you are an oligarch already worried about the reopened Hillary
email case and additional FBI investigations, such as the one into the Clinton Foundation, and concerned
about what else might emerge from the 650,000 emails on former US Rep. Weiner's computer and the
NYPD pedophile investigation, putting Hillary in the Oval Office doesn't look like a good decision.
At this point, I would think that the Oligarchy would prefer to steal the election for Trump ,
instead of from him, rather than allow insouciant Americans to destroy America's reputation by choosing
a person under felony investigations for president of the United States.
Being the "exceptional nation" takes on new meaning when there is a criminal at the helm.
If Hillary gets elected and it's rigged, then her "win" is invalid and her election is illegitimate.
Most peoples of most countries are not obligated to obey an illegitimately crookedly elected leader.
That's some of the reason why countries have revolts, civil unrest, etc.
... Vanfosson was scheduled to give a speech about Sanders and Clinton supporters uniting,
but instead gave a speech about "how terrible Hillary is."
In the speech, Vanfosson said while Donald Trump, a "part-time reality star and full-time
bigot," doesn't care about student loan debt, neither does Clinton.
"She is so trapped in the world of the elite," Vanfosson said. "She has completely lost grip
of what it's like to be an average person."
Vanfosson said the only thing Clinton cares about is the billionaires that fund her election.
The student added there was no point in voting for the "lesser of two evils."
"She would be worthless to them," They would love all the focus on her and not on their
work. Their work will continue regardless of who is president. It becomes easier if the president
is HillBillery, but it will happen either way.
Dave Chappell apparently criticized how the media "twisted" what Trump said when he made
lewd remarks about grabbing women in a caught-on-tape conversation in 2005 with former Access
Hollywood anchor Billy Bush.
" Sexual assault? It wasn't. He said, 'And when you're a star, they let you do it.' That phrase
implies consent," Chappelle
reportedly said . "I just don't like the way the media twisted that whole thing. Nobody questioned
it."
The 43-year-old comic praised Trump's performance during the second presidential debate, specifically
how he handled the harsh line of questions from moderators Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz.
"Something about this was backward. A gay white man and a white woman asking a multi-billionaire
how he knows the system is rigged and insisting it's not. Does that sound right to you?"
Chappelle reportedly asked the crowd at the famous Cutting Room comedy club. "It didn't seem right
to me. And here's how you know Trump is the most gangsta candidate ever. They asked him how
he knows the system is rigged and he said, 'Because I take advantage of it.'"
Government needs the trust of the people. PERIOD! If it is not there, the Gov. and its scharade
is over. Hillary and the Clintons are over! If they still put her in, they are all done. All the
MAGA people won't stop once the election is over. It will cascade beyond that and split the country.
They can't have that.
The military as much as Obama has gutted it in the past 8 years, is for Trump. Obama forgot
that it takes 2 or more generations, complete dumbass. They still listen to their parents. The
Obama's don't want the rope that Hilary will get. They are all about self interests, their own.
It's much worse than just Epstein and his Nab O kov-named pimping jet. The Clintons have gone
out of their way at least twice to secure the release of
proven
and
probable child sex trafficking outfits.
Many disaster relief and aid organizations in the poorest countries are fronts for pedophiles
and sex traffickers, and I know this from extensive personal experience in the Third World. The
Clintons and their Foundation are the largest spiders in this global web.
Can they steal the election? They have to try. Their life depends on it. This is big time.
Deep State has trillions and decades invested in this election.
For all my pessimism lately I'm with the majority here. Trump-slide! Back to the shadow!
Thoughtful and interesting take as always by PCR. They may not want Trump, but better to delay
their plans than let HRC blow them up by being under the ultimate spotlight.
I want to see the hacking of the election go fubar with the votes blipping up and down like a
penny stock. Lead changes every 2 minutes by increments of no less than 5% per quote. All the
while CNN pretends like its normal.
Thinking that this will not be a video game with the better hackers winning is probably either
not paying attention or in some kind of "democracy speaks" denial.
How can one cabal steal from itself? Ollie got no factions, Paulie. Gots Meadowlands and 20# sacks
of limestone. Y'know... fertilizer.
Lies. Choose your own path, as God enabled you to do. You are created here, for this purpose.
Do your best.
If the Cunt becomes president, we all better get ready to put our 'pod faces' on... If the Rodent
gets 'selected', I wonder if she will keep the Obonzo's on as servants?
Roberts is right, of course. The rigged polls and media bias were prelude to the rigged election.
Hillary's corruption and Bill's perversions are in the spotlight. It will only get much worse
with nypd and the fbi ready to fight. Plus, she's incompetent, violent, and hated by a lot of
people. Her election alone could incite WW3 within a few months. Trump on the other hand, will
have a "conversion" if elected and a cautious foreign policy will follow. Careers will move along
in DC and Trump will find the job easy. Harmony .... maybe for a few years.
I abhor violence nowadays but for a guy like Epstein and his pals, I would surely make an exception.
As I'm sure would many otherwise in favor of legal justice. Pedophiles do not deserve justice.
Only punishment.
I must say I like PCR a lot but he seems to be crafting a narrative to fit his desires on this
one.
Let's be real here.
There was a massive scandal in England very much like this and it largely went all of nowhere.
It hit brick walls after a few players were outed and then fizzled out.
It cuts to the heart of money and power this kind of thing.
The corruption isn't just there for mere corruption sake.
One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them.
The gist of what I'm saying is this.
Oh yeah they can rig it and Oh hell yeah they will rig it.
THEY HAVE TO because the alternative is to let Trump in there and let some normal human beings
have the power to unravel this all.
The problem is we are likely to be ASTONISHED at how deep and wide this is.
Literally ASTONISHED to the point of shaking the foundations of what everyone believes in.
So yeah the stakes are huge they will rig it and I pray that I am wrong.
The fake polls are evaporating right before our eyes. Hell, even CNN and the alphabets are starting
to back off. Not saying this is proof, but it meshes...
Whatever happens with this election I am punching out of this insane process. We are ruled by
California, New York, Illinois Pennsylvania and Florida and the ghettos therein. Signing up to
be tax cattle and just taking it is masochistic as is aligning oneself with people too lazyor
timid to even boycott Amazon or stage a tax revolt.
Yep taxation without representation all over again. In theory we have it, but in practical reality
we don't. The bible tells the story in revelation. Most everyone will be deceived only a few will
move away and they will be mercilessly hunted and persecuted. Lovely shit.
"... An awful lot of people out there think we live in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is coming to be called the "Uniparty." ..."
"... There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people versus the politicians. ..."
"... Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. ..."
"... To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. ..."
"... Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important, the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment. ..."
A couple of remarks in
Professor Susan
McWillams' recent Modern Age piece celebrating the 25th anniversary of Christopher Lasch's
1991 book
The True and Only Heaven , which analyzed the cult of progress in its American manifestation,
have stuck in my mind. Here's the first one:
McWilliams adds a footnote to that: The 19 percent figure is from 2012, she says. Then she tells
us that in 1964, 64 percent of Americans agreed with the same statement.
Wow. You have to think that those two numbers, from 64 percent down to 19 percent in two generations,
tell us something important and disturbing about our political life.
Second McWilliams quote:
In 2016 if you type the words "Democrats and Republicans" or "Republicans and Democrats" into
Google, the algorithms predict your next words will be "are the same".
I just tried this, and she's right. These guesses are of course based on the frequency with which
complete sentences show up all over the internet. An awful lot of people out there think we live
in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is
coming to be called the "Uniparty."
There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national
politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people
versus the politicians.
Which leads me to a different lady commentator: Peggy Noonan, in her October 20th Wall Street
Journal column.
The title of Peggy's piece was:
Imagine
a Sane Donald Trump . [
Alternate link ]Its gravamen:
Donald Trump has shown up the Republican Party Establishment as totally out of touch with their base,
which is good; but that he's bat-poop crazy, which is bad. If a sane Donald Trump had done
the good thing, the showing-up, we'd be on course to a major beneficial correction in our national
politics.
It's a good clever piece. A couple of months ago on Radio Derb I offered up one and a half cheers
for Peggy, who gets a lot right in spite of being a longtime Establishment Insider. So it
was here. Sample of what she got right last week:
Mr. Trump's great historical role was to reveal to the Republican Party what half of its
own base really thinks about the big issues. The party's leaders didn't know! They were shocked,
so much that they indulged in sheer denial and made believe it wasn't happening.
The party's leaders accept more or less open borders and like big trade deals. Half the base
does not! It is longtime GOP doctrine to cut entitlement spending. Half the base doesn't want
to, not right now! Republican leaders have what might be called assertive foreign-policy impulses.
When Mr. Trump insulted George W. Bush and nation-building and said he'd opposed the Iraq invasion,
the crowds, taking him at his word, cheered. He was, as they say, declaring that he didn't want
to invade the world and invite the world. Not only did half the base cheer him, at least half
the remaining half joined in when the primaries ended.
End of pause. OK, so Peggy got some things right there. She got a lot wrong, though
Start with the notion that Trump is crazy. He's a nut, she says, five times. His brain is "a TV
funhouse."
Well, Trump has some colorful quirks of personality, to be sure, as we all do. But he's no nut.
A nut can't be as successful in business as Trump has been.
I spent 32 years as an employee or contractor, mostly in private businesses but for two years
in a government department. Private businesses are intensely rational, as human affairs go-much more
rational than government departments. The price of irrationality in business is immediate and plainly
financial. Sanity-wise, Trump is a better bet than most people in high government positions.
Sure, politicians talk a good rational game. They present as sober and thoughtful on the Sunday
morning shows.
Look at the stuff they believe, though. Was it rational to respond to the collapse of the U.S.S.R.
by moving NATO right up to Russia's borders? Was it rational to expect that post-Saddam Iraq would
turn into a constitutional democracy? Was it rational to order insurance companies to sell healthcare
policies to people who are already sick? Was the Vietnam War a rational enterprise? Was it rational
to respond to the 9/11 attacks by massively increasing Muslim immigration?
Make your own list.
Donald Trump displays good healthy patriotic instincts. I'll take that, with the personality quirks
and all, over some earnest, careful, sober-sided guy whose head contains fantasies of putting the
world to rights, or flooding our country with unassimilable foreigners.
I'd add the point, made by many commentators, that belongs under the general heading: "You don't
have to be crazy to work here, but it helps." If Donald Trump was not so very different from run-of-the-mill
politicians-which I suspect is a big part of what Peggy means by calling him a nut-would he have
entered into the political adventure he's on?
Thor Heyerdahl sailed across the Pacific on a hand-built wooden raft to prove a point, which
is not the kind of thing your average ethnographer would do. Was he crazy? No, he wasn't. It was
only that some feature of his personality drove him to use that way to prove the point he
hoped to prove.
And then there is Peggy's assertion that the Republican Party's leaders didn't know that half
the party's base were at odds with them.
Did they really not? Didn't they get a clue when the GOP lost in 2012, mainly because millions
of Republican voters didn't turn out for Mitt Romney? Didn't they, come to think of it, get the glimmering
of a clue back in 1996, when Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary?
Pat Buchanan is in fact a living counter-argument to Peggy's thesis-the "sane Donald Trump" that
she claims would win the hearts of GOP managers. Pat is Trump without the personality quirks. How
has the Republican Party treated him ?
Our own
Brad Griffin , here at VDARE.com on October 24th, offered a couple more "sane Donald Trumps":
Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. How did they fare with the GOP Establishment?
Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he
has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. Probably he's less well-informed
about the world than the average pol. I doubt he could tell you what
the capital of Burkina Faso is. That's secondary, though. A President has people to look up that
stuff for him. The question that's been asked more than any other about Donald Trump is not, pace
Peggy Noonan, "Is he nuts?" but, "
Is he conservative? "
I'm sure he is. But my definition of "conservative" is temperamental, not political. My touchstone
here is the sketch of the conservative temperament given to us by the English political philosopher
Michael Oakeshott :
To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried
to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the
near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present
laughter to utopian bliss.
That fits Trump better than it fits any liberal you can think of-better also than many senior
Republicans.
For example, it was one of George W. Bush's senior associates-probably Karl Rove-who scoffed at opponents
of Bush's delusional foreign policy as "the reality-based community." It would be hard to think of
a more un -Oakeshottian turn of phrase.
Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important,
the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power
of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment.
I thank him for that, and look forward to his Presidency.
Pretty good Trump ad tying together his themes of Hillary's corruption and globalism. Rather than
just attack Hillary over idiosyncratic scandals, he's pulling together the threads of how Hillary's
ideology and self-interest support each other.
It's funny how Trump is developing a more coherent big picture framework.
My recollection of Romney's campaign is that he generally lacked an intellectual framework for
tying together his a la carte issues.
With McCain, he had Invade the World / Invite the World. Sure, it doesn't make much sense, but
at least it's an ethos.
Romney, though, was a more reasonable man than McCain, so he was kind of stuck in nowhere land
in the middle.
In contrast to the remarkable spectacle of Donald Trump, of all people, evolving into an insightful
critic of the conventional wisdom of the zeitgeist , Hillary's big intellectual breakthrough
in 2016 was realizing how much she really hates people who don't vote for her due to their
irredeemable deplorableness.
That doesn't mean, however, the details will necessarily work together for Trump. For example,
industrial protectionism was likely pretty good for America on the whole during the "infant industries"
era (to quote the non-rap Alexander Hamilton). But you didn't really want to see how the sausage
is made. Tariff battles in Congress tended to gross out everybody who wasn't a hired lobbyist or
wardheeler.
Jerry Pournelle has proposed a modest tariff (e.g., 10%) on everything, no exceptions, as a way
around the corruption problem. Of course, that's the opposite approach to Trump's Art of the Deal
inclinations.
"... WikiLeaks series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of
the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother
Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank. ..."
"... if President Obama signs this terrible legislation that blatantly validates Bernie's entire campaign message about Wall Street
running our government, this will give Bernie a huge boost and 10,000 -20,000 outraged citizens (who WILL turn up because they will
be so angry at the President for preemption vt) will be marching on the Mall with Bernie as their keynote speaker. " ..."
"... But Hirshberg does not stop here. In order to persuade Podesta about the seriousness of the matter, he claims that " It will
be terrible to hand Sanders this advantage at such a fragile time when we really need to save our $$$ for the Trump fight. " ..."
WikiLeaks series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the
Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother
Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank.
Hirshberg writes to a familiar person, as he was mentioned at the time as a possible 2008 Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate,
requesting Obama should not pass the Roberts bill because " if President Obama signs this terrible legislation that blatantly
validates Bernie's entire campaign message about Wall Street running our government, this will give Bernie a huge boost and 10,000
-20,000 outraged citizens (who WILL turn up because they will be so angry at the President for preemption vt) will be marching on
the Mall with Bernie as their keynote speaker. "
But Hirshberg does not stop here. In order to persuade Podesta about the seriousness of the matter, he claims that " It will
be terrible to hand Sanders this advantage at such a fragile time when we really need to save our $$$ for the Trump fight. "
"... With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's own interests. ..."
"... A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him. ..."
"... If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you were Hillary, would you want to be under this kind of pressure? ..."
"... "Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls." ..."
Yes they can ;-). that's how two party system is functioning by default. Rank-and-file are typically
screwed. the only exception is so called "revolutionary situation", when the elite lost legitimacy
and can't dictate its will on the people below.
November 4, 2016
The election was set up to be stolen from Trump. That was the purpose of the polls rigged by overweighting
Hillary supporters in the samples. After weeks of hearing poll results that Hillary was in the
lead, the public would discount a theft claim. Electronic voting makes elections easy to steal,
and I have posted explanations by election fraud experts of how it is done.
Clearly the Oligarchy does not want Donald Trump in the White House as they are unsure that
they could control him, and Hillary is their agent.
With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all
around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's
own interests.
Image as well as money is part of Oligarchic power. The image of America takes a big hit if
the American people elect a president who is currently under felony investigation.
Moreover, a President Hillary would be under investigation for years. With so much spotlight
on her, she would not be able to serve the Oligarchy's interests. She would be worthless to them,
and, indeed, investigations that unearthed various connections between Hillary and oligarchs could
damage the oligarchs.
In other words, for the Oligarchy Hillary has moved from an asset to a liability.
A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently
stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the
investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him.
Moreover, the Republicans in the House and Senate would not stand for it. House Committee
on oversight and Government Reform chairman Jason Chaffetz has already declared Hillary to be
"a target-rich environment. Even before we get to day one, we've got two years worth of material
already lined up." House Speaker Paul Ryan said investigation will follow the evidence.
If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you
were Hillary, would you want to be under this kind of pressure?
What happens if the FBI recommends the indictment of the president? Even insouciant Americans
would see the cover-up if the attorney general refused to prosecute the case. Americans would
lose all confidence in the government. Chaos would rule. Chaos can be revolutionary, and that
is not good for oligarchs.
Moreover, if reports can be believed, salacious scandals appear to be waiting their time on
stage. For example, last May Fox News reported:
"Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender's
infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at
least 26 trips aboard the "Lolita Express" - even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail
for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.
"Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported,
but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included
extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by
their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired
nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young
girls."
Fox News reports that Epstein served time in prison for "solicitation and procurement of minors
for prostitution. He allegedly had a team of traffickers who procured girls as young as 12 to
service his friends on 'Orgy Island,' an estate on Epstein's 72-acre island, called Little St.
James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html
Some Internet sites, the credibility of which is unknown to me, have linked Hillary to these flights.
http
"... With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's own interests. ..."
"... A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him. ..."
"... If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you were Hillary, would you want to be under this kind of pressure? ..."
"... "Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls." ..."
Yes they can ;-). that's how two party system is functioning by default. Rank-and-file are typically
screwed. the only exception is so called "revolutionary situation", when the elite lost legitimacy
and can't dictate its will on the people below.
November 4, 2016
The election was set up to be stolen from Trump. That was the purpose of the polls rigged by overweighting
Hillary supporters in the samples. After weeks of hearing poll results that Hillary was in the
lead, the public would discount a theft claim. Electronic voting makes elections easy to steal,
and I have posted explanations by election fraud experts of how it is done.
Clearly the Oligarchy does not want Donald Trump in the White House as they are unsure that
they could control him, and Hillary is their agent.
With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all
around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's
own interests.
Image as well as money is part of Oligarchic power. The image of America takes a big hit if
the American people elect a president who is currently under felony investigation.
Moreover, a President Hillary would be under investigation for years. With so much spotlight
on her, she would not be able to serve the Oligarchy's interests. She would be worthless to them,
and, indeed, investigations that unearthed various connections between Hillary and oligarchs could
damage the oligarchs.
In other words, for the Oligarchy Hillary has moved from an asset to a liability.
A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently
stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the
investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him.
Moreover, the Republicans in the House and Senate would not stand for it. House Committee
on oversight and Government Reform chairman Jason Chaffetz has already declared Hillary to be
"a target-rich environment. Even before we get to day one, we've got two years worth of material
already lined up." House Speaker Paul Ryan said investigation will follow the evidence.
If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you
were Hillary, would you want to be under this kind of pressure?
What happens if the FBI recommends the indictment of the president? Even insouciant Americans
would see the cover-up if the attorney general refused to prosecute the case. Americans would
lose all confidence in the government. Chaos would rule. Chaos can be revolutionary, and that
is not good for oligarchs.
Moreover, if reports can be believed, salacious scandals appear to be waiting their time on
stage. For example, last May Fox News reported:
"Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender's
infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at
least 26 trips aboard the "Lolita Express" - even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail
for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.
"Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported,
but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included
extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by
their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired
nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young
girls."
Fox News reports that Epstein served time in prison for "solicitation and procurement of minors
for prostitution. He allegedly had a team of traffickers who procured girls as young as 12 to
service his friends on 'Orgy Island,' an estate on Epstein's 72-acre island, called Little St.
James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html
Some Internet sites, the credibility of which is unknown to me, have linked Hillary to these flights.
http
Thomas Frank
writes in The Guardian that the WikiLeaks emails to and from Hillary Clinton's campaign manager
John Podesta "offer an unprecedented view into the workings of the elite, and how it looks after
itself." They provide "a window into the soul of the Democratic party and into the dreams and thoughts
of the class to whom the party answers."
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.
"... 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.
My analysis is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he has had every
establishment off his side. Trump does not have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the
Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment," said Assange. "Banks, intelligence, arms companies,
foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and
the journalists themselves."
He is right, but the same was said about Brexit.
Cognitive Dissonance -> 1980XLS •Nov 4, 2016 8:10 AM
It seems the Shadow Government has decided to go full banana republic.
The sad fact is the vast majority of people simply don't believe this could happen 'here'.
Joe Davola -> two hoots •Nov 4, 2016 9:09 AM
In my opinion, the biggest thing to come out of these emails is the complete manipulation
of the "news". The only thing I can attribute it to is that the media are just another form
of the free-stuff crowd, because it's not as if Hillary offers a shining beacon of ideology. It's
easy to write stories when they're written for you, and it appears that you're really smart because
you "got the scoop".
Sure the Saudi angle is quite damning, but for most that's just too deep and difficult to piece
together - unless the news breaks it down to simple sound bytes (or an emoji). Heck, without Tyler
combing these dumps and lining them up with the overall picture of what was going down at the
time, it would be easy to just get swamped in the sheer volume. Much like the "we've printed out
50,000 emails" wasn't intended to help the investigation, it was intended to bog the process down.
Mike in GA -> I am a Man I am Forty •Nov 4, 2016 8:28 AM
Trump has pushed back on every issue that the establishment has thrown at him. Wikileaks has
helped with their steady drip of revealing emails giving us all a behind-the-scenes look at the
everyday thoughts of our "Leaders". The corruption, collusion and outright criminality thus exposed
could only have been accomplished by Trump - certainly no establishment Uniparty candidate would
so fearlessly take on the daily goring of everyone else's ox.
Now exposed, this corruption and criminality HAS to be addressed and can only be addressed
by an outsider, change-agent president. The opportunity to clean house so substantially does not
present itself often and may never again. If properly executed, the halls of power could largely
be purged of the criminal class so endemic in the wikileaked emails.
This is where it gets pretty hairy for Trump, and for America. These criminals, living large,
very large, on the taxpayer, will not go silently into the night. They will pull out every stop
to stop Trump or at least limit the damage. People will start dying a little faster in DC now.
Can anyone explain why that 55 y/o Major General, about to get the promotion of his lifetime
into the Air Force Missile Command would commit suicide? And why it took 2 months for the AF to
rule it a "suicide"? Rumor says he became privy to domestic EMP contingency plans and was unwilling
to comply.
When assassination becomes a tool of the ruling party, the Party has come to town.
"... The support Trump has enjoyed is directly tied to the frustration many across the country feel toward Washington and its entrenched leaders, and they shouldn't expect that sentiment to dissipate regardless of whether Trump or Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton wins at the ballot box on Nov. 8, he said. ..."
Billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel reiterated his support for Republican presidential nominee
Donald Trump Monday morning, telling a room of journalists that a Washington outsider in the White
House would recalibrate lawmakers who have lost touch with the struggles of most Americans.
Thiel said it was "both insane and somehow inevitable" that political leaders would expect this presidential
election to be a contest between "political dynasties" that have shepherded the country into two
major financial crises: the tech bubble burst in the early 2000s, and the housing crisis and economic
recession later that decade.
The support Trump has enjoyed is directly tied to the frustration many across the country feel
toward Washington and its entrenched leaders, and they shouldn't expect that sentiment to dissipate
regardless of whether Trump or Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton wins at the ballot box on Nov.
8, he said.
"What Trump represents isn't crazy and it's not going away," he said.
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.
Fighting against total of the big ghetto states is a bitch. Looks like Trump
needs to run the table as in FL,OH,GA,NC,AZ,CO,IA,NV. Not impossible but
something resembling a real kill shot from Wikileaks sure would help.
I have always believed that Trump is actually the elites choice and that
they have been practicing reverse psychology on the voters.
Nothing that
has happened during this 'selection' season has put me off of that hypothesis.
I told my husband months ago that there would be an October/November surprise
and that Trump may very well end up in the White House. Hillary is just too
broken to be able to pull it off. I've heard his economic policy speeches:
privatize social security, etc., and they all line up with just what the elites
have wanted for a long time. I know most ZHers don't feel this way, but
politics is a bitch, my friends. Let the down voting commence.
Your theory is actually a theory - In
politics NOTHING happens by chance.
Mark Twain said: If voting really mattered- They wouldn't let us do it!
I honestly believe that the PTB have every election sewn up through
controlled opposition- yet Trump would move us to Totalitarianism at a much
slower rate than the HitlerBeast. The Political Overton Window has shifted
hard to the left over the last 30 years. Both parties are to the left of
John F. Kennedy, sadly. Lesser of two evils is the new name of the game!
Evidence doesn't support your theory Rob. Ask yourself why every news
organization in the English speaking world is busy trashing Trump? Odd way
to for the elites to show support.
I'm an establishment hater and long to see Clinton's get their due, so support
Trump by default. What I think is instructive, if nothing else interesting, is
Brandon Smith's POV on Trump's potential "victory". The chess board is
fascinating, but may not be R's and D's playing the game at all. For the
planned crash, they'd rather have the "isolationist" (falsely painted term)
than the Globalist at the helm for blame. "See?? Its these same Brexit and
Trump voting "isolationist"! We need the SDR and the Big Boys back in
charge!".......still, I'd have a thrill run up my leg to watch a long-time
crook get her just comeuppance....
BREAKING: Steve Pieczenik.com from infowars and youtube videos:
2:40 in; Unedited
"We've initiated a counter coup through Assange and Wikileaks."
Comey's action reflected a response to the Silent Coup.
"We're going to stop you from making HRC President of the U.S."
Massive corruption under Clinton Foundation.
"I am just a small part of something bigger than myself."
"Brave men and women in the FBI, CIA,Director of Intelligence, Military
Intelligence and 15 other intelligence agencies who were sick and tired of
seeing this corruption in the White House, Justice Department, Intelligence
Services (so we) decided that there was something we had to do to save the
Republic so we initiated a Counter Coup through Julian Assange through emails
that we gave to him in order to undermine Hillary and Bill Clinton."
Pieczenik indicated this "Second American Revolution" had no guns, wapons, or
intent to kill or harm." He says the Counter Coup is made up of veterans in the
intelligence service like (himself.) He asserts that they will make sure Obama
leaves office without a pardon or any other "act of treason."
The coup "wants a peaceful transition."
Pieczenik said this is a "moment of history occurring right now."
I'm sick of hearing about this Pieczenik guy. It's been non-stop here at ZH
lately. There's no way this Tribe member is up to any good with his
counter-coup distraction.
What happens when states like Maryland, New Jersey, Colorado and Iowa vote for
Trump (because they didn't bother to rig in those areas), but Hilary still
"wins" in super battle ground states like Ohio and Pennsylvania because those
elections were rigged?
"... Demonstration uses a real voting system and real vote databases and takes place in seconds across multiple jurisdictions. Over 5000 subcontractors and middlemen have the access to perform this for any or all clients. ..."
Just cause nobody is voting for her won't stop em. What counts the vote matters:
"A real-time demo of the most devastating election theft mechanism yet found, with context
and explanation.
Demonstration uses a real voting system and real vote databases and takes place
in seconds across multiple jurisdictions. Over 5000 subcontractors and middlemen have the access
to perform this for any or all clients.
Trump mirrors resentment with the current political culture. Unfortunately very few readers in this
forum understand that the emergence of Trump as a viable candidate in the current race, the candidate
who withstand 24x7 air bombarment by corrupt neoliberabl MSM (like Guardian ;-) signify deep crisis
of neoliberalsm and neoliberal globalization.
Notable quotes:
"... "What Madison could not have foreseen was the extent to which unconstrained campaign finance and a sophisticated lobbying industry would come to dominate an entire nation, regardless of its size." ..."
"... That's it – finance and sophisticated lobbying. And you can add to that mass brainwashing at election campaigns by means of choice language and orchestration as advised by cognitive scientists who are expressly recruited for this purpose. Voters remain largely unaware of the mind control they are undergoing. And of course the essential prerequisite for all of this is financial power. ..."
"... Now read again in this light Gore Vidal's famous pronouncement… "Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically by definition be disqualified from ever doing so." ..."
"... Worse still, the political spectrum runs from right to right. To all intents and purposes, one single party, the US Neoliberal party, with 2 factions catering for power and privilege. Anything to the left of that is simply not an available choice for voters. ..."
"... Americans have wakened up to the fact that they badly need a government which caters for the needs of the average citizen. In their desperation some will still vote for Trump warts and all. This for the same sorts of reasons that Italians voted for Berlusconi, whose winning slogan was basically 'I am not a politician'. ..."
"... The right choice was Bernie Sanders. Sadly, not powerful enough. So Americans missed the boat there. But at least there was a boat to miss this time around. You can be sure that similar future boats will be sunk well in advance. Corporate power has learnt its lesson and the art of election rigging has now become an exact science. ..."
"... Donald Trump, Brexit and Le Pen are all in their separate ways rejections of the dogma of liberalism, social and economic, that has dominated the West for the past three decades. ..."
"... In 2010, Chomsky wrote : ..."
"... The United States is extremely lucky.....if somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response. ..."
"... Dangerous times. The beauty of democracy is we get what we deserve ..."
"... The worst thing about Donald Trump is that he's the man in the mirror. ..."
"... He is the distillation of all that we have been induced to desire and admire. ..."
"... I thought that he is the mirror image, the reverse, of the current liberal consensus. A consensus driven by worthy ideals but driven too far, gradually losing acceptance and with no self correcting awareness. ..."
"... Trump is awful - but by speaking freely he challenges the excesses of those who would limit free speech. Trump is awful - but by demonising minorities he challenges those who would excuse minorities of all responsibility. Trump is awful - but by flaunting his wealth he challenges those who keep their connections and wealth hidden for the sake of appearances. ..."
"... Trump is awful because the system is out of balance. He is a consequence, not a cause. ..."
"... Voting for Trump is voting for peace. Voting for Clinton is voting for WW3. ..."
"... It's quite clearly because Hillary as President is an utterly terrifying prospect. When half the population would rather have Trump than her, it must be conceded that she has some serious reputational issues. ..."
"... Personally, I'd take Trump over Hillary if I was a US citizen. He may be a buffoon but she is profoundly dangerous, probably a genuine psychopath and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Presidency. Sanders is the man America needs now, though, barring one of Hillary's many crimes finally toppling her, it's not going to happen... ..."
"... The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal ..."
"... And the shame is we seem to be becoming desensitized to scandal. We cannot be said to live in democracies when our political class are so obviously bought by the vastly rich. ..."
"... One of the things it says is that people are so sick of Identity Politics from the Left and believe the Left are not very true to the ideals of what should be the Left. ..."
"... When the people who are supposed to care about the poor and working joes and janes prefer to care about the minorities whose vote they can rely on, the poor and the working joes and janes will show their frustration by supporting someone who will come along and tell it as it is, even if he is part of how it got that way. ..."
"... People throughout the world have awoken to the Left being Right Light but with a more nauseating moral superiority complex. ..."
"... he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics ..."
"... 'Encouraged by the corporate media, the Republicans have been waging a full-spectrum assault on empathy, altruism and the decencies we owe to other people. Their gleeful stoving in of faces, their cackling destruction of political safeguards and democratic norms, their stomping on all that is generous and caring and cooperative in human nature, have turned the party into a game of Mortal Kombat scripted by Breitbart News.' ..."
"... Many years ago in the British Military, those with the right connections and enough money could buy an officer's commission and rise up the system to be an incompetent General. As a result, many battles were mismanaged and many lives wasted due to the incompetent (wealthy privileged few) buying their way to the top. American politics today works on exactly the same system of wealthy patronage and privilege for the incompetent, read Clinton and Trump. Until the best candidates are able to rise up through the political system without buying their way there then the whole corrupt farce will continue and we will be no different to the all the other tin pot republics of the world. ..."
"... There's the "culture wars" aspect. Many people don't like being told they are "deplorable" for opposing illegal (or even legal) immigration. They don't like being called "racist" for disagreeing with an ideology. ..."
"... I like the phrase Monbiot ends with - "He is our system, stripped of its pretences" - it reminds me of a phrase in the Communist Manifesto - but I don't think it's true. "Our" system is more than capitalism, it's culture. And Clinton is a far more "perfect representation" of the increasingly censorious, narrow [neo]liberal culture which dominates the Western world. ..."
"... Finally, Monbiot misses the chance to contrast Clinton's and Trump's apparent differences with regard to confronting nuclear-armed Russia over the skies of Syria. It could be like 1964 all over again - except in this election, the Democrat is the nearest thing to Barry Goldwater. ..."
"... As a life-long despiser of all things Trump, I cannot believe that I am saying this: Trump is good for world peace. ..."
"... I fully agree with Monbiot, American democracy is a sham - the lobby system has embedded corruption right in the heart of its body politic. Lets be clear here though, whatever is the problem with American democracy can in theory at least be fixed, but Trump simply can not and moreover he is not the answer ..."
"... His opponent, war child and Wall Street darling can count her lucky stars that the media leaves her alone (with husband Bill, hands firmly in his pockets, nodding approvingly) and concentrates on their feeding frenzy attacking Trump on sexual allegations of abusing women, giving Hillery, Yes, likely to tell lies, ( mendacious, remember when she claimed to be under enemy fire in Bosnia? remember how evasive she was on the Benghazi attack on the embassy) Yes Trump is a dangerous man running against an also extremely dangerous woman. ..."
"... Extremely interesting reference to the Madison paper, but the issue is less about the size of the electorate, and more about the power that the election provides to the victor. ..."
"... Democracy in the US is so corrupted by money that it is no longer recognisable as democracy. You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt? ..."
"... When you look at speeches and conversations and debates with the so-called bogeyman, Putin, he is not at all in a league as low and vile as portrayed and says many more sensible things than anybody cares to listen to, because we're all brainwashed. We are complicit in wars (now in Syria) and cannot see why we have to connive with terrorists, tens of thousands of them, and they get supported by the war machine and friends like Saudis and Turkey which traded for years with ISIS. ..."
"... Clinton the war hawk, and shows us we are only capable of seeing one side and project all nastiness outward while we can feel good about ourselves by hating the other. ..."
"... It fits the Decline of an Empire image as it did in other Falls of Civilizations. ..."
"... Trump spoke to the executives at Ford like no one before ever has. He told them if they moved production to Mexico (as they plan to do) that he would slap huge tariffs on their cars in America and no one would buy them. ..."
"... What happens in Syria could be important to us all. Clinton doesn't hide her ambition to drive Assad from power and give Russia a kicking. It's actually very unpopular although the media doesn't like to say so; it prefers to lambast Spain for re-fueling Russian war ships off to fight the crazed Jihadists as if we supported the religious fanatics that want to slaughter all Infidels! There is an enormous gulf between what ordinary people want and the power crazy Generals in the Pentagon and NATO. ..."
"... USA has got itself in an unholy mess . It's politicians no longer work for the people . Their paymasters care not if life in Idaho resembles Dantes inferno . Trump has many faults but being "not Hilary" is not one of them. The very fact he is disliked by all the vested interests should make you take another look. And remember , the American constitution has many checks and balances , a President has a lot less power than most people imagine. ..."
"... Like many on the right, the left have unthinkingly accepted a narrative of an organized, conspiratorial system run by an elite of politicians and plutocrats. The problem with this narrative is it suggests politics and politicians are inherently nefarious, in turn suggesting there are no political solutions to be sought to problems, or anything people can do to challenge a global system of power. As Monbiot asks: "You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt?" Well, what indeed? ..."
"... I don't think you need to believe in an organised conspiracy and I don't see any real evidence that George Monbiot does. The trouble is that the corporate and political interests align in a way that absorbs any attempt to challenge them and the narrative has been written that of course politics is all about economics and of course we need mighty corporations to sustain us. ..."
"... Not long after the start of the presidential campaign I began to reflect that in Trump we are seeing materializing before us the logical result of the neoliberal project ..."
"... The Republican party essentially offered their base nothing – that was the problem. ..."
"... They couldn't offer all the things that ordinary Americans want – better and wider Medicaid, better and wider social security, tax increases on the rich, an end to pointless foreign wars and the American empire. ..."
"... The Democrats have largely the same funding base, but they at least deliver crumbs – at least a nod to the needs of ordinary people through half-hearted social programmes. ..."
"... Trump is imperfect because he wants normal relations rather than war with Russia. No, Hillary Clinton is the ultimate representation of the system that is abusing us. What will occur when Goldman Sachs and the military-industrial complex coalition get their, what is it, 5th term in office would be a great subject of many Guardian opinion pieces, actually. But that will have to wait till after November 8. ..."
"... And, of course, we also have Hillary's Wall Street speeches -- thanks to Wikileaks we have the complete transcripts, in case Guardian readers are unaware. They expose the real thinking and 'private positions' of the central character in the next episode of 'Rule by Plutocracy'. ..."
"... The democrats is the party practicing hypocrisy, pretending that they somehow representing the interest of the working class. They are the ones spreading lies and hypocrisy and manipulating the working class everyday through their power over the media. Their function is to appease the working class. The real obstacle for improving conditions for the working class historically has always been the Democratic party, not the Republican party. ..."
"... In what concerns foreign politics, Trump some times seems more reasonable than Clinton and the establishment. Clinton is the best coached politician of all times. She doesn't know that she's coached. She just followed the most radical groups and isn't able to question anything at all. The only thing that the coaches didn't fix until now is her laughing which is considered even by her coaches as a sign of weirdness. ..."
"... Western economies are now so beholden to the patronage of the essentially stateless multinational, it has become a political imperative to appease their interests - it's difficult to see a future in which an administration might resist this force, because at its whim, national economies face ruination. In light of such helplessness our political representatives face an easier path in simply accepting their lot as mere administrators who will tinker at the margins [and potentially reap the rewards of a good servant], rather than hold to principle and resist an overwhelming force. ..."
"... "Trump personifies the traits promoted by the media and corporate worlds he affects to revile; the worlds that created him. He is the fetishisation of wealth, power and image in a nation where extrinsic values are championed throughout public discourse. His conspicuous consumption, self-amplification and towering (if fragile) ego are in tune with the dominant narratives of our age." ..."
"... Yes, they don't care any more if we see the full extent of their corruption as we've given up our power to do anything about it. ..."
"... It was once very common to see Democratic politicians as neighbors attending every community event. They were Teamsters, pipe fitters, and electricians. And they were coaches and ushers and pallbearers. Now they are academics and lawyers and NGO employees and managers who pop up during campaigns. The typical income of the elected Democrats outside their government check is north of $100,000. They don't live in, or even wander through, the poorer neighborhoods. So they are essentially clueless that government services like busses are run to suit government and not actual customers. ..."
"... Yea, 15 years of constant wars of empire with no end in sight has pretty much ran this country in the ground. ..."
"... We all talk about how much money is wasted by the federal government on unimportant endeavors like human services and education, but don't even bat an eye about the sieve of money that is the Pentagon. ..."
"... Half a trillion dollars for aircraft carriers we don't need and are already obsolete. China is on the verge of developing wickedly effective anti-ship missiles designed specifically to target these Gerald R. Ford-class vessels. You might as well paint a huge bull's-eye on these ships' 4-1/2 acre flight deck. ..."
"... There are plenty more examples of this crap and this doesn't even include the nearly TWO trillion dollars we've spent this past decade-and-a-half on stomping flat the Middle East and large swaths of the Indian subcontinent. ..."
"... And all this time, our nation's infrastructure is crumbling literally right out from underneath us and millions upon millions of children and their families experience a daily struggle just to eat. Eat?! In the "greatest," wealthiest nation on earth and we prefer to kill people at weddings with drones than feed our own children. ..."
"... I'd like to read an unbiased piece about why the media narrative doesn't match the reality of the Trump phenomenon. He is getting enormous crowds attend his rallies but hardly any coverage of that in the filtered news outlets. Hillary, is struggling to get anyone turn up without paying them. There is no real enthusiasm. ..."
"... The buzzwords and tired old catch phrases and cliches used by the left to suppress any alternative discussion, and divert from their own misdemeanors are fooling no one but themselves. Trump supporters simply don't care any more how Hillary supporters explain that she lied about dodging sniper fire. Or the numerous other times she and her cohorts have been caught out telling fibs. ..."
"... Very true. Throughout history the rich, the powerful, the landed, ennobled interest and their friends in the Law and money changing houses have sought to control governments and have usually succeeded. ..."
"... In the Media today the rich are fawned over by sycophantic journalists and programme makers. These are the people who make the political weather and create the prevailing narratives. ..."
"... Working class people fancied themselves to above the common herd and thought themselves part of some elite. ..."
"... It's quite disturbing the lengths this paper will go to in order to slur and discredit Trump, labelling him dangerous and alluding to the sexual assault allegations. This even goes so far to a very lengthy article regarding Trumps lack of knowledge on the Rumbelows Cup 25 years ago. ..."
"... Whereas very little examination is made into Hillary Clinton's background which includes serious allegation of fraud and involvement in assisting in covering up her husband's alleged series of rapes. There are also issues in the wikileaks emails that merit analysis as well as undercover tapes of seioau issues with her campaign team. ..."
"... One of the most important characteristics of the so-called neoliberalism is its negative selection. While mostly successfully camouflaged, that negative selection is more than obvious this time, in two US presidential candidates. It's hard to imagine lower than those two. ..."
"... Well, OK George. Tell me: if Trump's such an establishment candidate, then why does the whole of the establishment unanimously reject him? Is it normal for Republicans (such as the Bushes and the neocons) to endorse Democrats? Why does even the Speaker of the House (a Republican) and even, on occasion, Trump's own Vice-Presidential nominee seem to be trying to undermine his campaign? If Trump is really just more of the same as all that came before, why is he being treated different by the MSM and the political establishment? ..."
"... Obviously, there's something flawed about your assumption. ..."
"... Trump has exposed the corruption of the political system and the media and has promised to put a stop to it. By contrast, Clinton is financed by the very banks, corporates and financial elites who are responsible for the corruption. This Trump speech is explicit on what we all suspected is going on. Everybody should watch it, irrespective of whether they support him or not! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tab5vvo0TJw ..."
"... "I know a lot of people in Michigan that are planning to vote for Trump and they don't necessarily agree with him. They're not racist or redneck, they're actually pretty decent people and so after talking to a number of them I wanted to write this. ..."
"... Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of Ford Motor executives and said "if you close these factories as you're planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico, I'm going to put a 35% tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody's going to buy them." It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything like that to these executives, and it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - the "Brexit" states. ..."
"... Mrs Clinton is also the product of our political culture. A feminist who owes everything to her husband and men in the Democratic Party. A Democrat who started her political career as a Republican; a civil right activist who worked for Gerry Goldwater, one of last openly racist/segregationist politicians. A Secretary of State who has no clue about, or training in, foreign policy, and who received her position as compensation for losing the election. A pacifist, who has never had a gun in her hands, but supported every war in the last twenty years. A humanist who rejoiced over Qaddafi's death ("we came, we won, he is dead!") like a sadist. ..."
"... One thing that far right politics offers the ordinary white disaffected voter is 'pay back', it is a promised revenge-fest, putting up walls, getting rid of foreigners, punishing employers of foreigners, etc., etc. All the stuff that far right groups have wet dreams about. ..."
"... Because neoliberal politics has left a hell of a lot of people feeling pissed off, the far right capitalizes on this, whilst belonging to the same neoliberal dystopia so ultimately not being able to make good on their promises. Their promises address a lot of people's anger, which of course isn't really about foreigners at all, that is simply the decoy, but cutting through all the crap to make that clear is no easy task, not really sure how it can be done, certainly no political leader in the western hemisphere has the ability to do so. ..."
"... Wrong as always. Trump *is* an outsider. He's an unabashed nationalist who's set him up against the *actual* caste that governs our politics: Neo-liberal internationalists with socially trendy left-liberal politics (but not so left that they don't hire good tax lawyers to avoid paying a fraction of what they are legally obliged to). ..."
"... Best represented in the Goldman Sachs executives who are donating millions to Hillary Clinton because they are worried about Trump's opposition to free trade, and they know she will give them *everything* they want. ..."
"... Trumps the closest thing we're gotten to a genuine threat to the system in a long, long time, so of course George Monbiot and the rest of the Guardian writers has set themselves against him, because if you're gonna be wrong about the EU, wrong about New Labour, wrong about social liberalism, wrong about immigration, why change the habit of a lifetime? ..."
"... Lies: Emails, policy changes based on polls showing a complete lack of conviction, corporate collusion, Bosnia, Clinton Foundation, war mongering, etc. Racist stereotypes: Super predators. Misogyny: Aside from her laughing away her pedophile case and allegedly threatening the women who came out against Bill, you've also got this sexist gem "Women are the primary victims of war". ..."
"... Alleged gropings: Well she's killed people by texting. So unless your moral compass is so out of whack that somehow a man JOKING about his player status in private is worse than Clinton's actions throughout her political career, then I guess you could make the case that Clinton at least doesn't have this skeleton in her closet. ..."
"... Refusal to accept democratic outcomes: No. He's speaking out against the media's collusion with the democratic party favoring Clinton over every other nominee, including Bernie Sanders. He's talking about what was revealed in the DNC leaks and the O'Keefe tapes that show how dirty the tactics have been in order to legally persuade the voting public into electing one person or the other. ..."
"... When do the conspiracy theories about the criminality of his opponent no longer count as conspiracies? When we have a plethora of emails confirming there is indeed fire next to that smoke, corruption fire, collusion fire, fire of contempt for the electorate. When we have emails confirming the Saudi Arabians are actually funding terrorist schools across the globe, emails where Hilary herself admits it, but will not say anything publicly about terrorism and Saudi Arabia, what's conspiracy and what's reality? ..."
"... Is it because Saudi Arabia funded her foundation with $23 million, or because it doesn't fit with her great 'internationalists' global agenda? ..."
"... Yep trump is a buffoon, but the failure of all media to deliver serious debate means the US is about to elect someone probably more dangerous than trump, how the hell can that be ..."
"... Nothing wrong with a liberal internationalist utopia, it sounds rather good and worth striving for. It's just that what they've been pushing is actually a neoliberal globalist nirvana for the 1 per cent ..."
"... The problem is the left this paper represents were bought off with the small change by neoliberalism, and they expect the rest of us to suck it up so the elites from both sides can continue the game ..."
"... we near the end of the neoliberal model. That the USA has a choice between two 'demopublicans' is no choice at all. ..."
"... This is the culmination of living in a post-truth political world. Lies and smears, ably supported by the corporate media and Murdoch in particular means that the average person who doesn't closely follow politics is being misinformed. ..."
"... The complete failure of right wing economic 'theories' means they only have lies, smears and the old 'divide and conquer' left in their arsenal. 'Free speech' is their attempt to get lies and smears equal billing with the truth. All truth on the other hand must be suppressed. All experts and scientists who don't regurgitate the meaningless slogans of the right will be ignored, traduced, defunded, disbanded or silenced by law. ..."
"... Not so much an article about Trump as much as a rant. George Monbiot writes with the utter conviction of one who mistakenly believes that his readers share his bigotry. When he talks about the 'alleged gropings' or the 'alleged refusal to accept democratic outcomes', that is exactly what they are 'alleged'. ..."
"... The Democratic Party has been dredging up porn-stars and wannabe models who now make claims that Trump tried to 'kiss them without asking'. ..."
"... The press also ignored the tapes of the DNC paying thugs to cause violence at Trump rallies, the bribes paid to the Clintons for political favours and the stealing of the election from Bernie Sanders. Trump is quite right to think the 'democratic outcome' is being fixed. Not only were the votes for Sanders manipulated, but Al Gore's votes were also altered and manipulated to ensure a win for Bush in the 2000 presidential election. The same interests who engineered the 2000 election have switched from supporting the Republican Party to supporting Clinton. ..."
"... Great article. The neoliberals have been able to control the narrative and in doing so have managed to scapegoat all manner of minority groups, building anger among those disaffected with modern politics. Easy targets - minorities, immigrants, the poor, the disadvantaged and the low-paid workers. ..."
"... The real enemy here are those sitting atop the corporate tree, but with the media controlled by them, the truth is never revealed. ..."
America's fourth president, James Madison, envisaged the United States constitution as representation
tempered by competition between factions. In the 10th federalist paper, written in 1787, he argued
that large republics were better insulated from corruption than small, or "pure" democracies, as
the greater number of citizens would make it "more difficult for unworthy candidates to practise
with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried". A large electorate would
protect the system against oppressive interest groups. Politics practised on a grand scale would
be more likely to select people of "enlightened views and virtuous sentiments".
Instead, the US – in common with many other nations – now suffers the worst of both worlds: a
large electorate dominated by a tiny faction. Instead of republics being governed, as Madison feared,
by "the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority", they are beholden to the not-so-secret
wishes of an unjust and interested minority. What Madison could not have foreseen was the extent
to which unconstrained campaign finance and a sophisticated lobbying industry would come to dominate
an entire nation, regardless of its size.
For every representative, Republican or Democrat, who retains a trace element of independence,
there are three sitting in the breast pocket of corporate capital. Since the supreme court decided
that there should be no effective limits on campaign finance, and, to a lesser extent, long before,
candidates have been reduced to tongue-tied automata, incapable of responding to those in need of
help, incapable of regulating those in need of restraint, for fear of upsetting their funders.
Democracy in the US is so corrupted by money that it is no longer recognisable as democracy. You
can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics
is corrupt? Turn to the demagogue who rages into this political vacuum, denouncing the forces he
exemplifies. The problem is not, as Trump claims, that the election will be stolen by ballot rigging.
It is that the entire electoral process is stolen from the American people before they get anywhere
near casting their votes. When Trump claims that the little guy is being screwed by the system, he's
right. The only problem is that he is the system.
The political constitution of the United States is not, as Madison envisaged, representation tempered
by competition between factions. The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal. In other
words, all that impedes the absolute power of money is the occasional exposure of the excesses of
the wealthy.
greatapedescendant 26 Oct 2016 4:11
A good read thanks. Nothing I really disagree with there. Just a few things to add and restate.
"What Madison could not have foreseen was the extent to which unconstrained campaign
finance and a sophisticated lobbying industry would come to dominate an entire nation, regardless
of its size."
That's it – finance and sophisticated lobbying. And you can add to that mass brainwashing
at election campaigns by means of choice language and orchestration as advised by cognitive scientists
who are expressly recruited for this purpose. Voters remain largely unaware of the mind control
they are undergoing. And of course the essential prerequisite for all of this is financial power.
Now read again in this light Gore Vidal's famous pronouncement… "Any American who is prepared
to run for president should automatically by definition be disqualified from ever doing so."
Which recalls Madison over 200 years before… "The truth is that all men having power ought
to be mistrusted."
What the US has is in effect is not a democracy but a plutocracy run by a polyarchy. Which
conserves some democratic elements. To which the US president is largely an obedient and subservient
puppet. And which openly fails to consider the needs of the average US citizen.
Worse still, the political spectrum runs from right to right. To all intents and purposes,
one single party, the US Neoliberal party, with 2 factions catering for power and privilege. Anything
to the left of that is simply not an available choice for voters.
Americans have wakened up to the fact that they badly need a government which caters for
the needs of the average citizen. In their desperation some will still vote for Trump warts and
all. This for the same sorts of reasons that Italians voted for Berlusconi, whose winning slogan
was basically 'I am not a politician'. Though that didn't work out too well. No longer able
to stomach more of the same, voters reach the stage of being willing to back anyone who might
bring about a break with the status quo. Even Trump.
The right choice was Bernie Sanders. Sadly, not powerful enough. So Americans missed the
boat there. But at least there was a boat to miss this time around. You can be sure that similar
future boats will be sunk well in advance. Corporate power has learnt its lesson and the art of
election rigging has now become an exact science.
UltraLightBeam 26 Oct 2016 4:11
Donald Trump, Brexit and Le Pen are all in their separate ways rejections of the dogma
of liberalism, social and economic, that has dominated the West for the past three decades.
The Guardian, among others, laments the loss of 'tolerance' and 'openness' as defining qualities
of our societies. But what's always left unsaid is: tolerance of what? Openness to what? Anything?
Everything?
Is it beyond the pale to critically assess some of the values brought by immigration, and to
reject them? Will only limitless, unthinking 'tolerance' and 'openness' do?
Once self-described 'progressives' engage with this topic, then maybe we'll see a reversal
in the momentum that Trump and the rest of the right wing demagogues have built up.
The United States is extremely lucky.....if somebody comes along who is charismatic
and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the
justified anger and the absence of any coherent response.
Dangerous times. The beauty of democracy is we get what we deserve.
DiscoveredJoys -> morelightlessheat 26 Oct 2016 6:11
The most telling part for me was:
The worst thing about Donald Trump is that he's the man in the mirror.
Except that instead of
He is the distillation of all that we have been induced to desire and admire.
I thought that he is the mirror image, the reverse, of the current liberal consensus. A consensus
driven by worthy ideals but driven too far, gradually losing acceptance and with no self correcting
awareness.
Trump is awful - but by speaking freely he challenges the excesses of those who would limit
free speech. Trump is awful - but by demonising minorities he challenges those who would excuse
minorities of all responsibility. Trump is awful - but by flaunting his wealth he challenges those
who keep their connections and wealth hidden for the sake of appearances.
Trump is awful because the system is out of balance. He is a consequence, not a cause.
Gman13 26 Oct 2016 4:25
Voting for Trump is voting for peace. Voting for Clinton is voting for WW3.
These events will unfold if Hillary wins:
1. No fly zone imposed in Syria to help "moderate opposition" on pretence of protecting civilians.
2. Syrian government nonetheless continues defending their country as terrorists shell Western
Aleppo.
3. Hillary's planes attack Syrian government planes and the Russians.
4. Russia and Syria respond as the war escalates. America intensifies arming of "moderate opposition"
and Saudis.
5. America arms "rebels" in various Russian regions who "fight for democracy" but this struggle
is somehow hijacked by terrorists, only they are not called terrorists but "opposition"
6. Ukranian government is encouraged to restart the war.
7. Iran enters the war openly against Saudi Arabia
8. Israel bombs Iran
9. Cornered Russia targets mainland US with nuclear weapons
10. Etc.
snakebrain -> Andthenandthen 26 Oct 2016 6:54
It's quite clearly because Hillary as President is an utterly terrifying prospect. When
half the population would rather have Trump than her, it must be conceded that she has some serious
reputational issues.
If Hillary and the DNC hadn't fixed the primaries, we'd now be looking at a Sanders-Trump race,
and a certain Democrat victory. As it is, it's on a knife edge as to whether we get Trump or Hillary.
Personally, I'd take Trump over Hillary if I was a US citizen. He may be a buffoon but
she is profoundly dangerous, probably a genuine psychopath and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near
the Presidency. Sanders is the man America needs now, though, barring one of Hillary's many crimes
finally toppling her, it's not going to happen...
jessthecrip 26 Oct 2016 4:29
Well said George.
The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal
And the shame is we seem to be becoming desensitized to scandal. We cannot be said to live
in democracies when our political class are so obviously bought by the vastly rich.
Remko1 -> UnevenSurface 26 Oct 2016 7:43
You're mixing up your powers. legislative, executive and judicial are the powers of law. Money
and business are some of the keys to stay in command of a country. (there's also military, electorate,
bureaucracy etc.)
And if money is not on your side, it's against you, which gets quite nasty if your main tv-stations
are not state-run.
For example if the EU would (theoretically of course) set rules that make corruption more difficult
you would see that commercial media all over the EU and notoriously corrupted politicians would
start making propaganda to leave the EU. ;)
yamialwaysright chilledoutbeardie 26 Oct 2016 4:38
One of the things it says is that people are so sick of Identity Politics from the Left
and believe the Left are not very true to the ideals of what should be the Left.
When the people who are supposed to care about the poor and working joes and janes prefer
to care about the minorities whose vote they can rely on, the poor and the working joes and janes
will show their frustration by supporting someone who will come along and tell it as it is, even
if he is part of how it got that way.
People throughout the world have awoken to the Left being Right Light but with a more nauseating
moral superiority complex.
Danny Sheahan -> chilledoutbeardie 26 Oct 2016 5:25
That many people are so desperate for change that even being a billionaire but someone outside
the political elite is going to appeal to them.
Tom1Wright 26 Oct 2016 4:32
I find this line of thinking unjust and repulsive: the implication that Trump is a product
of the political establishment, and not an outsider, is to tar the entire Republican party and
its supporters with a great big flag marked 'racist'. That is a gross over simplification and
a total distortion.
UnevenSurface -> Tom1Wright 26 Oct 2016 5:05
But that's not what the article said at all: I quote:
he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs
the global economy and governs our politics
No mention of the GOP.
Tom1Wright -> UnevenSurface 26 Oct 2016 5:14
and I quote
'Encouraged by the corporate media, the Republicans have been waging a full-spectrum
assault on empathy, altruism and the decencies we owe to other people. Their gleeful stoving
in of faces, their cackling destruction of political safeguards and democratic norms, their
stomping on all that is generous and caring and cooperative in human nature, have turned the
party into a game of Mortal Kombat scripted by Breitbart News.'
HindsightMe 26 Oct 2016 4:33
the truth is there is an anti establishment movement and trump just got caught up in the ride.
He didnt start the movement but latched on to it. While we are still fixated on character flaws
the undercurrent of dissatisfaction by the public is still there. Hillary is going to have a tough
time in trying to bring together a divided nation
leadale 26 Oct 2016 4:37
Many years ago in the British Military, those with the right connections and enough money
could buy an officer's commission and rise up the system to be an incompetent General. As a result,
many battles were mismanaged and many lives wasted due to the incompetent (wealthy privileged
few) buying their way to the top. American politics today works on exactly the same system of
wealthy patronage and privilege for the incompetent, read Clinton and Trump. Until the best candidates
are able to rise up through the political system without buying their way there then the whole
corrupt farce will continue and we will be no different to the all the other tin pot republics
of the world.
arkley leadale 26 Oct 2016 5:48
As Wellington once said on reading the list of officers being sent out to him,
"My hope is that when the enemy reads these names he trembles as I do"
Some would argue however that the British system of bought commissions actually made the army
more effective in part because many competent officers had to stay in the field roles of platoon
and company commanders rather than get staff jobs and through the fact that promotion on merit
did exist for non-commissioned officers but there was a block on rising above sergeant.
Some would argue that the British class system ensured that during the Industrial Revolution
charge hands and foremen were appointed from the best workers but there was no way forward from
that, the result being that the best practices were applied through having the best practitioners
in charge at the sharp end.
rodmclaughlin 26 Oct 2016 4:37
"he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global
economy and governs our politics."
Obviously, Donald Trump is not an "outsider" in the economic
sense. Trump definitely belongs to the ruling "caste", or rather, "class". But he is by no means
the perfect representative of it. "The global economy", or rather, "capitalism", thrives better
with the free movement of (cheap) labour than without it. Economically, poor Americans would be
better off with more immigration control.
And there's more too it than economics. There's the "culture wars" aspect. Many people
don't like being told they are "deplorable" for opposing illegal (or even legal) immigration.
They don't like being called "racist" for disagreeing with an ideology.
I like the phrase Monbiot ends with - "He is our system, stripped of its pretences" - it
reminds me of a phrase in the Communist Manifesto - but I don't think it's true. "Our" system
is more than capitalism, it's culture. And Clinton is a far more "perfect representation" of the
increasingly censorious, narrow [neo]liberal culture which dominates the Western world.
Finally, Monbiot misses the chance to contrast Clinton's and Trump's apparent differences
with regard to confronting nuclear-armed Russia over the skies of Syria. It could be like 1964
all over again - except in this election, the Democrat is the nearest thing to Barry Goldwater.
nishville 26 Oct 2016 4:40
As a life-long despiser of all things Trump, I cannot believe that I am saying this: Trump
is good for world peace. He might be crap for everything else but I for one will sleep much
better if he is elected POTUS.
dylan37 26 Oct 2016 4:40
Agree, for once, with a piece by George. Trump is nothing new - we've seen his kind of faux-outsider
thing before, but he's amplifying it with the skills of a carnival barker and the "what me?" shrug
of the everyman - when we all know he's not. The election result can't be rigged because the game
is fixed from the start. A potential president needs millions of dollars behind them to even think
about running, and then needs to repay those bought favours once in office. Trump may just win
this one though - despite the polls, poor human qualities and negative press - simply because
he's possibly tapped into a rich seam of anti-politics and a growing desire for anything different,
even if it's distasteful and deplorable. It's that difference that might make the difference,
even when it's actually just more of the same. It's all in the packaging.
greenwichite 26 Oct 2016 4:41
Donald Trump is a clumsy, nasty opportunist who has got one thing right - people don't want globalisation.
What people want, is clean, high-tech industries in their own countries, that automate the
processes we are currently offshoring. They would rather their clothes were made by robots in
Rochdale than a sweat-shop in India.
Same goes for energy imports: we want clean, local renewables.
What people don't want is large, unpleasant multinational corporations negotiating themselves
tax cuts and "free trade" with corrupt politicians like Hillary Clinton.
Just my opinion, of course...
TheSandbag -> greenwichite 26 Oct 2016 4:50
Your right about globalisation, but I think wrong about the automation bit. People want Jobs because
its the only way to survive currently and they see them being shipped to the country with the
easiest to exploit workforce. I don't think many of them realize that those jobs are never coming
back. The socioeconomic system we exist in doesn't work for 90% of the population who are surplus
to requirements for sustaining the other 10%.
Shadenfraude 26 Oct 2016 4:43
I fully agree with Monbiot, American democracy is a sham - the lobby system has embedded corruption
right in the heart of its body politic. Lets be clear here though, whatever is the problem with
American democracy can in theory at least be fixed, but Trump simply can not and moreover he is
not the answer.
... ... ...
oddballs 26 Oct 2016 5:24
Trump threatened Ford that if they closed down US car plants and moved them to Mexico he would
put huge import tariffs on their products making them to expensive.
Export of jobs to low wage countries, how do you think Americans feel when they buy 'sports
wear, sweater, t-shirts shoes that cost say 3 $ to import into the US and then get sold for20
or 50 times as much, by the same US companies that moved production out of the country.
The anger many Americans feel how their lively-hoods have been outsourced, is the lake of discontent
Trump is fishing for votes.
His opponent, war child and Wall Street darling can count her lucky stars that the media
leaves her alone (with husband Bill, hands firmly in his pockets, nodding approvingly) and concentrates
on their feeding frenzy attacking Trump on sexual allegations of abusing women, giving Hillery,
Yes, likely to tell lies, ( mendacious, remember when she claimed to be under enemy fire in Bosnia?
remember how evasive she was on the Benghazi attack on the embassy)
Yes Trump is a dangerous man running against an also extremely dangerous woman.
onepieceman 26 Oct 2016 5:31
Extremely interesting reference to the Madison paper, but the issue is less about the size
of the electorate, and more about the power that the election provides to the victor.
One positive outcome that I hope will come of all of this is that people might think a little
more carefully about how much power an incoming president (or any politician) should be given.
The complacent assumption about a permanently benign government is overdue for a shakeup.
peccadillo -> Dean Alexander 26 Oct 2016 5:43
Democracy in the US is so corrupted by money that it is no longer recognisable as democracy.
You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure
of politics is corrupt?
Having missed that bit, I wonder if you actually read the article.
tater 26 Oct 2016 5:46
The sad thing is that the victims of the corrupt economic and political processes are the small
town folk who try to see Trump as their saviour. The globalisation that the US promoted to expand
its hegemony had no safeguards to protect local economies from mega retail and finance corporations
that were left at liberty to strip wealth from localities. The Federal transfer payments that
might have helped compensate have been too small and were either corrupted pork barrel payments
or shameful social security payments. For a culture that prides itself on independent initiative
and self sufficiency this was always painful and that has made it all the easier for the lobbyists
to argue against increased transfer payments and the federal taxes they require. So more money
for the Trumps of this world.
And to the future. The US is facing the serious risk of a military take over. Already its foreign
policy emanates from the military and the corruption brings it ever closer to the corporations.
If the people don't demand better the coup will come.
MrMopp 26 Oct 2016 6:12
There's a reason turnout for presidential elections is barely above 50%.
Wised up, fed up Americans have long known their only choice is between a Coke or Pepsi President.
Well, this time they've got a Dr. Pepper candidate but they still know their democracy is just
a commodity to be bought and sold, traded and paraded; their elections an almost perpetual presidential
circus.
That a grotesque like Trump can emerge and still be within touching distance of the Whitehouse
isn't entirely down to the Democrats disastrous decision to market New Clinton Coke. Although
that's helped.
The unpalatable truth is, like Brexit, many Americans simply want to shake things up and shake
them up bigly, even if it means a very messy, sticky outcome.
Anyone with Netflix can watch the classic film, "Network" at the moment. And it is a film of
the moment.
"I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression.
Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth. Banks
are going bust. Shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street
and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the
air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TVs while some local
newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if
that's the way it's supposed to be.
We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is
going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living
in is getting smaller, and all we say is: 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms.
Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave
us alone.'
Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get MAD! I don't want you to protest. I
don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman, because I wouldn't know
what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and
the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. [shouting]
You've got to say: 'I'm a human being, god-dammit! My life has value!'
So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to
get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell: I'M AS MAD
AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!
I want you to get up right now. Sit up. Go to your windows. Open them and stick your head out
and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this anymore!' Things have got to change.
But first, you've gotta get mad!...You've got to say, I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO
TAKE THIS ANYMORE! Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and
the oil crisis. But first, get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and
yell, and say it: I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"
And that was in 1976. A whole lot of shit has happened since then but essentially, Coke is
still Coke and Pepsi is still Pepsi.
Forty years later, millions are going to get out of their chairs. They are going to vote. For
millions of Americans of every stripe, Trump is the "I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE
THIS ANYMORE", candidate.
And he's in with a shout.
André De Koning 26 Oct 2016 6:13
Trump is indeed the embodiment of our collective Shadow (As Jung called this unconscious side
of our Self). It does reflect the degeneration of the culture we live in where politics has turned
into a travesty; where all projections of this side are on the Other, the usual other who we can
collectively dislike. All the wars initiated by the US have started with a huge propaganda programme
to hate and project our own Shadow on to this other. Often these were first friends, whether in
Iran or Iraq, Libya: as soon as the oil was not for ""us" , they were depicted as monsters who
needed action: regime change through direct invasion and enormous numbers of war crimes or through
CIA programmed regime change, it all went according to shady plans and manipulation and lies lapped
up by the masses.
When you look at speeches and conversations and debates with the so-called bogeyman, Putin,
he is not at all in a league as low and vile as portrayed and says many more sensible things than
anybody cares to listen to, because we're all brainwashed. We are complicit in wars (now in Syria)
and cannot see why we have to connive with terrorists, tens of thousands of them, and they get
supported by the war machine and friends like Saudis and Turkey which traded for years with ISIS.
The Western culture has become more vile than we could have imagined and slowly, like the frog
in increasingly hot water, we have become used to neglecting most of the population of Syria and
focusing on the rebel held areas, totally unaware of what has happened to the many thousands who
have lived under the occupation by terrorists who come from abroad ad fight the proxy war for
the US (and Saudi and the EU). Trump dares to embody all this, as does Clinton the war hawk,
and shows us we are only capable of seeing one side and project all nastiness outward while we
can feel good about ourselves by hating the other.
It fits the Decline of an Empire image as it did in other Falls of Civilizations.
tashe222 26 Oct 2016 6:28
Lots of virtue signalling from Mr. M.
Trump spoke to the executives at Ford like no one before ever has. He told them if they
moved production to Mexico (as they plan to do) that he would slap huge tariffs on their cars
in America and no one would buy them.
Trump has said many stupid things in this campaign, but he has some independence and is not
totally beholden to vested interests, and so there is at least a 'glimmer' of hope for the future
with him as Potus.
Yes, when the Archdruid first posted that it helped me understand some of the forces that were
driving Trump's successes. I disagree with the idea that voting for Trump is a good idea because
it will bring change to a moribund system. Change is not a panacea and the type of change he is
likely to bring is not going to be pleasant.
Hanwell123 -> ArseButter 26 Oct 2016 6:59
What happens in Syria could be important to us all. Clinton doesn't hide her ambition to
drive Assad from power and give Russia a kicking. It's actually very unpopular although the media
doesn't like to say so; it prefers to lambast Spain for re-fueling Russian war ships off to fight
the crazed Jihadists as if we supported the religious fanatics that want to slaughter all Infidels!
There is an enormous gulf between what ordinary people want and the power crazy Generals in the
Pentagon and NATO.
unsubscriber 26 Oct 2016 6:43
George always writes so beautifully and so tellingly. My favourite sentence from this column is:
Their gleeful stoving in of faces, their cackling destruction of political safeguards and democratic
norms, their stomping on all that is generous and caring and cooperative in human nature, have
turned the party into a game of Mortal Kombat scripted by Breitbart News.
Cadmium 26 Oct 2016 6:51
Trump is not a misogynist, look the word up. He may be crude but that's not the same thing. He
also represents a lot more people than a tiny faction. He is also advocating coming down on lobbying,
which is good. He may be a climate change denier but that's because a lot of his supporters are,
he'd probably change if they did. The way to deal with it is with rational argument, character
assassination is counterproductive even if he himself does it. Although he seems to do it as a
reaction rather than as an attack. He probably has a lot higher chance of winning than most people
think since a lot of people outside the polls will feel represented by him and a lot of those
included in the polls may not vote for Hilary.
ID4755061 26 Oct 2016 6:52
George Monbiot is right. Trump is a conduit for primal stuff that has always been there and never
gone away. All the work that has been done to try to change values and attitudes, to make societies
more tolerant and accepting and sharing, to get rid of xenophobia and racism and the rest, has
merely supressed all these things. Also, while times were good (that hasn't been so for a long
time) most of this subterranean stuff got glossed over most of the time by some kind of feel good
factor and hope for a better future.
But once the protections have gone, if there is nothing to feel good about or there is little
hope left, the primitive fear of other and strange and different kicks back in. It's a basic survival
instinct from a time when everything around the human species was a threat and it is a fundamental
part of us and Trump and Palin at al before him have got this, even if they don't articulate it
this way, and it works and it will always work. It's a pure emotional response to threat that
we can't avoid, the only way out of it, whihc many of use use, is to use our intellects to challenge
the kick of emotion and see it for what it is and to understand the consequences of giving it
free reign. It's this last bit that Trump, Palin, Farage and their ilk just don't get and never
will, we aill always be fighting this fight.
PotholeKid 26 Oct 2016 6:56
Political culture includes the Clintons and Bushes, the Democratic party and Republican party.
exploring that culture using the DNC and Podesta leaks as reference, paints a much better picture
of the depth of depravity this culture represents..Trump is a symptom and no matter how much the
press focuses on maligning his character. The Clintons share a huge responsibility for the corruption
of the system. Mr. Monbiot would serve us well by looking at solutions for cleaning up the mess,
what Trumps likes to call "Draining the swamp"
lonelysoul72 26 Oct 2016 6:59
Trump for me , he is horrendous but Clinton is worse.
nooriginalthought 26 Oct 2016 7:06
"Democracy in the U.S. is so corrupted by money it is no longer recognisable as democracy."
Sounds like a quote from Frank Underwood. To catch a thief sometimes you need the services of
a thief. With a fair degree of certainty we can be sure a Clinton administration will offer us
continuity .
If that is what you think the world needs fine.
If you believe globalization to be of benefit only to the few .
If you believe Russia has no rights to a sphere of influence on its boarders.
If you believe America's self appointed role as world policemen a disaster.
If you believe trade agreements a backdoor to corporate control.
If your just pissed off with politicians .
Your probably going to vote Trump. Looking forward to a long list of articles here in November
prophecies of Armageddon a la brexit. You liberal lefties , you'll never learn. If you want to
know what people are thinking , you got to get out of the echochamber.
nooriginalthought -> aurlius 26 Oct 2016 7:45
Sorry , hate having to explain myself to the dim witted.
USA has got itself in an unholy mess . It's politicians no longer work for the people .
Their paymasters care not if life in Idaho resembles Dantes inferno .
Trump has many faults but being "not Hilary" is not one of them. The very fact he is disliked
by all the vested interests should make you take another look.
And remember , the American constitution has many checks and balances , a President has a lot
less power than most people imagine.
Pinkie123 26 Oct 2016 7:21
While it is impossible to credibly disagree with the general thrust of this, some of Monbiot's
assumptions exemplify problems with left-wing thinking at the moment.
But those traits ensure that he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his
caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics. He is our system, stripped
of its pretences.
Like many on the right, the left have unthinkingly accepted a narrative of an organized,
conspiratorial system run by an elite of politicians and plutocrats. The problem with this narrative
is it suggests politics and politicians are inherently nefarious, in turn suggesting there are
no political solutions to be sought to problems, or anything people can do to challenge a global
system of power. As Monbiot asks: "You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what
do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt?" Well, what indeed?
I think Monbiot a principled, intelligent left-wing commentator, but at the same time he epitomises
a left-wing retreat into pessimism in the face of a putatively global network of power and inevitable
environmental catastrophe. In reality, while there is no shortage of perfidious, corrupt corporate
interests dominating global economies, there is no organized system or shadowy establishment -
only a chaotic mess rooted in complex political problems. Once you accept that reality, then it
becomes possible to imagine political solutions to the quandaries confronting us. Rather than
just railing against realities, you can envision a new world to replace them. And a new kind of
world is something you very rarely get from the left these days. Unlike the utopian socialists
of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, there is little optimism or imagination - just anger,
pessimism and online echo chambers of 'clictivists'.
Like the documentarian Adam Curtis says, once you conclude that all politics is corrupt then
all you can do is sit there impotently and say: 'Oh dear'.
deltajones -> Pinkie123 26 Oct 2016 8:12
I don't think you need to believe in an organised conspiracy and I don't see any real evidence
that George Monbiot does. The trouble is that the corporate and political interests align in a
way that absorbs any attempt to challenge them and the narrative has been written that of course
politics is all about economics and of course we need mighty corporations to sustain us.
Even the left has largely taken on that narrative and it's seen as common sense. Challenging
this belief system is the toughest job that there is and we see that in the howling indignation
hurled at Jeremy Corbyn if he makes the slightest suggestion of nationalisation of the railways,
for instance.
ianfraser3 26 Oct 2016 7:29
Not long after the start of the presidential campaign I began to reflect that in Trump
we are seeing materializing before us the logical result of the neoliberal project, the ultimate
shopping spree, buy an election.
furiouspurpose -> IllusionOfFairness 26 Oct 2016 8:08
The Republican party essentially offered their base nothing – that was the problem.
They couldn't offer all the things that ordinary Americans want – better and wider Medicaid,
better and wider social security, tax increases on the rich, an end to pointless foreign wars
and the American empire. None of these things were acceptable to their funders so that only
left emotional issues – anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-god, pro-gun. And all of the emotional issues
are on the wrong side of history as the US naturally grows more politically progressive. So the
Republican party couldn't even deliver on the emotionally driven agenda. I think their base realised
that they were being offered nothing – and that's why they turned to Trump. Perhaps a fascist
blowhard could bulldoze the system to deliver on the emotional side of the offer. That's why Trump
broke through
The Democrats have largely the same funding base, but they at least deliver crumbs – at
least a nod to the needs of ordinary people through half-hearted social programmes. In the
end the African Americans decided that Hillary could be relied upon to deliver some crumbs – so
they settled for that. That's why Sanders couldn't break through.
fairleft 26 Oct 2016 7:55
Trump is imperfect because he wants normal relations rather than war with Russia. No, Hillary
Clinton is the ultimate representation of the system that is abusing us. What will occur when
Goldman Sachs and the military-industrial complex coalition get their, what is it, 5th term in
office would be a great subject of many Guardian opinion pieces, actually. But that will have
to wait till after November 8.
Such commentary would be greatly aided the Podesta emails, which enlighten us as to the mind
and 'zeitgeist' of the HIllary team. And, of course, we also have Hillary's Wall Street speeches
-- thanks to Wikileaks we have the complete transcripts, in case Guardian readers are unaware.
They expose the real thinking and 'private positions' of the central character in the next episode
of 'Rule by Plutocracy'.
But, of course, opinion columns and think pieces on the Real Hillary and the Podesta emails
will have to wait ... forever.
toffee1 26 Oct 2016 7:58
Trump shows the true face of the ruling class with no hypocrisy. He is telling us the truth.
If we have a democracy, we should have a party representing the interests of the business class,
why not. The democrats is the party practicing hypocrisy, pretending that they somehow representing
the interest of the working class. They are the ones spreading lies and hypocrisy and manipulating
the working class everyday through their power over the media. Their function is to appease the
working class. The real obstacle for improving conditions for the working class historically has
always been the Democratic party, not the Republican party.
Kikinaskald Cadmium 26 Oct 2016 8:39
In fact presidents don't usually have much affect, they're prey to their advisors. Generally true.
But Obama was able to show that he was able to distance himself up to a certain point from what
was around him. He was aware of the power of the establishment and of their bias. So, when the
wave against Iran was as strong as never before, he made a deal with Iran. He also didn't want
to intervene more actively in Syria and even in what concerns Russia, he seems to have moderate
positions.
In what concerns foreign politics, Trump some times seems more reasonable than Clinton
and the establishment. Clinton is the best coached politician of all times. She doesn't know that
she's coached. She just followed the most radical groups and isn't able to question anything at
all. The only thing that the coaches didn't fix until now is her laughing which is considered
even by her coaches as a sign of weirdness.
Kikinaskald -> J.K. Stevens 26 Oct 2016 9:09
She is considered to be highly aggressive, she pushed for the bombing of a few countries and
intervening everywhere..
Unfortunately all politics in the west is based on a similar model with our own domestic landscape
perhaps most closely resembling that in the US. We've always been peddled convenient lies of course,
but perhaps as society itself becomes more polarised [in terms of distribution of wealth and the
social consequences of that], the dissonance with the manufactured version of reality becomes
ever sharper. It is deeply problematic because traditional popular media is dominated by the wealthy
elite and the reality it depicts is as much a reflection of the consensual outlook of that elite
as it is deliberate, organised mendacity [although there's plenty of that too].
Western economies are now so beholden to the patronage of the essentially stateless multinational,
it has become a political imperative to appease their interests - it's difficult to see a future
in which an administration might resist this force, because at its whim, national economies face
ruination. In light of such helplessness our political representatives face an easier path in
simply accepting their lot as mere administrators who will tinker at the margins [and potentially
reap the rewards of a good servant], rather than hold to principle and resist an overwhelming
force.
Meanwhile the electorate is become increasingly disaffected by this mainstream of politics
who they [rightly] sense is no longer truly representative of their interests in any substantive
way. To this backdrop the media has made notable blunders in securing the status quo. It has revealed
the corruption and self-seeking of many in politics and promoted the widespread distrust of mainstream
politicians for a variety of reasons. While the corruption is real and endemic, howls of protest
against political 'outsiders' from this same press is met with with the view that the political
establishment cannot be trusted engendered by the same sources.
The narrative for Brexit is somewhat similar. For many years the EU was the whipping boy for
all our ills and the idea that it is fundamentally undemocratic in contrast to our own system,
so unchallenged that it is taken for fact, even by the reasonably educated. Whilst I'm personally
deflated and not a little worried by our exit, it comes as little surprise that a distorted perspective
on the EU has led to a revolt against it.
There are of course now very many alternative narratives to those which are the preserve of
monied media magnates, but they're disparate, fractured and unfocused.
Only the malaise has any sort of consistency about it and it is bitterly ironic that figures
like Trump and Farage can so effectively plug into that in the guise of outsiders, to offer spurious
alternatives to that which is so desperately needed. It's gloomy stuff.
Western economies are now so beholden to the patronage of the essentially stateless
multinational, it has become a political imperative to appease their interests - it's difficult
to see a future in which an administration might resist this force, because at its whim, national
economies face ruination. In light of such helplessness our political representatives face
an easier path in simply accepting their lot as mere administrators who will tinker at the
margins [and potentially reap the rewards of a good servant], rather than hold to principle
and resist an overwhelming force.
I have been an advocate of this point for a long time.There is a saying in politics in America
that'' the only difference between a Democrat and a Republican is the speed at which they drop
to their knees when big business walks into the room''.
How it is going to be stopped or indeed if there is the will to do so,I do not know. The proponents
and those who have most to lose have been incredibly successful in propagating the myth that 'you
to can have what I have'and have convinced a sizeable minority that there is no alternative.
Until that changes and is exposed for the illusion that it is ,we are I fear heading for something
far worse than we have now.
"Trump personifies the traits promoted by the media and corporate worlds he affects
to revile; the worlds that created him. He is the fetishisation of wealth, power and image
in a nation where extrinsic values are championed throughout public discourse. His conspicuous
consumption, self-amplification and towering (if fragile) ego are in tune with the dominant
narratives of our age."
Because this is who we are and this is how we role. We got on rickety ships and braved the
cowardly waters to reach these shores, with tremendous realworld uncertainty and absolute religious
zeal. We are the manly men and womanly women who manifested our destiny, endured the cruel nature
naturing, and civilized the wild wild west, at the same time preserving our own wildness and rugged
individualism. Why should we go all soft and namby-pamby with this social safety nonsense? Let
the roadkills expire with dignified indignity on the margins of the social order. We will bequeath
a glorious legacy to the Randian ubermenschen who will inherit this land from us. They will live
in Thielian compounds wearing the trendiest Lululemons. They will regularly admonish their worses
with chants of: "Do you want to live? Pay, pal". If we go soft, if we falter, how will we ever
be able to look in the eye the ghosts of John Wayne, Marion Morrison, Curtis LeMay, Chuck Heston,
Chuck Norris, and the Great Great Ronnie Himself? Gut-check time folks, suck it up and get on
with the program.
"The political constitution of the United States is not, as Madison envisaged, representation
tempered by competition between factions. The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal."
The Founders had a wicked sense of humor. They set up the structure of various branches so
as to allow for the possibility of a future take-over by the Funders. That leaves room for the
exorbitant influence of corporations and wealthy individuals and the rise of the Trumps, leading
to the eventual fall into a Mad Max world.
"Yes, [Trump] is a shallow, mendacious, boorish and extremely dangerous man. But those traits
ensure that he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that
runs the global economy and governs our politics. He is our system, stripped of its pretences."
It is irrelevant if everyone sees the emperor/system has no clothes, it quite enjoys walking
around naked now that it has absolute power.
'It is irrelevant if everyone sees the emperor/system has no clothes, it quite enjoys
walking around naked now that it has absolute power.'
Yes, they don't care any more if we see the full extent of their corruption as we've given
up our power to do anything about it.
chiefwiley -> Luftwaffe 26 Oct 2016 9:31
It was once very common to see Democratic politicians as neighbors attending every community
event. They were Teamsters, pipe fitters, and electricians. And they were coaches and ushers and
pallbearers. Now they are academics and lawyers and NGO employees and managers who pop up during
campaigns.
The typical income of the elected Democrats outside their government check is north of $100,000.
They don't live in, or even wander through, the poorer neighborhoods. So they are essentially
clueless that government services like busses are run to suit government and not actual customers.
It's sort of nice to have somebody looking after our interests in theory, but it would
be at least polite if they deemed to ask us what we think our best interests are. Notice the nasty
names and attributes being hurled at political "dissidents," especially around here, and there
should be little wonder why many think the benevolent and somewhat single minded and authoritarian
left is at least part of their problems.
ghstwrtrx7 -> allblues 26 Oct 2016 14:02
Yea, 15 years of constant wars of empire with no end in sight has pretty much ran this
country in the ground.
We all talk about how much money is wasted by the federal government on unimportant endeavors
like human services and education, but don't even bat an eye about the sieve of money that is
the Pentagon.
Half a trillion dollars for aircraft carriers we don't need and are already obsolete. China
is on the verge of developing wickedly effective anti-ship missiles designed specifically to target
these Gerald R. Ford-class vessels. You might as well paint a huge bull's-eye on these ships'
4-1/2 acre flight deck.
And then there there's the most egregious waste of money our historically over-bloated defense
budget has ever seen: The Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter. Quite a mouthful,
isn't? When you hear how much this boondoggle costs the American taxpayer, you'll choke: $1.5
Trillion, with a t. What's even more retching is that aside from already being obsolete, it doesn't
even work.
There are plenty more examples of this crap and this doesn't even include the nearly TWO
trillion dollars we've spent this past decade-and-a-half on stomping flat the Middle East and
large swaths of the Indian subcontinent.
And all this time, our nation's infrastructure is crumbling literally right out from underneath
us and millions upon millions of children and their families experience a daily struggle just
to eat. Eat?! In the "greatest," wealthiest nation on earth and we prefer to kill people at weddings
with drones than feed our own children.
I can't speak for anyone else other than myself, but that, boys and girls, has a decided miasma
of evil about it.
transplendent 26 Oct 2016 9:49
I'd like to read an unbiased piece about why the media narrative doesn't match the reality
of the Trump phenomenon. He is getting enormous crowds attend his rallies but hardly any coverage
of that in the filtered news outlets. Hillary, is struggling to get anyone turn up without paying
them. There is no real enthusiasm.
If Hillary doesn't win by a major landslide (and I mean BIGLY) as the MSM would lead us to
believe she is going to, it could be curtains for the media, as what little credibility that is
not already swirling around the plughole will disappear down it once and for all.
The buzzwords and tired old catch phrases and cliches used by the left to suppress any
alternative discussion, and divert from their own misdemeanors are fooling no one but themselves.
Trump supporters simply don't care any more how Hillary supporters explain that she lied about
dodging sniper fire. Or the numerous other times she and her cohorts have been caught out telling
fibs.
leftofstalin 26 Oct 2016 10:06
Sorry George YOU and the chattering classes you represent are the reason for the rise of the
far right blinded by the false promises of new labour and it's ilk the working classes have been
demonized as striking troublemakers benefit frauds racists uneducated bigots etc etc and going
by the comments on these threads from remainders you STILL don't understand the psyche of the
working class
Gary Ruddock 26 Oct 2016 10:07
When Obama humiliated Trump at that dinner back in 2011 he may have set a course for his own
destruction. Lately, Obama does not appear anywhere near as confident as he once did.
Perhaps Trump has seen the light, seen the error of his ways, maybe he realizes if he doesn't
stand up against the system, then no one will.
transplendent 26 Oct 2016 10:38
Trump's only crime, is he buys into the idea of national identity and statehood (along with
every other nation state in the world mind you), and Hillary wants to kick down the doors and
hand over the US to Saudi Arabia and any international vested interest who can drop a few dollars
into the foundation coffers. I can't see Saudi Arabia throwing open the doors any day soon, unless
it is onto a one way street.
N.B. The Russians are not behind it.
gjjwatson 26 Oct 2016 11:10
Very true. Throughout history the rich, the powerful, the landed, ennobled interest and
their friends in the Law and money changing houses have sought to control governments and have
usually succeeded.
In the Media today the rich are fawned over by sycophantic journalists and programme makers.
These are the people who make the political weather and create the prevailing narratives.
I remember when President Reagan railed against government whilst he was in office, he said
the worst words a citizen could hear were "I`m from the government, I`m here to help you".
Working class people fancied themselves to above the common herd and thought themselves
part of some elite.
All of this chimes of course with American history and it`s constitution written by slave owning
colonists who proclaimed that "all men are created equal".
bonhiver 26 Oct 2016 12:10
It's quite disturbing the lengths this paper will go to in order to slur and discredit
Trump, labelling him dangerous and alluding to the sexual assault allegations. This even goes
so far to a very lengthy article regarding Trumps lack of knowledge on the Rumbelows Cup 25 years
ago.
Whereas very little examination is made into Hillary Clinton's background which includes
serious allegation of fraud and involvement in assisting in covering up her husband's alleged
series of rapes. There are also issues in the wikileaks emails that merit analysis as well as
undercover tapes of seioau issues with her campaign team.
Whereas it is fair to criticise Trump for a lot of stuff it does appear that there is no attempt
at balance as Clinton's faults appear to get covered up om this paper.
Whereas I can not vote in the US elections and therefore the partisan reporting has no substantive
effect on how I may vote or act it is troubling that a UK newspaper does not provide the reader
with an objective as possible reporting on the presidential race.
It suggests biased reporting elsewhere.
thevisitor2015 26 Oct 2016 12:46
One of the most important characteristics of the so-called neoliberalism is its negative
selection. While mostly successfully camouflaged, that negative selection is more than obvious
this time, in two US presidential candidates. It's hard to imagine lower than those two.
seamuspadraig 26 Oct 2016 13:37
Well, OK George. Tell me: if Trump's such an establishment candidate, then why does the
whole of the establishment unanimously reject him? Is it normal for Republicans (such as the Bushes
and the neocons) to endorse Democrats? Why does even the Speaker of the House (a Republican) and
even, on occasion, Trump's own Vice-Presidential nominee seem to be trying to undermine his campaign?
If Trump is really just more of the same as all that came before, why is he being treated different
by the MSM and the political establishment?
Obviously, there's something flawed about your assumption.
CharlesPDXOr -> seamuspadraig 26 Oct 2016 13:58
I think the answer to your question is in the article: because Trump has brought the truth
of the monied class into the open. He is a perfect example of all that class is and tries to pretend
it is not. And when the commoners see this in front of them, a whole lot of them are disgusted
by it. That doesn't sit well back in the country club and the boardroom, where they work so hard
to keep all of that behind closed doors. They hate him because he is one of them and is spilling
the beans on all of them.
bill9651 26 Oct 2016 13:01
Trump has exposed the corruption of the political system and the media and has promised to
put a stop to it. By contrast, Clinton is financed by the very banks, corporates and financial
elites who are responsible for the corruption. This Trump speech is explicit on what we all suspected
is going on. Everybody should watch it, irrespective of whether they support him or not!
Michael Moore explaining why a lot of people like him
"I know a lot of people in Michigan that are planning to vote for Trump and they don't necessarily
agree with him. They're not racist or redneck, they're actually pretty decent people and so after
talking to a number of them I wanted to write this.
Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of Ford Motor executives
and said "if you close these factories as you're planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico,
I'm going to put a 35% tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody's going to buy
them." It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything
like that to these executives, and it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - the "Brexit" states.
You live here in Ohio, you know what I'm talking about. Whether Trump means it or not, is kind
of irrelevant because he's saying the things to people who are hurting, and that's why every beaten-down,
nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves
Trump. He is the human Molotov Cocktail that they've been waiting for; the human hand grande that
they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them. And on November 8, although
they lost their jobs, although they've been foreclose on by the bank, next came the divorce and
now the wife and kids are gone, the car's been repoed, they haven't had a real vacation in years,
they're stuck with the shitty Obamacare bronze plan where you can't even get a fucking percocet,
they've essentially lost everything they had except one thing - the one thing that doesn't cost
them a cent and is guaranteed to them by the American constitution: the right to vote.
They might be penniless, they might be homeless, they might be fucked over and fucked up it doesn't
matter, because it's equalized on that day - a millionaire has the same number of votes as the
person without a job: one. And there's more of the former middle class than there are in the millionaire
class. So on November 8 the dispossessed will walk into the voting booth, be handed a ballot,
close the curtain, and take that lever or felt pen or touchscreen and put a big fucking X in the
box by the name of the man who has threatened to upend and overturn the very system that has ruined
their lives: Donald J Trump.
They see that the elite who ruined their lives hate Trump. Corporate America hates Trump. Wall
Street hates Trump. The career politicians hate Trump. The media hates Trump, after they loved
him and created him, and now hate. Thank you media: the enemy of my enemy is who I'm voting for
on November 8.
Yes, on November 8, you Joe Blow, Steve Blow, Bob Blow, Billy Blow, all the Blows get to go
and blow up the whole goddamn system because it's your right. Trump's election is going to be
the biggest fuck you ever recorded in human history and it will feel good."
Michael Moore
Debreceni 26 Oct 2016 14:15
Mrs Clinton is also the product of our political culture. A feminist who owes everything
to her husband and men in the Democratic Party. A Democrat who started her political career as
a Republican; a civil right activist who worked for Gerry Goldwater, one of last openly racist/segregationist
politicians. A Secretary of State who has no clue about, or training in, foreign policy, and who
received her position as compensation for losing the election. A pacifist, who has never had a
gun in her hands, but supported every war in the last twenty years. A humanist who rejoiced over
Qaddafi's death ("we came, we won, he is dead!") like a sadist.
Both candidates have serious weaknesses. Yet Trump is very much an American character, his
vices and weaknesses are either overlooked, or widely shared, secretively respected and even admired
(even by those who vote against him). Clinton's arrogance, elitism and hypocrisy, coupled with
her lack of talent, charisma and personality, make her an aberration in American politics.
BabylonianSheDevil03 26 Oct 2016 15:26
One thing that far right politics offers the ordinary white disaffected voter is 'pay back',
it is a promised revenge-fest, putting up walls, getting rid of foreigners, punishing employers
of foreigners, etc., etc. All the stuff that far right groups have wet dreams about.
Farage used the same tactics in the UK. Le Pen is the same.
Because neoliberal politics has left a hell of a lot of people feeling pissed off, the
far right capitalizes on this, whilst belonging to the same neoliberal dystopia so ultimately
not being able to make good on their promises. Their promises address a lot of people's anger,
which of course isn't really about foreigners at all, that is simply the decoy, but cutting through
all the crap to make that clear is no easy task, not really sure how it can be done, certainly
no political leader in the western hemisphere has the ability to do so.
ProseBeforeHos 26 Oct 2016 15:45
"But those traits ensure that he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste,
the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics."
Wrong as always. Trump *is* an outsider. He's an unabashed nationalist who's set him up
against the *actual* caste that governs our politics: Neo-liberal internationalists with socially
trendy left-liberal politics (but not so left that they don't hire good tax lawyers to avoid paying
a fraction of what they are legally obliged to).
Best represented in the Goldman Sachs executives who are donating millions to Hillary Clinton
because they are worried about Trump's opposition to free trade, and they know she will give them
*everything* they want.
Trumps the closest thing we're gotten to a genuine threat to the system in a long, long
time, so of course George Monbiot and the rest of the Guardian writers has set themselves against
him, because if you're gonna be wrong about the EU, wrong about New Labour, wrong about social
liberalism, wrong about immigration, why change the habit of a lifetime?
aofeia1224 26 Oct 2016 16:09
"What is the worst thing about Donald Trump? The lies? The racist stereotypes? The misogyny?
The alleged gropings? The apparent refusal to accept democratic outcomes?"
Lies: Emails, policy changes based on polls showing a complete lack of conviction, corporate
collusion, Bosnia, Clinton Foundation, war mongering, etc.
Racist stereotypes: Super predators. Misogyny: Aside from her laughing away her pedophile case
and allegedly threatening the women who came out against Bill, you've also got this sexist gem
"Women are the primary victims of war".
Alleged gropings: Well she's killed people by texting. So unless your moral compass is
so out of whack that somehow a man JOKING about his player status in private is worse than Clinton's
actions throughout her political career, then I guess you could make the case that Clinton at
least doesn't have this skeleton in her closet.
Refusal to accept democratic outcomes: No. He's speaking out against the media's collusion
with the democratic party favoring Clinton over every other nominee, including Bernie Sanders.
He's talking about what was revealed in the DNC leaks and the O'Keefe tapes that show how dirty
the tactics have been in order to legally persuade the voting public into electing one person
or the other.
Besides that, who cares about his "refusal" to accept the outcome? The American people protested
when Bush won in 2000 saying it was rigged. Same goes with Obama saying the same "anti democratic"
shit back in 2008 in regards to the Bush Administration.
Pot call kettle black
caravanserai 26 Oct 2016 16:16
Republicans are crazy and their policies make little sense. Neo-conservatism? Trickle down
economics? Getting the poor to pay for the mess created by the bankers in 2008? Trump knows what
sells to his party's base. He throws them red meat. However, the Democrats are not much better.
They started to sell out when Bill Clinton was president. They pretend to still be the party of
the New Deal, but they don't want to offend Wall Street. US democracy is in trouble.
rooolf 26 Oct 2016 16:24
When do the conspiracy theories about the criminality of his opponent no longer count as
conspiracies? When we have a plethora of emails confirming there is indeed fire next to that smoke,
corruption fire, collusion fire, fire of contempt for the electorate. When we have emails confirming
the Saudi Arabians are actually funding terrorist schools across the globe, emails where Hilary
herself admits it, but will not say anything publicly about terrorism and Saudi Arabia, what's
conspiracy and what's reality?
Is it because Saudi Arabia funded her foundation with $23 million, or because it doesn't
fit with her great 'internationalists' global agenda?
Either way there seems to be some conspiring of some sort
When is it no longer theory? And where does the guardian fit into this corrupted corporate
media idea?
Yep trump is a buffoon, but the failure of all media to deliver serious debate means the
US is about to elect someone probably more dangerous than trump, how the hell can that be
What the author overlooks is the media's own complicity in allowing this to develop
Unfortunately the corruption of the system is so entrenched it takes an abnormality like trump
to challenge it
Hard to believe, but trump is a once in a lifetime opportunity to shake shit up, not a pleasant
one, in fact a damn ugly opportunity, but the media shut him down, got all caught up in self preservation
and missed the opportunity
it what comes next that is scary
BScHons -> rooolf 26 Oct 2016 17:09
Nothing wrong with a liberal internationalist utopia, it sounds rather good and worth striving
for. It's just that what they've been pushing is actually a neoliberal globalist nirvana for the
1 per cent
rooolf BScHons 26 Oct 2016 17:17
Totally agree
The problem is the left this paper represents were bought off with the small change by
neoliberalism, and they expect the rest of us to suck it up so the elites from both sides can
continue the game
Talking about the environment and diversity doesn't cut it
mrjonno 26 Oct 2016 17:02
Well said as ever George. Humanity is in a total mess as we near the end of the neoliberal
model. That the USA has a choice between two 'demopublicans' is no choice at all.
I would go further in your analysis - media controlled by these sociopaths has ensured that our
society shares the same values - we are a bankrupt species as is.
As long as you are here to provide sensible analysis, along with Peter Joseph, I have hope
that we can pull out of the nosedive that we are currently on a trajectory for.
Thank you for your sane input into an otherwise insane world. Thank you Mr Monbiot.
annedemontmorency 26 Oct 2016 19:08
We'll ignore the part about the inability to accept democratic outcomes since that afflicts
so many people and organisations - Brexit , anyone?
More to the point is how the summit of US politics produces candidates like Trump and Clinton.
Clinton is suffering the same damage the LibDems received during their coalition with the Tories
.Proximity to power exposed their inadequacies and hypocrisy in both cases.
Trump - unbelievably - remains a viable candidate but only because Hillary Clinton reeks of
graft and self interest.
The obvious media campaign against Trump could also backfire - voters know a hatchet job when
they see one - they watch House of Cards.
But politics is odd around the whole world.
The Guardian is running a piece about the Pirate party in Iceland.
Why go so far? - the most remarkable coup in recent politics was UKIP forcing a vote on the
EU which it not only won it did so in spite of only ever having ONE MP out of 630.
Trump may be America's UKIP - he resembles them in so many ways.
ID6209069 26 Oct 2016 20:35
It's possible that something like this was inevitable, in a nation which is populated by "consumers"
rather than as citizens. There are "valuable demographics" versus those that aren't worthy of
the attention of the constant bombardment of advertising. I jokingly said last year that as I
was turning 55 last year, I am no longer in the 'coveted 29-54 demo'. My worth as a consumer has
been changed merely by reaching a certain age, so I now see fewer ads about cars and electronics
and more about prescription medicines. The product of our media is eyeballs, not programs or articles.
The advertising is the money maker, the content merely a means of luring people in for a sales
pitch, not to educate or inform. If that structure sells us a hideous caricature of a successful
person and gives him political power, as long as the ad dollars keep rolling in.
GreyBags 26 Oct 2016 21:19
This is the culmination of living in a post-truth political world. Lies and smears, ably
supported by the corporate media and Murdoch in particular means that the average person who doesn't
closely follow politics is being misinformed.
The complete failure of right wing economic 'theories' means they only have lies, smears
and the old 'divide and conquer' left in their arsenal. 'Free speech' is their attempt to get
lies and smears equal billing with the truth. All truth on the other hand must be suppressed.
All experts and scientists who don't regurgitate the meaningless slogans of the right will be
ignored, traduced, defunded, disbanded or silenced by law.
We see the same corrupted philosophy in Australia as well.
JamesCameron 7d ago
Yet Trump, the "misogynist, racist and bigot"' has more women in executive and managerial positions
than any comparable company, pays these women the same or more than their male counterparts and
fought the West Palm Beach City Council to be allowed to open his newly purchased club to blacks
and Jews who had been banned until then. I suspect his views do chime with Americans fed up with
political correctness gone mad as well as the venality of the administration of Barak Obama, a
machine politician with dodgy bagmen from Chicago – the historically corrupt city in Illinois,
the most corrupt state in the Union. Finally, unlike The Hilary, he has actually held down a job,
worked hard and achieved success and perhaps they are more offended by what she does than what
he says.
aucourant 7d ago
Not so much an article about Trump as much as a rant. George Monbiot writes with the utter
conviction of one who mistakenly believes that his readers share his bigotry. When he talks about
the 'alleged gropings' or the 'alleged refusal to accept democratic outcomes', that is exactly
what they are 'alleged'.
The Democratic Party has been dredging up porn-stars and wannabe models who now make claims
that Trump tried to 'kiss them without asking'. This has become the nightly fare of the mainstream
media in the USA. At the same time the media ignores the destruction of Clinton's emails, the
bribing of top FBI officials who are investigating the destroyed tapes and the giving of immunity
to all those who aided Clinton in hiding and destroying subpoenaed evidence.
The press also ignored the tapes of the DNC paying thugs to cause violence at Trump rallies,
the bribes paid to the Clintons for political favours and the stealing of the election from Bernie
Sanders. Trump is quite right to think the 'democratic outcome' is being fixed. Not only were
the votes for Sanders manipulated, but Al Gore's votes were also altered and manipulated to ensure
a win for Bush in the 2000 presidential election. The same interests who engineered the 2000 election
have switched from supporting the Republican Party to supporting Clinton.
Anomander64 6d ago
Great article. The neoliberals have been able to control the narrative and in doing so
have managed to scapegoat all manner of minority groups, building anger among those disaffected
with modern politics. Easy targets - minorities, immigrants, the poor, the disadvantaged and the
low-paid workers.
The real enemy here are those sitting atop the corporate tree, but with the media controlled
by them, the truth is never revealed.
mochilero7687 5d ago
Perhaps next week George will write in detail about all the scandals Hildabeast has caused
and been involved in over the past 40 years - which have cost the US govt tens of millions of
dollars and millions of man hours - but I won't be holding my breath.
"... With US belief in "conspiracy theory" over 50 percent (see our previous article here ) elites are showing increasingly concern that they have lost control of their narrative. ..."
"... The article explains that if people grow paranoid about government, then the "norms" of government will collapse. ..."
"... The article also has parallels to an article we analyzed recently here by Cass Sunstein. His Bloomberg editorial suggested that nothing was more important from a political standpoint than returning "civility" to Congress and politics generally. ..."
"... The NeoCons will take the United States in the same direction it is going until its' bust. Endless war, run down infrastructure and poverty is the future. Tax receipts are falling fast and government can't pay the big bills with service sector jobs. ..."
"... Decommissioning the plethora of foreign airbases and dismantling NATO would see the Bankster/MIC die a death. Gotta starve those beasts pronto. ..."
"... "Conspiracy theory is called "paranoid politics" in this article but it amounts to the same thing." ..."
"... "conspiracy theory" ..."
"... "paranoid" ..."
"... "we should" ..."
"... "paranoid politics" ..."
"... "good" ..."
"... necessarily controlled ..."
"... "The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are." ..."
With US belief in "conspiracy theory" over 50 percent (see our previous article
here ) elites are showing increasingly concern that they have lost control of their narrative.
This article again illustrates elite push back. The article explains that if people grow paranoid
about government, then the "norms" of government will collapse.
Conspiracy theory is called "paranoid politics" in this article but it amounts to the same thing.
The article also has parallels to an article we analyzed recently
here
by Cass Sunstein. His Bloomberg editorial suggested that nothing was more important from a political
standpoint than returning "civility" to Congress and politics generally.
This article runs along the same lines: Negative perceptions of the US government can make the
process of "governing" dysfunctional.
Herdee •Nov 1, 2016 12:13 AM
The NeoCons will take the United States in the same direction it is going until its' bust.
Endless war, run down infrastructure and poverty is the future. Tax receipts are falling fast
and government can't pay the big bills with service sector jobs.
WTFUD •Oct 31, 2016 11:14 PM
Major Civil Unrest is required in the USSofA to alleviate the pressure on Russia, the Elites'
would be bogeyman. The rest of the world would benefit too.
Decommissioning the plethora of foreign airbases and dismantling NATO would see the Bankster/MIC
die a death. Gotta starve those beasts pronto.
PoasterToaster •Oct 31, 2016 10:30 PM
Bankers hiding behind "government" and using the moral authority it carries in people's heads
to carry out their dirty deeds. But now the people have seen behind the curtain and the dope at
the controls has been found wanting. Writing is on the wall for them and they know it.
"The rise of paranoid politics could make America ungovernable"
We in America aren't supposed to be "governed". And our state of mind is none of your goddamned
business.
One of the most delightful ironies (to those with a sufficiently macabre sense of humour) is that
declassified CIA documents from the 1960s have proven that the mass media promotion of the
"conspiracy theory" meme was deliberately developed by the CIA, using their media assets.
Many people have developed ways to discuss the relatively slim differences between being "paranoid"
versus being realistic. After several decades of enjoying the luxury to
spend most of my time attempting to understand the political processes, my conclusion has always
been that THE MORE I LEARNED, THE WORSE IT GOT.
It is barely possible to exaggerate the degree to which "we should" seriously consider
"paranoid politics" as being the most realistic. Governments
are only "good" in the sense that they are the biggest forms of organized crime,
dominated by the best organized gangs of criminals. In my view, that conclusion can both
be derived from the basic principles of the ways that general energy systems operate, as well
as empirically confirmed by an overwhelming abundance of well-documented evidence. Indeed, more
rational evidence and logical arguments result in that any deeper analysis of politics ALWAYS
discovers and demonstrates the ways that civilization is necessarily controlled
by applications of the methods of organized crime, whose excessive successfulness are more and
more spinning out of control.
As H.L. Menchen stated:
"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out
for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably
he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and
intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic
personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are."
The important things which most governments DO,
that are "dishonest, insane and intolerable,"
are ENFORCE FRAUDS by private banks.
Given those social FACTS, it is barely possible to develop a sufficiently
"paranoid politics," to encompass the degree to which the existing
political economy, based upon enforcing frauds, is being driven by advancing technologies
towards becoming exponentially more fraudulent. The problem is NOT that some
people are becoming too critical, but that the majority of them have not yet become critical enough
... "We need" to go beyond being merely superficially cynical, in order to become profoundly
cynical enough to perhaps cope with how and why governments ARE the biggest forms of organized
crime, dominated by the best organized gangs of criminals.
In my view, most of the content published on Zero Hedge, which engages in various
superficially correct analyses of those problems, tends to never engage in deeper levels of analysis,
due to the degree to which the resulting conclusions are way worse than anything which could be
adequately admitted and addressed. Rather, it is barely possible to exaggerate the degree to which
one is justifiably paranoid about the ways that the ruling classes in
Globalized Neolithic Civilization are becoming increasingly psychotic psychopaths:
THE EXCESSIVE SUCCESSFULNESS OF CONTROLLING CIVILIZATION
BY APPLICATIONS OF THE VARIOUS METHODS OF ORGANIZED CRIME
HAS RESULTED IN CIVILIZATION MANIFESTING CRIMINAL INSANITY!
Radical Marijuana -> medium giraffe •Nov 1, 2016 12:25 AM
Yes, mg, the CIA, in ways which were, of course, ILLEGAL, attempted to discredit those who
did not believe the official story regarding the assination of President Kennedy.
The most relevant conclusion of that documentary was that, at the highest levels, there is
no difference, because they blend together, between organized crime and government agencies such
as the CIA, which was effectively the American branch of the secret police employed by the international
bankers.
Again, if you really believed that Hillary ever had a 12 point lead over Trump I've got
news for you. Functionally tied even with a +8 Dem oversampling. Brace for a Trumpslide.
This was even BEFORE the FBI announcement.
I found a
surprisingly good article on BBC news this morning addressing whether Trump can pull off
the election. The poor predictions of Brexit vote outcome have clearly raised concerns
about polling accuracy. A key point was that "Some 2.8 million people - about 6% of the
electorate - who had not voted for decades, if ever, turned up at the polling stations on
23 June and almost all of them voted to leave the EU."
The article covers a broad range of issues raising uncertainty in elections like the
impact of cellphone use and the increasing reluctance of the public to answer surveys.
It suggests that there is probably more uncertainty in all of the presidential race
polling than is being admitted – with some emphasis on the limits of "proprietary 'likely
voter' models used by most polling companies. The article ends quoting Nate Silver
suggesting that many pollsters have not factored enough uncertainty into their models..
The success of [civil rights and anti-apartheid] movements did not end racism, but drove
it underground, allowing neoliberals to exploit racist and tribalist political support while
pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white)
poor.
That coalition has now been replaced by one in which the tribalists and racists are dominant.
For the moment at least, [hard] neoliberals continue to support the parties they formerly controlled,
with the result that the balance of political forces between the right and the opposing coalition
of soft neoliberals and the left has not changed significantly.
There's an ambiguity in this narrative and in the three-party analysis.
Do we acknowledge that the soft neoliberals in control of the coalition that includes the inchoate
left also "exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests of wealth
and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor."? They do it with a different
style and maybe with some concession to economic melioration, as well as supporting anti-racist
and feminist policy to keep the inchoate left on board, but . . .
The new politics of the right has lost faith in the hard neoliberalism that formerly furnished
its policy agenda of tax cuts for the rich, war in the Middle East and so on, leaving the impure
resentment ungoverned and unfocused, as you say.
The soft neoliberals, it seems to me, are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism
and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil.
The problem of how to oppose racism and tribalism effectively is now entangled with soft neoliberal
control of the remaining party coalition, which is to say with the credibility of the left party
as a vehicle for economic populism and the credibility of economic populism as an antidote for
racism or sexism. (cf js. @ 1,2)
The form of tribalism used to mobilize the left entails denying that an agenda of economic
populism is relevant to the problems of sexism and racism, because the deplorables must be deplored
to get out the vote. And, because the (soft) neoliberals in charge must keep economic populism
under control to deliver the goods to their donor base.
I am now
convinced that the Oligarchy that rules America intends to steal the presidential
election.
In the past, the oligarchs have not cared which candidate won as the
oligarchs owned both. But they do not own Trump.
Most likely you are unaware of what Trump is telling people as the media does not
report it.
A person who speaks like this
...
...is not endeared to the oligarchs.
Who are the oligarchs?
Wall Street and the mega-banks
too big to fail and their agent
the Federal Reserve, a federal agency that put 5 banks ahead of millions of troubled
American homeowners who the federal reserve allowed to be flushed down the toilet. In
order to save the mega-banks' balance sheets from their irresponsible behavior, the
Fed has denied retirees any interest income on their savings for eight years, forcing
the elderly to draw down their savings, leaving their heirs, who have been displaced
from employment by corporate jobs offshoring, penniless.
The military/security complex
which has spent trillions of our
taxpayer dollars on 15 years of gratuitous wars based entirely on lies in order to
enrich themselves and their power.
The
neoconservartives
whose crazed ideology of US world hegemony
thrusts the American people into military conflict with Russia and China.
The US global corporations that sent American jobs to China and India
and elsewhere in order to enrich the One Percent with higher profits from
lower labor costs.
Agribusiness
(Monsanto et.al.), corporations that poison the
soil, the water, the oceans, and our food with their GMOs, hebicides, pesticides, and
chemical fertilizers, while killing the bees that pollinate the crops.
The extractive industries
-energy, mining, fracking, and
timber-that maximize their profits by destroying the environment and the water
supply.
The Israel Lobby that controls US Middle East policy
and is
committing genocide against the Palestinians just as the US committed genocide
against native Americans. Israel is using the US to eliminate sovereign countries
that stand in Israell's way.
What convinces me that the Oligarchy intends to steal the election is the
vast difference between the presstitutes' reporting and the facts on the ground.
According to the presstitutes, Hillary is so far ahead that there is no point in
Trump supporters bothering to vote. Hillary has won the election before the vote.
Hillary has been declared a 93% sure winner.
I am yet to see one Hillary yard sign, but Trump signs are everywhere. Reports I
receive are that Hillary's public appearances are unattended but Trumps are so heavily
attended that people have to be turned away. This is a report from a woman in Florida:
"Trump has pulled huge numbers all over FL while campaigning here this
week. I only see Trump signs and sickers in my wide travels. I dined at a Mexican
restaurant last night. Two women my age sitting behind me were talking about how they
had tried to see Trump when he came to Tallahassee. They left work early, arriving at
the venue at 4:00 for a 6:00 rally. The place was already over capacity so they were
turned away. It turned out that there were so many people there by 2:00 that the
doors had to be opened to them. The women said that the crowds present were a mix of
races and ages".
I know the person who gave me this report and have no doubt whatsoever as to its
veracity.
I also receive from readers similiar reports from around the country.
This is how the theft of the election is supposed to work:
The media
concentrated in a few corporate hands has gone all out to convince not only Americans
but also the world, that Donald Trump is such an unacceptable candidate that he has lost
the election before the vote.
By controllng the explanation, when the election is stolen those who challenge the
stolen election are without a foundartion in the media. All media reports will say that
it was a run away victory for Hillary over the misogynist immigrant-hating Trump.
And liberal, progressive opinion will be relieved and off guard as Hillary takes us
into nuclear war.
That the
Oligarchy intends to steal the election from the American people
is verified by the officially reported behavior of the voting machines in early voting
in Texas. The NRP presstitutes have declared that Hillary is such a favorite that even
Repulbican Texas is up for grabs in the election.
If this is the case, why was it necessary for the voting machines to be
programmed to change Trump votes to Hillary votes?
Those voters who noted
that they voted Trump but were recorded Hillary complained. The election officials,
claiming a glitch (which only went one way), changed to paper ballots. But who will
count them? No "glitches" caused Hillary votes to go to Trump, only Trump votes to go to
Hillary.
The most brilliant movie of our time was The Matrix.
This movie
captured the life of Americans manipulated by a false reality, only in the real America
there is insufficient awareness and no Neo, except possibly Donald Trump, to challenge
the system. All of my life I have been trying to get Americans of all stripes-academics,
scholars, journalists, Republicans, Democrats, right-wing, left-wing, US
Representatives, US Senators, Presidents, corporate moguls and brainwashed Americans and
foreigners-out of the false reality in which they exist.
In the United States today a critical presidential election is in process in which
not a single important issue is addressed. This is total failure.
Democracy,
once the hope of the world, has totally failed in the United States of America.
* * *
And following today's FBI headlines, the manipulation is about to go to '11' to
ensure the Oligarch's president-of-choice wins in November.
"... But I saw a particular Hillary surrogate on CNN go apopletic, pounding the desk, holding her head in her hands, insisting "IT DOESN'T EXIST!!! THERE IS NO VOTER FRAUD!!!!" Carol Costello agreed, emphatically, with her vocabulary of all-knowing nods and tilting her head 11 degrees to the right in sympathetic affirmation. ..."
On March 26, 2014, three investigators from Maryland's Office of the State Prosecutor sat at my dining
room table and showed me a signature on a photocopy taken from a D.C. poll book. The scrawl looked
more like a seismograph reading and was so unrecognizable that it took me a minute to realize that
I was looking at it upside down. Turning the picture over didn't make it much better.
"No, that's not my handwriting," I told them.
Somebody had clearly voted using my name. But why? And how did state officials figure it out?
In-person voter impersonation is vanishingly rare, as
many studies have shown. The claims put forth by Donald Trump that voter fraud in places like
Philadelphia could rig the election against him have very little evidence behind them,
according to election experts
.
Absentee ballot fraud – people violating state laws on the distribution, collection and submission
of mail ballots – is the more likely and more commonly prosecuted crime. Even for these kinds of
scams, a definitive total of cases is hard to come by since voting records are maintained by several
thousand different local governments.
But I saw a particular Hillary surrogate on CNN go apopletic, pounding the desk, holding her
head in her hands, insisting "IT DOESN'T EXIST!!! THERE IS NO VOTER FRAUD!!!!" Carol Costello
agreed, emphatically, with her vocabulary of all-knowing nods and tilting her head 11 degrees
to the right in sympathetic affirmation.
If Carol and the Hillary surrogate agree there is no voter fraud, the only logical conclusion
is that Derek Willis is a liar and ProPublica is in bed with the Russians.
how many dead people are registered voters? 2,8 million, more?? How about how many ILLEGALS are
registered to vote?? UNKNOWN!
How many computer voter machines have been hacked?? Unknown.. and oddly, they all "dead, illegals,
rigged machines" all vote for hillary/democrats!
Concerning the listing of voter fraud cases compiled by the Heritage Foundation, it's remarkable
for a) how few cases there actually are (several hundred out of literally millions of votes cast)
and b) how many of the cases involved elected officials or their relatives attempting to influence
their own elections.
So, if you look at the compilation rationally, it's a non-event. You can be sure that tax fraud
is much more common, and almost certainly, does much more damage to our democracy. Somehow, that
doesn't seem to concern the legislatures as much. Just doesn't make good headlines.
"One way to make that job easier is to keep accurate voter lists. An accurate voter list makes
it less likely than mistakes will occur at the polls." ....Or, we could have a national Voter
ID registry, but NYT Democrats such as yourself think IDs are somehow inherently racist. Go figure?
This is retail voter fraud, not wholesale voter fraud. Believe me. I
I'm from Louisiana. I know
the difference between wholesale and retail voter fraud.
Wholesale voter fraud is when we vote
the nursing homes and rig the voting machines to skip votes for people we want to lose and break
all the voting machines in precincts that we know will go for the candidate we want to lose and
kick people off the voter rolls in precincts that we know will go for the candidate we want to
lose.
Retail is when you buy individual votes. Retail is inefficient, problematic (how do you
keep thousands of people you paid to vote fraudulently from leaking the information to someone
who goes to the cops?) and isn't how you rig elections.
Wholesale is where you go for vote rigging,
and right now the Republican Party is the king of wholesale, with voter ID to make sure the "wrong"
people don't vote, cutbacks in early voting hours in minority districts, etc. to try to suppress
the votes of the "wrong" people.
"... In line with the Corruption theme, check out the election fraud documentation at Fraction Magic – Short Version video recently released. It shows manipulation of actual vote files (Statement of Votes Cast) and how locations selected for audit were not tampered with. ..."
In line with the Corruption theme, check out the election fraud documentation at
Fraction Magic – Short Version
video recently released. It shows manipulation of actual vote files (Statement of Votes Cast)
and how locations selected for audit were not tampered with.
The hero of the story is Bennie Smith, a soft-spoken Memphis TN-based genius who has skills
in computer programming and databases; accounting; and political demographic analysis. By luck
those are the same skills that convicted felon Jeffrey Dean had. (Dean wrote the software for
the Diebold voting machines–and I've been told they can now prove that Dean was the originator
of the fractionalized vote-counting software for the central tabulators.)
A longer version of the video is due out in days–in the meantime, the 9 min. excerpt on the
Short Version is amazing. Check out the tips at the end–how the public can help.
Viable third party s
almost impossible in "first after the post" regime... That are
usually poached by iether Republican or Democrats who act as spoilers.
I don't mean to sound critical, but I don't see why you regard
Stein or the Greens as naturally being at a higher level than their
current 2% in the polls. The Greens were only on the ballots of 36 or
37 states until last month. Unlike the major parties, they have pretty
much no "get out the vote" apparatus. They are also not a national
party. Lambert who has dealt with them to a degree in Maine can give
you details as to some of the symptoms of dysfunction he has seen at
close range.
Ralph Nader in 2000 was a nationally recognized name, unlike Stein.
There was a lot of disenchantment re Gore for being a 3rd term Clinton
candidate, with Gore having mixed success in distancing himself from
the Clintons, and being a wooden campaigner. And Bush was correctly
seen as a lightweight. Even with those advantages, and ballot access
in 43 states (v. I believe 45 or 46 now), Nader got 2.8% of the vote.
The Greens have had almost a generation to build the party since
then, and a financial crisis that devastated the middle class. I don't
see any evidence of them using the opportunity that the abject
performance of the Dems has presented to them. The Dems have lost
seats in Congress, they've lost governorships, more and more people
identify as independents. Yet the Greens have made no progress despite
these tailwinds.
I can see the argument for voting for Stein as virtue signaling and
a protest vote and perhaps preferable to a write in (as in you are
telling TPTB that there is sentiment to the left of where the legacy
parties sit). My antipathy for the Greens is that they've failed
abjectly at upping their game. See Richard Kline on "Progressively
Losing". They strike me as a classic example of wanting to be morally
correct and having zero interest in governing. So as long as you see
your vote as a communications tool and don't harbor unwarranted
optimism about the Greens, I don't see anything wrong in voting for
them.
"... FBI agents looking at Weiners weiner on his laptop, sees tons of Huma emails and Clinton emails, turn and tell their boss they are disgusted with all this and he needs to disrupt her winning office or they are going public. That's what happened! ..."
"... I think you are spot on with that observation. Comey was forced to tell Congress the Clinton e-mail investigation was being reopened. If he did not then sure as hell the existence of those e-mails on the Weiner computer would be leaked. ..."
"... I agree, it is all puppet theatre with some humor added. The more outrageous the more believable, right? ..."
"... It achieves some "unity" around Trump when there wasn't enough going down the home stretch, it became OBVIOUS she's not a winner, which anyone with half a brain has known since she announced? So maybe they are pulling the plug and she's been beat officially? Which leaves the question is Trump for real? ..."
"... I must say, fake or not he fought hard? I like Trump. I hope he realizes if he did decide to do GOOD, he could become very powerful. Why these leaders get to these positions and give it all up for a little greed is beyond me? They could be 10 times more powerful by just being GOOD? You've got the money Trump, if your GOOD, you'll obtain the power? Trump has some political capital and makes him more attractive to the establishment. My guess is, im being too optimistic for good things to happen? I hope Im wrong. ..."
"... The Clintons are a great success story. They never set out to be legal, only not to get sent to jail. By this standard they have succeeded. They have wealth and power and are 2 of the most admired people on earth. Lawyers and fines are just businesses expenses. ..."
"... I want to share my intentions with my fellow ZH Bloggers and Patriots, beginning today, I am going to be sending a series of communications directly to Paul Ryan by using his WEBSITE found at the following URL: http://www.speaker.gov/contact ..."
"... I plan to both encourage and challenge the Speaker. I know many on ZH look at Paul Ryan as a hypocrite. I understand why you may hold this position. I too am very disappointed with recent REPUBLICAN positions and communications. However, now is the time to unite as "WE THE PEOPLE". All of the data is suggesting that leadership within US Government Agencies is corrupted by special interests and their own fleshly nature. We see evidence of TREASON everywhere. But I believe brighter days lie ahead for America at least in the short term. ..."
"... AMERICA has lost her way and this needs to be corrected. ..."
FBI agents looking at Weiners weiner on his laptop, sees tons of Huma emails and Clinton emails, turn and tell their boss
they are disgusted with all this and he needs to disrupt her winning office or they are going public. That's what happened!
I think you are spot on with that observation. Comey was forced to tell Congress the Clinton e-mail investigation was being
reopened. If he did not then sure as hell the existence of those e-mails on the Weiner computer would be leaked.
I agree, it is all puppet theatre with some humor added. The more outrageous the more believable, right?
It achieves some "unity" around Trump when there wasn't enough going down the home stretch, it became OBVIOUS she's not
a winner, which anyone with half a brain has known since she announced? So maybe they are pulling the plug and she's been beat
officially? Which leaves the question is Trump for real?
I must say, fake or not he fought hard? I like Trump. I hope he realizes if he did decide to do GOOD, he could become very
powerful. Why these leaders get to these positions and give it all up for a little greed is beyond me? They could be 10 times
more powerful by just being GOOD? You've got the money Trump, if your GOOD, you'll obtain the power? Trump has some political
capital and makes him more attractive to the establishment. My guess is, im being too optimistic for good things to happen? I
hope Im wrong.
I've been burned so many times by BIG GOV. both DEM & REP? I just cant trust anyone that is near it?
They take lots of ideas from ZH these days, and its not good..... ZH offers them the ideas, the power, and the creativity of
the crowd. They use it against us, a very powerful tool.
The Clintons are a great success story. They never set out to be legal, only not to get sent to jail. By this standard they
have succeeded. They have wealth and power and are 2 of the most admired people on earth. Lawyers and fines are just businesses
expenses.
I want to share my intentions with my fellow ZH Bloggers and Patriots, beginning today, I am going to be sending a series
of communications directly to Paul Ryan by using his WEBSITE found at the following URL:
http://www.speaker.gov/contact
I plan to both encourage and challenge the Speaker. I know many on ZH look at Paul Ryan as a hypocrite. I understand why
you may hold this position. I too am very disappointed with recent REPUBLICAN positions and communications. However, now is the
time to unite as "WE THE PEOPLE". All of the data is suggesting that leadership within US Government Agencies is corrupted by
special interests and their own fleshly nature. We see evidence of TREASON everywhere. But I believe brighter days lie ahead for
America at least in the short term.
AMERICA has lost her way and this needs to be corrected.
I encourage everyone who reads this message to send a note to the SPEAKER encouraging him to do four things:
Get on board the TRUMP/PENCE train no matter what it takes which includes eating "HUMBLE PIE".
Go after Hillary R. Clinton and press for swift and immediate justice.
Enforce existing laws for TREASON that are on the books.
Do whatever it takes to ensure the integrity of the American POTUS Election process. MAKE OUR VOTE COUNT.
I plan to do this today and will be sending the speaker notes and comments from ZH.
If everyone contacts the SPEAKER, he will get the POINT.
GOD's SPEED in whatever you decide to do as a CITIZEN of these UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
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?
"... Moreover, thousands of emails were erased from her server, even after she had reportedly been sent a subpoena from Congress to retain them. During her first two years as secretary of state, half of her outside visitors were contributors to the Clinton Foundation. Yet there was not a single quid pro quo, Clinton tells us. ..."
"... Pat is oh-so right: "This election is not over." In fact it's likely that Donald Trump will continue to surge and will win on November 8th. ..."
"... Remember: Many of the polls claiming to show statistically significant Clinton leads were commissioned by the same corrupt news organizations that have worked for months to bias their news coverage in an attempt to throw the election to Clinton. ..."
"... The problem facing the donor class and the party elites is that Trump supporters are not swayed by the media bias. A recent Gallup poll shows Americans trust in journalists to be at its lowest level since Gallup began asking the question. ..."
"... Americans are savvy to the media's rigging of election reporting. Election Day, Nov. 8th, will show that the dishonest reporting of the mainstream media and the cooked samplings of their polls were all for naught. ..."
"... More years of bank favoritism, corporate socialism, political corruption, failed social programs, deindustrialization, open borders lawlessness, erosion of liberties, interventionism and wage stagnation is all adding more steam to the pressure cooker. ..."
"... A Trump presidency would back the pressure off, a Clinton presidency would be a disaster. ..."
"... Why does PJB, of all people, cling to the abhorrent notion that presidential "greatness" is defined by territorial aggrandizement through war? ..."
"... Unfortunately, that new evidence of the Clinton Criminal Enterprise (CCE) caused nary a ripple in the MSM. It was merely noted in the Crony lapdog Washington Post and then quickly submerged into the bottom of the content swamp. The Clinton WikiLeaks documents and the James O'Keefe corruption videos are marginalized or not even acknowledged to exist by the various MSM outlets. ..."
"... Hillary is probably guilty of a lot of things. However, evidence from the counter-media and/or Congress means nothing to the MSM. In fact the MSM will actually conjure up a multitude of baseless red herrings to protect Hillary. E.g., the Trump as Putin puppet meme as a diversion away from documented Clinton corruption. ..."
"... The anti-Hillary elements can only mutually reinforce in their internet ghettos. Those ghettos do not provide enough political leverage to move against a President Hillary no matter how compelling the evidence of the Clinton's collective criminality. In that context, Hillary will be politically inoculated by the protective MSM against Republican congressional inquiries and attacks. ..."
"... Hillary's presidency will almost certainly be a catastrophe because it will manifest the haggard, corrupt, cronied-up, parasitic and mediocre qualities of the hack sitting in the Oval Office. Expect a one term fiasco and then Hillary will stumble out of the White House as even more of a political and personal wreck. ..."
Moreover, thousands of emails were erased from her server, even after she had reportedly been
sent a subpoena from Congress to retain them. During her first two years as secretary of state, half
of her outside visitors were contributors to the Clinton Foundation. Yet there was not a single quid
pro quo, Clinton tells us.
Yesterday's newspapers exploded with reports of how Bill Clinton aide Doug Band raised money for
the Clinton Foundation, and then hit up the same corporate contributors to pay huge fees for Bill's
speeches.
What were the corporations buying if not influence? What were the foreign contributors buying,
if not influence with an ex-president, and a secretary of state and possible future president?
Did none of the big donors receive any official favors?
"There's a lot of smoke and there's no fire," says Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps, but there seems to be more smoke every day.
If once or twice in her hours of testimony to the FBI, to a grand jury, or before Congress, Clinton
were proven to have lied, her Justice Department would be obligated to name a special prosecutor,
as was Nixon's.
And, with the election over, the investigative reporters of the adversary press, Pulitzers beckoning,
would be cut loose to go after her.
The Republican House is already gearing up for investigations that could last deep into Clinton's
first term.
There is a vast trove of public and sworn testimony from Hillary, about the server, the emails,
the erasures, the Clinton Foundation. Now, thanks to WikiLeaks, there are tens of thousands of emails
to sift through, and perhaps tens of thousands more to come.
What are the odds that not one contains information that contradicts her sworn testimony? Rep.
Jim Jordan contends that Clinton may already have perjured herself.
And as the full-court press would begin with her inauguration, Clinton would have to deal with
the Syrians, the Russians, the Taliban, the North Koreans, and Xi Jinping in the South China Sea-and
with Bill Clinton wandering around the White House with nothing to do.
This election is not over. But if Hillary Clinton wins, a truly hellish presidency could await
her, and us.
Pat is oh-so right: "This election is not over." In fact it's likely that Donald Trump will continue
to surge and will win on November 8th.
Remember: Many of the polls claiming to show statistically significant Clinton leads were commissioned
by the same corrupt news organizations that have worked for months to bias their news coverage
in an attempt to throw the election to Clinton.
On the other hand, several polls with a history of accuracy have consistently shown either
a Trump lead or a statistical dead-heat.
The problem facing the donor class and the party elites is that Trump supporters are not swayed
by the media bias. A recent Gallup poll shows Americans trust in journalists to be at its lowest
level since Gallup began asking the question.
Americans are savvy to the media's rigging of election reporting. Election Day, Nov. 8th, will
show that the dishonest reporting of the mainstream media and the cooked samplings of their polls
were all for naught.
Thus, fortunately, the American people will avoid the spectacle of a "truly hellish" Clinton
presidency.
More years of bank favoritism, corporate socialism, political corruption, failed social programs,
deindustrialization, open borders lawlessness, erosion of liberties, interventionism and wage
stagnation is all adding more steam to the pressure cooker.
A Trump presidency would back the pressure off, a Clinton presidency would be a disaster.
James Polk, no charmer, was a one-term president, but a great one, victorious in the Mexican
War, annexing California and the Southwest, negotiating a fair division of the Oregon territory
with the British.
Why does PJB, of all people, cling to the abhorrent notion that presidential "greatness" is
defined by territorial aggrandizement through war?
The only people responsible for that "cloud" are conservatives. If you wish to prevent the horrid
fate that you're describing, Pat, you need to apologize and concede that these investigations
are groundless. You can't say "where there's smoke, there's fire" if we can all see your smoke
machine.
The Visigoths will continue their advance on Rome by the millions. The Supreme Court and Fed will
shy away from diversity in their numbers. The alternative media will go bonkers, but to no avail.
The military will provide employment (endless wars) to those displaced by a permissive immigration
policy. Elizabeth I – will look down (up) in envy.
Re: "Yesterday's newspapers exploded with reports of how Bill Clinton aide Doug Band raised
money for the Clinton Foundation, and then hit up the same corporate contributors to pay huge
fees for Bill's speeches."
Unfortunately, that new evidence of the Clinton Criminal Enterprise (CCE) caused nary a ripple
in the MSM. It was merely noted in the Crony lapdog Washington Post and then quickly submerged
into the bottom of the content swamp. The Clinton WikiLeaks documents and the James O'Keefe corruption
videos are marginalized or not even acknowledged to exist by the various MSM outlets.
Hillary is probably guilty of a lot of things. However, evidence from the counter-media and/or
Congress means nothing to the MSM. In fact the MSM will actually conjure up a multitude of baseless
red herrings to protect Hillary. E.g., the Trump as Putin puppet meme as a diversion away from
documented Clinton corruption.
The anti-Hillary elements can only mutually reinforce in their internet ghettos. Those ghettos
do not provide enough political leverage to move against a President Hillary no matter how compelling
the evidence of the Clinton's collective criminality. In that context, Hillary will be politically
inoculated by the protective MSM against Republican congressional inquiries and attacks.
Hillary's presidency will almost certainly be a catastrophe because it will manifest the haggard,
corrupt, cronied-up, parasitic and mediocre qualities of the hack sitting in the Oval Office.
Expect a one term fiasco and then Hillary will stumble out of the White House as even more of
a political and personal wreck.
Agree with Pat though that it's going to be a wild ride for the rest of us – straight down.
P.S. A Republican Congress does have the power of the purse and could shave away Clinton's
Imperial use of the executive branch. But the feckless Congress has never been intelligent enough
to utilize that power effectively.
SteveM makes excellent points about the mainstream media cover-up of the Wikileaks revelations:
"Unfortunately, that new evidence of the Clinton Criminal Enterprise (CCE) caused nary a ripple
in the MSM. It was merely noted in the Crony lapdog Washington Post and then quickly submerged
into the bottom of the content swamp. The Clinton WikiLeaks documents and the James O'Keefe corruption
videos are marginalized or not even acknowledged to exist by the various MSM outlets."
Alex Pfeiffer (The Daily Caller) expands upon SteveM's critique in "The Anatomy Of A Press
Cover-Up." Great stuff:
@William N. Grigg: "Why does PJB, of all people, cling to the abhorrent notion that presidential
"greatness" is defined by territorial aggrandizement through war?"
Yes, that's one aspect of PJB's thought that has long disturbed me. Granted, PJB is a nationalist,
and I can see why an old-fashioned nationalist would admire Polk. But PJB also advocates an "enlightened
nationalism." There's nothing enlightened about stealing someone else's land. Frankly, I fail
to see how Polk's actions are any different from Hitler's actions a century later. I don't want
to offend anyone but, I'm sorry… this needs to be said.
I greatly admire Pat Buchanan, but this article is rather ridiculous.
"If once or twice in her hours of testimony to the FBI, to a grand jury, or before Congress,
Clinton were proven to have lied, her Justice Department would be obligated to name a special
prosecutor, as was Nixon's."
Translation: "I want revenge for Watergate."
Look, I admire Nixon. I think he was one of our greatest Presidents. I really mean that. I
also think that he was unfairly subjected to a witch hunt and that there was no valid reason for
him to have faced the prospect of impeachment (and the same is true, in my view, for both of the
Presidents who were actually impeached, interestingly enough). Nixon should have been allowed
to finish his second term.
I think Hillary Clinton is also facing a witch hunt. I don't agree with her foreign policy
views or with many of her domestic policy views, but this vicious attempt by the GOP to take her
down needs to stop. There is no evidence that she is any more corrupt than anybody else.
And, in any case, if she gets elected, she will be entitled to serve as President. To deliberately
try to sabotage her Presidency by hounding her with these investigations would be to show profound
contempt for democratic norms.
Enough already. I don't support Clinton or Trump. Jill Stein is my gal now. But I hope that
whoever wins does a great job and that all goes well for them. Nothing else would be in the best
interests of the country or the world.
"Remember: Many of the polls claiming to show statistically significant Clinton leads were commissioned
by the same corrupt news organizations that have worked for months to bias their news coverage
in an attempt to throw the election to Clinton.
On the other hand, several polls with a history of accuracy have consistently shown either a Trump
lead or a statistical dead-heat."
We heard this in 2012. Go back and read the Free Republic election night thread to see how
such comforting thoughts came crashing down as the night went on. Then read the posts today…all
the exact same people saying all the exact same things.
For a society to work well and to succeed, the good-will (trust and support) of it's productive,
tax-paying citizens is of paramount importance. The corrupt politics in DC for the last 25 years
has used up this good-will. Only few trust these elitists , as evidenced by the success of
the socialist, Sanders, and Trump.
With the election of the corrupt, lying, unaccomplished politician, the legitimacy of the
D.C. "Leaders" will be gone. It would be a disaster!
" She would enter office as the least-admired president in history, without a vision or a mandate.
She would take office with two-thirds of the nation believing she is untruthful and untrustworthy.
"
Funny you should go there. Sure, HRC has historically high unfavorability ratings. Fact: DJT's
unfavorability ratings are even higher. Check any reasonably non-partisan site such as RCP or
538.
Pretty much all the negatives about HRC are trumped by Trump. His flip-flopping makes hers
look amateur: he used to be a pro-choice Democrat; has publicly espoused admiration for HRC and
declared that WJC was unfairly criticized for his transgressions. Integrity: he's stiffed countless
businesses, small and large; he's been sued by his own lawyers for non-payment. Character: he
behaves like a child, 'nuff said.
Corruption: his daddy illegally bailed him out of a financial jam; Trump's foundation makes
the Clintons' look legit by comparison.
With HRC, the GOP had a huge chance to take back the WH: she has plenty of genuine baggage
to go along with the made-up stuff. However the GOP managed to nominate the one candidate who
makes her transgressions appear tolerable. The end result is that a significant number of moderate
Republicans are supporting no one, Johnson, or even HRC. Trump is so toxic that very few progressive
Dems will stray from HRC, despite being horrified by her corporate connections.
Re today: The FBI is not investigating her server. Servers don't send emails on their own. They
are investigating Hillary Clinton. They just don't like to say that. I wonder if it's in order
to – once again – announce Hillary's "innocence," just before the end of early voting and voting
day. We'll see.
For those interested in a functional government, note that this is three straight elections
– over twelve years – where the incoming president is a priori deemed illegitimate, regardless
of the scale of the victory, and the opposing political party has no interest in working with
that president.
In fact, some senators and representatives (Cruz, Gowdy, Issa, etc.) seem to take joy and pride
in noting the extent and length of these investigations, regardless of what they find. It is the
very process of governmental obstruction they seek, not necessarily justice or truth.
Could we have a new historic first if Hillary wins, the First Woman President to be impeached
by Congress? And the first couple in the history of the Republic to both be impeached?
At some point the Republicans have to be for something. I suppose they will be tempted to go after
Ms. Clinton for what she has elided or attempted to, but I think that is a major mistake. You
wrote: "Yet the hostility Clinton would face the day she takes office would almost seem to ensure
four years of pure hell.
The reason: her credibility, or rather her transparent lack of it."
There are a few assumptions in this – first, that any investigations into her past behavior
will be impartial. True or not, the impression will be hard to pull off – I expect they will easily
be framed as misogynist. And some most likely will be, so it takes a bit of thought and study
to determine which are motivated by misogyny and which are not. News cycles are too fast for that
sort of reflection, and in any event more or less all the major papers and television networks
are in her camp, so can't really expect journalism out of them anymore. It will be a called a
misogynist, partisan investigation and that will be the end of it.
Second, it assumes that the people doing the investigation have credibility. That's a big if
– the GOP went from Bush 43's two terms of military adventurism, increasing income inequality
and economic catastrophe to no introspection or admission of error in the ensuing 8 years of apparently
mindless, vindictive opposition. That is a long time of being kind of – well – less than thoughtful.
And it's had tremendous costs. Mr. Obama presents as a decent man in his profiles, but he was
very inexperienced when elected and in my opinion has more or less been bumbling around for almost
8 years now, kind of like Clouseau in those old Pink Panther movies. Only a lot of people of died,
lost their homes or have seen their communities consumed by despair. Government has been very
ineffective for many Americans, and the Republicans have a lot to answer for with the way they've
chosen to spend their time and direct their energy over the last 8 years. It's been a waste going
after Obama, and going after Clinton will just be more of the same.
And the last assumption is that with all that might be going on in the next few years, this
is important. Ms. Clinton has made some statements, some good, some bad. The bad, though, are
remarkably bad – she's for invading a Middle Eastern country and establishing control over their
airspace, as an example. In 2017. It's pure crazy. She has Democratic support. Hate to think if
she is elected the Republicans will be focusing on email.
"... Like it or not, extending the voting period is actually the best solution to that particular problem, which is why cutting back on early voting is so popular in those same suppressive GOP-run states. ..."
"... The status quo election day polling station method requires one to take notes on these 50+ offices. The mail ballot allows one to "skip the middle step of taking notes", & directly mark the ballot. ..."
"... I think it is more convenient, but who can guarantee that all ballots make it to their final resting place untampered or at all? ..."
"The real answer is to make Election Day a national holiday. Why the heck not?"
Because it wouldn't solve the problem and, indeed, would likely work against those same voters
the GOP has been trying to suppress-the working poor. Because holiday or not, people are going
to have to work, and many if not most aren't aware they're entitled to time to go vote without
sacrificing pay provided they put in for it ahead of time.
Like it or not, extending the voting period is actually the best solution to that particular
problem, which is why cutting back on early voting is so popular in those same suppressive GOP-run
states.
IMHO mail ballots are useful, especially given ballots with 50+ offices to vote for, many of
them nonpartisan judges.
The status quo election day polling station method requires one to take notes on these 50+
offices. The mail ballot allows one to "skip the middle step of taking notes", & directly mark
the ballot.
I think it is more convenient, but who can guarantee that all ballots make it to their final
resting place untampered or at all? That seems like asking for more trouble. Going out for a walk,
drive, or free shuttle during what should be a multiple weekend day period should not be a big
deal for most (and for those who can't walk, etc there are mail in ballots).
I'm in favor of more holidays for more holidays sake and it will make it easier for some people
to get to the polls, but yea holiday or not people will have to work is the truth. And yes other
than emergency workers like medical professionals it does tend to be poorer people that work holidays.
On September 5, 2006, Eli Chomsky was an editor and staff writer for the Jewish Press, and Hillary
Clinton was running for a shoo-in re-election as a U.S. senator. Her trip making the rounds of editorial
boards brought her to Brooklyn to meet the editorial board of the Jewish Press.
The tape was never
released and has only been heard by the small handful of Jewish Press staffers in the room. According
to Chomsky, his old-school audiocassette is the only existent copy and no one has heard it since
2006, until today when he played it for the Observer.
The tape is 45 minutes and contains much that is no longer relevant, such as analysis of the re-election
battle that Sen. Joe Lieberman was then facing in Connecticut. But a seemingly throwaway remark about
elections in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority has taken on new relevance amid persistent
accusations in the presidential campaign by Clinton's Republican opponent Donald Trump that the
current election
is "rigged."
Speaking to the Jewish Press about the January 25, 2006, election for the second Palestinian Legislative
Council (the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority), Clinton weighed in about the result,
which was a resounding victory for Hamas (74 seats) over the U.S.-preferred Fatah (45 seats).
"I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think
that was a big mistake," said Sen. Clinton. "And if we were going to push for an election, then we
should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."
2006 Audio Emerges of Hillary Clinton Proposing Rigging Palestine Election
Unearthed tape: 'We should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win'
On September 5, 2006, Eli Chomsky was an editor and staff writer for the Jewish Press, and Hillary
Clinton was running for a shoo-in re-election as a U.S. senator. Her trip making the rounds of editorial
boards brought her to Brooklyn to meet the editorial board of the Jewish Press.
The tape was never released and has only been heard by the small handful of Jewish Press staffers
in the room. According to Chomsky, his old-school audiocassette is the only existent copy and no
one has heard it since 2006, until today when he played it for the Observer.
The tape is 45 minutes and contains much that is no longer relevant, such as analysis of the re-election
battle that Sen. Joe Lieberman was then facing in Connecticut. But a seemingly throwaway remark about
elections in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority has taken on new relevance amid persistent
accusations in the presidential campaign by Clinton's Republican opponent Donald Trump that the
current election
is "rigged."
Speaking to the Jewish Press about the January 25, 2006, election for the second Palestinian Legislative
Council (the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority), Clinton weighed in about the result,
which was a resounding victory for Hamas (74 seats) over the U.S.-preferred Fatah (45 seats).
"I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think
that was a big mistake," said Sen. Clinton. "And if we were going to push for an election, then we
should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."
Chomsky recalls being taken aback that "anyone could support the idea-offered by a national
political leader, no less-that the U.S. should be in the business of fixing foreign elections."
Some eyebrows were also raised when then-Senator Clinton appeared to make a questionable moral
equivalency.
... ... ...
Chomsky is heard on the tape asking Clinton what now seems like a prescient
question about Syria, given the disaster unfolding there and its looming threat
to drag the U.S., Iran and Russia into confrontation.
"Do you think it's
worth talking to Syria-both from the U.S. point [of view] and Israel's point
[of view]?"
Clinton replied, "You know, I'm pretty much of the mind that I don't see
what it hurts to talk to people. As long as you're not stupid and giving things
away. I mean, we talked to the Soviet Union for 40 years. They invaded Hungary,
they invaded Czechoslovakia, they persecuted the Jews, they invaded
Afghanistan, they destabilized governments, they put missiles 90 miles from our
shores, we never stopped talking to them," an answer that reflects her mastery
of the facts but also reflects a willingness to talk to Russia that sounds more
like Trump 2016 than Clinton 2016.
Shortly after, she said, "But if you say, 'they're evil, we're good, [and]
we're never dealing with them,' I think you give up a lot of the tools that you
need to have in order to defeat them So I would like to talk to you [the enemy]
because I want to know more about you. Because if I want to defeat you, I've
got to know something more about you. I need different tools to use in my
campaign against you. That's my take on it."
A final bit of interest to the
current campaign involves an articulation of phrases that Trump has accused
Clinton of being reluctant to use. Discussing the need for a response to
terrorism, Clinton said, "I think you can make the case that whether you call
it 'Islamic terrorism' or 'Islamo-fascism,' whatever the label is we're going
to give to this phenomenon, it's a threat. It's a global threat. To Europe, to
Israel, to the United States Therefore we need a global response. It's a global
threat and it needs a global response. That can be the, sort of, statement of
principle So I think sometimes having the global vision is a help as long as
you realize that underneath that global vision there's a lot of variety and
differentiation that has to go on."
It's not clear what she means by a global vision with variety and
differentiation, but what's quite clear is that the then-senator, just five
years after her state was the epicenter of the September 11 attacks, was
comfortable deploying the phrase "Islamic terrorism" and the even more strident
"Islamo-fascism," at least when meeting with the editorial board of a Jewish
newspaper.
"... "Hysteria has been whipped up in the United States about the influence of Russia over the U.S. presidential election," said Putin, calling it a ruse to cover up for the fact that the U.S. political elite had nothing to say about serious issues such as the country's national debt or gun control. ..."
"... "It's much simpler to distract people with so-called Russian hackers, spies, and agents of influence. Does anyone really think that Russia could influence the American people's choice in any way? The number of mythical, dreamt-up problems include the hysteria - I can't think of another word - that has broken out in the United States about the influence of Russia on the current elections for the US president. " ..."
Moments ago, Russian president started speaking at the final session of the Valdai International
Discussion Club's 13th annual meeting in Sochi. More than 130 experts and political analysts from
Russia and other countries are taking part in this year's three-day meeting, titled 'The Future in
Progress: Shaping the World of Tomorrow'.
While Putin's speech can be seen below, he has already had a handful of soundbites, most notably
the following he just said in response to accusations that Russia could influence the US election:
"Hysteria has been whipped up in the United States about the influence of Russia over the U.S.
presidential election," said Putin, calling it a ruse to cover up for the fact that the U.S. political
elite had nothing to say about serious issues such as the country's national debt or gun control.
"It's much simpler to distract people with so-called Russian hackers, spies, and agents of influence.
Does anyone really think that Russia could influence the American people's choice in any way? The
number of mythical, dreamt-up problems include the hysteria - I can't think of another word - that
has broken out in the United States about the influence of Russia on the current elections for the
US president. "
He ended that phrase as follows: "What, is America a banana republic?!"
Putin mocks claim that Russia is trying to influence the US elections: "What, is America now
a banana republic? America is a great power."
And then, to emphasize his trolling, added the following: "correct me if I am wrong."
He also said that "Russia has no intention of attacking anyone, it is ridiculous, foolish and
unthinkable. I read your analytical materials prepared not only by those present but also by analysts
in the US and Europe. However, it is just unthinkable, silly and unrealistic. In Europe alone, the
combined population of NATO countries stands at 300 million, in the US the total population is, probably,
600 million, while in Russia - 146 million. It is just funny to talk about this."
According to the Russian president, contradictions stemming from redistribution of political power
are growing.
"Regrettably, next to nothing has changed for the better in the past months. To be frank, nothing
has changed. Contradictions stemming from redistribution of economic power and political influence
are only growing," Putin said.
Hence, according to the Russian leader, the burden of mutual mistrust is limiting possibilities
to stand to real challenges and real threats facing the world community. "As a matter of fact, the
entire globalization project has turned to be in a crisis and voices in Europe are speaking (and
we know and hear it well) about the failure of the policy of mulicultiralism," Putin said, adding
that this situation is a consequence of a wrong, hasty and somewhat arrogant choice made by Europe's
political elites some twenty-five years ago.
"Back then, at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, there was a chance not only to spur globalization
processes but to give them a qualitatively new, harmonious and sustainable character," the Russian
leader said.
He drew attention to the fact that the countries that claimed to be the winners in the Cold War
began to reshape the global political and economic order in their own interests.
These states, in his words, embarked on a path of "globalization and security for themselves only,
but not for all." But not all agreed on that.
Some could not resist that any longer whereas others were not yet ready, so, no wonder the system
of international relations has been feverish and the global economy is failing to recover from the
crisis, Putin added.
On globalization
The Russian president stressed globalization should be for all but not only for the select few.
"Obviously, the global community must focus on really topical problems facing the entire humankind,
the solution of which will make the world a safer and more stable place and the system of international
relations equal and fair," Putin said.
He said such an approach will make it possible to "make the globalization for the select few turn
into globalization for all."
"I am confident that it is possible to overcome any challenges and threats only together," Putin
stressed.
On Global Propaganda
The president said he regrets that Moscow does not possess such global propaganda techniques as
Washington does.
"I would like to have such a propaganda machine in Russia. But, unfortunately, I don't. We have
no such global media as CNN, BBC and some others. We have no such opportunities so far," Putin said
at a session of the Valdai Discussion Club.
On the world economy
The president expects the trend towards regionalization of the world economy will continue. It
is absolutely evident that economic cooperation must be mutually advantageous and be based on general
universal principles, so that each state could become a full-fledged participant in the global economic
life," Putin said.
"In the mid-term prospect, the tendency towards regionalization of the global economy will apparently
continue, but regional trade agreements should complement, develop, and not substitute universal
norms and rules," the president said.
The global economy is unable to get out of the current systemic crisis and the political and economic
principles continue to be reshuffled, Putin stressed.
"The system of international relations remains feverish. The global economy is unable to get out
of the systemic crisis. The principles and rules in politics and the economy continue to be reshuffled.
Quite often dogmas that until recently had been regarded as fundamentally true are turned inside
out," Putin said.
These days, he said, whenever the powers that be find some standards or rules beneficial, they
force everybody else to obey them. However, if at a certain point the very same standards begin to
pose obstructions, they are at once sent into the dustbin as outdated and new rules are established.
As an example of that strategy Putin mentioned the missile and bombing strikes against Belgrade
and Iraq, then against Libya and Afghanistan. The operation began without a corresponding resolution
by the UN Security Council. Some superpowers, the Russian leader said, in their attempts to change
the strategic balance of force in their favor have torn down the international legal regime that
prohibited the deployment of new missile defense systems. They have created and armed international
terrorist groups, whose cruelty is now pushing millions of migrants out of the unsafe areas.
Whole countries are being plunged into chaos. The principles of free trade are trampled on and
sanctions are used to exert political pressures.
"We can see the freedom of trade being sacrificed and so-called sanctions being used for exerting
political pressures. In bypass of the World Trade Organizations attempts are being made to form closed
economic alliances living by harsh rules and putting up firm barriers alliances where dome
On NATO
He said that NATO has outlived its usefullness as a structure and on the topic of the escalating
proxy war in Syria, Putin had a simple comment: "Our agreements with the US on Syria did not work
out."
And some more headlines from his pragmatic remarks:
RUSSIA'S PUTIN SAYS RUSSIAN MILITARY THREAT BEING EXAGGERATED TO JUSTIFY MILITARY SPENDING
RUSSIA'S PUTIN SAYS CYBER ATTACKS OR OTHER TYPES OF INTERFERENCE INTO OTHER COUNTRIES' AFFAIRS
UNACCEPTABLE
RUSSIA'S PUTIN SAYS DONALD TRUMP BEHAVES EXTRAVAGANTLY , BUT IT IS FOR A REASON
I'm trying to understand the DVs to my post. I'm sure there are those who think they could take on
Tyson, but with both ears intact at the end? My point was that anyone trying will at least know they've
been in a fight, and one likely to better have been avoided.
I dig the Vlad- clearly he's been the voice of reason for awhile now....
Clearly he doesn't suffer fools like Hillary- I can just see that conversation now.... She's babbling
her nonsense, he's looking around like "Are you fucking kidding me?"
... meanwhile in Italy, >>> "Artist creates colossal portrait of Trump to 'console' him in case
of defeat ..."
..."A massive portrait of Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump adorned a vast cornfield near
the Italian city of Verona, Wednesday.
The work by the Italian land artist Dario Gambarin was ploughed on a 25,000 square metre (269,098
square feet) field and is accompanied by a sardonic 'Ciao' and 'Trump', which some have claimed is
to signify Trump's defeat in recent polls."
Who in their right and practical mind picks a fight with the US military?
Err...how dare Russia move its borders towards our Nato forces?
You will find history replete with countries that have not "picked a fight" with the US, and yet
felt the full force of its military. Instead of rolling over before that option is required (Perkins).
Even more amazing..Is the world view America is projecting. All of my family, on both sides, have
represented all branches of the armed forces, with a Airforce full bird Colonel to boot. These were
old school military, many were career, and believed in the position down to their soul.
The point is, Where the fuck has honor and honesty gone to? Is there anyone currently in the military
on this site? Morale has to been at all time lows, where is the outright mutiny? THESE are the people,
and THESE are the reasons that lives are being risked/lost?!
I had an uncle, and a grandfather that I'm shocked haven't resurrected over this stupidity..
The Saint fucktard should declare, when did Russia attack Crime and when did Russia attack Ukraine?
Does the fucktard know, what ukraininan jew Chruscov did , while drunken, to Russia with Krim?
How was it done? was it constitutional?
Ukraine existed before just one day in 1917. Never ever before. The whole territory of Ukraine
was either purchchased, consolidated or fought by Russian cars during the last 1000 years. 4x as
much, as is the existence of the USA (should the fucktard come from USA). which other country kept
its land mass for so long together?
seems the fucktard is from the tribe, from the stupid abraham religion, originating in Middle
East und not understand, what is it based on.
However they were Ukrainians, not Poles and wanted independence.
They actually revolted and fought for it.
They made an alliance with Russia to help them in this fight.
Russia did help them to free themselves from Poland.
The problem was that Russia simply took over and Ukraine never gained their independence.
Their complaint against Poland was firstly religious as Poles were Catholic while Ukrainians Russian
Orthodox. Secondly Polish aristocracy treated the Ukrainian nobles as second class citizens.
Let's face it. Back in the 1600s it was the kings and princes and nobles that were responsible
for these conflicts. The common people had no influence whatsoever.
They deserve their own homeland, just like the Kurds do.
What the region should strive for is friendly cooperation between themselves. There is no reason
why Slavic nations cannot form their own union. There sure as hell is closer bond between a Russian
and a Slovakian or a Pole and a Serbian than any of them and an Englishman.
"Russia has no intention of attacking anyone, it is ridiculous, foolish and unthinkable....."
Tell that to Crimea and Ukraine, Vlad.
SAINT,
Do you live under a rock? Ukraine was a false flag brought into being by the (((usual suspects.)))
Crimean's saw what was going on, and wanted no part of it.
There was no armed incursion into Crimea by Russian army ground troops, to "take it over." Crimea
is Russian speaking since Kathyrn the Great, and the people voted to rejoin the federation. They
wanted nothing to do with zionazi parasites who had taken over Ukraine.
Think about it. Does Crimea have a insurrection going on now, to then overthrow their overlords?
No of course not, they want to be part of Russia.
You're an idiot. Fools like yourself mindlessly listening to the media (and gov't) without a shred
of evidence. Here's an idea, Sparky, take the effort of getting out of your lazy chair and actually
do a little research. If Ukraine were attacked, don't you think the US would have video captured?
Have you seen any, genius? Were you brain-dead in not knowing about the illegal State Dpet coup led
by Nuland? Holy smokes. Get with the f'ing program, man. Wake up for god's sake. Idiots like yourself
would probably vote "up" for a war if the US asked you. Based on zippo. Just like Iraq, just like
Afghanistan, just like Libya, just like Syria. Sleepwalking morons like you is what makes this country
doubly dangerous. Wake the F up!!!!!
Was there ever honor in signing up to go kill people? In hindsight how many of America's military
adventures were nothing more than neo-colonial expansions? Any free man born of his God given liberties
should tell the military to fuck off, all wars are banker's wars ultimately and the humans who fight
them considered expendable cannon fodder by the powers that be. The day the men of this planet realize
there is no reason to war with one another on behalf of some evil rulers will be the day we finally
advance as a species. Until then we will remain cattle, to be herded and slaughtered.
The US military has not backed the American people since before 1861. They have been puppets for
bankster wars and the elites. The should have arrested Abe Lincoln and his bankster cronies.
Every President who got America into a war or phony war should hve been arrested. Two real scumbags
were LBJ and George Bush. LBJ was in on the JFK murder for Vietnam war as was bush. Bush and his
Mormon See Eye Aye cronies Romney and the Hinckley klan see World Vision Hickley See Eye Aye front
tried to kill Reagan for NeoCon Wars.
Compared to many in the war machine of the USA that virtually always advocate for moar war/bombing
and increasing destabilization, yes he is. If the US wants to get some credibility on this shit then
stop supporting terrorists, oops "moderate rebels", and actually wipe these shitstains off the face
of the planet. Don't use them as your cats paw to get rid of Assad. Have the balls to just take him
out if you want to take him out and don't use terrorists for the regime change that you so clearly
want but dont have the balls to just do directly.
A lot of people here overestimate Russian military capabilities. They honestly believe that Russia
could win a war with the US. They are wrong. But the US seems afflicted by the more dangerous misperception
that the US could easily defeat the Russians. The Russians have to be practical in their dealings
with the US, because they know war would destroy their country. The US establishment, deluded about
its military prowess, is unafraid of war, believing it to be winnable at low cost. The US would ultimately
win simply because its economy is vastly larger and capable of supporting a prolonged war effort.
But make no mistake, a prolonged effort will be necessary, and the lethality will horrify and surprise
everyone involved. The recent US experience of 15 years of continuous warfare with only a few thousand
deaths has led too many to believe that war is a low cost political tool. These misconceptions are
what will allow the American people to be lead into war. The sudden and unexpected deaths of hundreds
or thousands of soldiers in the early days will fuel the anger necessary to sustain the popular support
for the war.
The down votes, I suspect, are from people who want to see Russia humiliate the US and destroy
the hubris with which it interacts with the world. Perhaps the better analogy is of the US as Evander
Holifield walking into a bar and picking a fight with an aging George Foreman. Holifield will win,
but he'll get hit with some big ass punches that will hurt like hell.
And, of course, nobody really wins that war, except for the few who will get rich off of it. But
I'm not in that club.
What the maniacs that are calling the shots for Unkle Skam are afraid of is losing the petro-dollar
and reserve currency status. Without that the fraudulent money-changing ponzi falls apart, and everything
else with it.
Since the start of the Syrian and Ukrainian conflicts, I have been trying to find the vital interests
which are driving the US foreign policy, and preservation of the petro dollar system is the only
thing which makes US policy seem rational. Either our leaders are irrational, or they see no way
to hold the system together if the petro dollar recycling system ends. But, I don't think it can
be preserved any longer, regardless of what they do.
Russia could win a 'defensive' war. And they could strip America of many allies. And they can speed
up loss of the Dollar as world reserve currency.
That is a pretty solid win, in my book, even if it isn't 'total annihiliation' or invasion of
America itself (which would be stupid of Russia, unless there comes a time where the American people
literally have to invite Russia in).
It's my unlearned opinion that USSA is very dangerous because it will have to go full retard in a
fight against Russia. Any victories by Russia will embolden Murika's fiefdoms to just say fuck off.
It's already happening fpr example Philipines.
The Russian military is defensive in nature, the US of offensive. The US has bases and interests
all over the world, the Russians... not so much. So I think the framing of your thought process of
how this would play out is probably wrong. The US and Russia would never go to war directly, as in
lobbing missles at each ones respective homeland, as that would mean complete annihilation of both
countries... but rather war by proxy. In that realm, the US has way more soft targets for the Russians
to hit. For a country already 20 trillion is debt, where is the tipping point? I would suggest a
lot closer than most people would think.
"... "Hysteria has been whipped up in the United States about the influence of Russia over the U.S. presidential election," said Putin, calling it a ruse to cover up for the fact that the U.S. political elite had nothing to say about serious issues such as the country's national debt or gun control. ..."
"... "It's much simpler to distract people with so-called Russian hackers, spies, and agents of influence. Does anyone really think that Russia could influence the American people's choice in any way? The number of mythical, dreamt-up problems include the hysteria - I can't think of another word - that has broken out in the United States about the influence of Russia on the current elections for the US president. " ..."
Moments ago, Russian president started speaking at the final session of the Valdai International
Discussion Club's 13th annual meeting in Sochi. More than 130 experts and political analysts from
Russia and other countries are taking part in this year's three-day meeting, titled 'The Future in
Progress: Shaping the World of Tomorrow'.
While Putin's speech can be seen below, he has already had a handful of soundbites, most notably
the following he just said in response to accusations that Russia could influence the US election:
"Hysteria has been whipped up in the United States about the influence of Russia over the U.S.
presidential election," said Putin, calling it a ruse to cover up for the fact that the U.S. political
elite had nothing to say about serious issues such as the country's national debt or gun control.
"It's much simpler to distract people with so-called Russian hackers, spies, and agents of influence.
Does anyone really think that Russia could influence the American people's choice in any way? The
number of mythical, dreamt-up problems include the hysteria - I can't think of another word - that
has broken out in the United States about the influence of Russia on the current elections for the
US president. "
He ended that phrase as follows: "What, is America a banana republic?!"
Putin mocks claim that Russia is trying to influence the US elections: "What, is America now
a banana republic? America is a great power."
And then, to emphasize his trolling, added the following: "correct me if I am wrong."
He also said that "Russia has no intention of attacking anyone, it is ridiculous, foolish and
unthinkable. I read your analytical materials prepared not only by those present but also by analysts
in the US and Europe. However, it is just unthinkable, silly and unrealistic. In Europe alone, the
combined population of NATO countries stands at 300 million, in the US the total population is, probably,
600 million, while in Russia - 146 million. It is just funny to talk about this."
According to the Russian president, contradictions stemming from redistribution of political power
are growing.
"Regrettably, next to nothing has changed for the better in the past months. To be frank, nothing
has changed. Contradictions stemming from redistribution of economic power and political influence
are only growing," Putin said.
Hence, according to the Russian leader, the burden of mutual mistrust is limiting possibilities
to stand to real challenges and real threats facing the world community. "As a matter of fact, the
entire globalization project has turned to be in a crisis and voices in Europe are speaking (and
we know and hear it well) about the failure of the policy of mulicultiralism," Putin said, adding
that this situation is a consequence of a wrong, hasty and somewhat arrogant choice made by Europe's
political elites some twenty-five years ago.
"Back then, at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, there was a chance not only to spur globalization
processes but to give them a qualitatively new, harmonious and sustainable character," the Russian
leader said.
He drew attention to the fact that the countries that claimed to be the winners in the Cold War
began to reshape the global political and economic order in their own interests.
These states, in his words, embarked on a path of "globalization and security for themselves only,
but not for all." But not all agreed on that.
Some could not resist that any longer whereas others were not yet ready, so, no wonder the system
of international relations has been feverish and the global economy is failing to recover from the
crisis, Putin added.
On globalization
The Russian president stressed globalization should be for all but not only for the select few.
"Obviously, the global community must focus on really topical problems facing the entire humankind,
the solution of which will make the world a safer and more stable place and the system of international
relations equal and fair," Putin said.
He said such an approach will make it possible to "make the globalization for the select few turn
into globalization for all."
"I am confident that it is possible to overcome any challenges and threats only together," Putin
stressed.
On Global Propaganda
The president said he regrets that Moscow does not possess such global propaganda techniques as
Washington does.
"I would like to have such a propaganda machine in Russia. But, unfortunately, I don't. We have
no such global media as CNN, BBC and some others. We have no such opportunities so far," Putin said
at a session of the Valdai Discussion Club.
On the world economy
The president expects the trend towards regionalization of the world economy will continue. It
is absolutely evident that economic cooperation must be mutually advantageous and be based on general
universal principles, so that each state could become a full-fledged participant in the global economic
life," Putin said.
"In the mid-term prospect, the tendency towards regionalization of the global economy will apparently
continue, but regional trade agreements should complement, develop, and not substitute universal
norms and rules," the president said.
The global economy is unable to get out of the current systemic crisis and the political and economic
principles continue to be reshuffled, Putin stressed.
"The system of international relations remains feverish. The global economy is unable to get out
of the systemic crisis. The principles and rules in politics and the economy continue to be reshuffled.
Quite often dogmas that until recently had been regarded as fundamentally true are turned inside
out," Putin said.
These days, he said, whenever the powers that be find some standards or rules beneficial, they
force everybody else to obey them. However, if at a certain point the very same standards begin to
pose obstructions, they are at once sent into the dustbin as outdated and new rules are established.
As an example of that strategy Putin mentioned the missile and bombing strikes against Belgrade
and Iraq, then against Libya and Afghanistan. The operation began without a corresponding resolution
by the UN Security Council. Some superpowers, the Russian leader said, in their attempts to change
the strategic balance of force in their favor have torn down the international legal regime that
prohibited the deployment of new missile defense systems. They have created and armed international
terrorist groups, whose cruelty is now pushing millions of migrants out of the unsafe areas.
Whole countries are being plunged into chaos. The principles of free trade are trampled on and
sanctions are used to exert political pressures.
"We can see the freedom of trade being sacrificed and so-called sanctions being used for exerting
political pressures. In bypass of the World Trade Organizations attempts are being made to form closed
economic alliances living by harsh rules and putting up firm barriers alliances where dome
On NATO
He said that NATO has outlived its usefullness as a structure and on the topic of the escalating
proxy war in Syria, Putin had a simple comment: "Our agreements with the US on Syria did not work
out."
And some more headlines from his pragmatic remarks:
RUSSIA'S PUTIN SAYS RUSSIAN MILITARY THREAT BEING EXAGGERATED TO JUSTIFY MILITARY SPENDING
RUSSIA'S PUTIN SAYS CYBER ATTACKS OR OTHER TYPES OF INTERFERENCE INTO OTHER COUNTRIES' AFFAIRS
UNACCEPTABLE
RUSSIA'S PUTIN SAYS DONALD TRUMP BEHAVES EXTRAVAGANTLY , BUT IT IS FOR A REASON
I'm trying to understand the DVs to my post. I'm sure there are those who think they could take on
Tyson, but with both ears intact at the end? My point was that anyone trying will at least know they've
been in a fight, and one likely to better have been avoided.
I dig the Vlad- clearly he's been the voice of reason for awhile now....
Clearly he doesn't suffer fools like Hillary- I can just see that conversation now.... She's babbling
her nonsense, he's looking around like "Are you fucking kidding me?"
... meanwhile in Italy, >>> "Artist creates colossal portrait of Trump to 'console' him in case
of defeat ..."
..."A massive portrait of Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump adorned a vast cornfield near
the Italian city of Verona, Wednesday.
The work by the Italian land artist Dario Gambarin was ploughed on a 25,000 square metre (269,098
square feet) field and is accompanied by a sardonic 'Ciao' and 'Trump', which some have claimed is
to signify Trump's defeat in recent polls."
Who in their right and practical mind picks a fight with the US military?
Err...how dare Russia move its borders towards our Nato forces?
You will find history replete with countries that have not "picked a fight" with the US, and yet
felt the full force of its military. Instead of rolling over before that option is required (Perkins).
Even more amazing..Is the world view America is projecting. All of my family, on both sides, have
represented all branches of the armed forces, with a Airforce full bird Colonel to boot. These were
old school military, many were career, and believed in the position down to their soul.
The point is, Where the fuck has honor and honesty gone to? Is there anyone currently in the military
on this site? Morale has to been at all time lows, where is the outright mutiny? THESE are the people,
and THESE are the reasons that lives are being risked/lost?!
I had an uncle, and a grandfather that I'm shocked haven't resurrected over this stupidity..
The Saint fucktard should declare, when did Russia attack Crime and when did Russia attack Ukraine?
Does the fucktard know, what ukraininan jew Chruscov did , while drunken, to Russia with Krim?
How was it done? was it constitutional?
Ukraine existed before just one day in 1917. Never ever before. The whole territory of Ukraine
was either purchchased, consolidated or fought by Russian cars during the last 1000 years. 4x as
much, as is the existence of the USA (should the fucktard come from USA). which other country kept
its land mass for so long together?
seems the fucktard is from the tribe, from the stupid abraham religion, originating in Middle
East und not understand, what is it based on.
However they were Ukrainians, not Poles and wanted independence.
They actually revolted and fought for it.
They made an alliance with Russia to help them in this fight.
Russia did help them to free themselves from Poland.
The problem was that Russia simply took over and Ukraine never gained their independence.
Their complaint against Poland was firstly religious as Poles were Catholic while Ukrainians Russian
Orthodox. Secondly Polish aristocracy treated the Ukrainian nobles as second class citizens.
Let's face it. Back in the 1600s it was the kings and princes and nobles that were responsible
for these conflicts. The common people had no influence whatsoever.
They deserve their own homeland, just like the Kurds do.
What the region should strive for is friendly cooperation between themselves. There is no reason
why Slavic nations cannot form their own union. There sure as hell is closer bond between a Russian
and a Slovakian or a Pole and a Serbian than any of them and an Englishman.
"Russia has no intention of attacking anyone, it is ridiculous, foolish and unthinkable....."
Tell that to Crimea and Ukraine, Vlad.
SAINT,
Do you live under a rock? Ukraine was a false flag brought into being by the (((usual suspects.)))
Crimean's saw what was going on, and wanted no part of it.
There was no armed incursion into Crimea by Russian army ground troops, to "take it over." Crimea
is Russian speaking since Kathyrn the Great, and the people voted to rejoin the federation. They
wanted nothing to do with zionazi parasites who had taken over Ukraine.
Think about it. Does Crimea have a insurrection going on now, to then overthrow their overlords?
No of course not, they want to be part of Russia.
You're an idiot. Fools like yourself mindlessly listening to the media (and gov't) without a shred
of evidence. Here's an idea, Sparky, take the effort of getting out of your lazy chair and actually
do a little research. If Ukraine were attacked, don't you think the US would have video captured?
Have you seen any, genius? Were you brain-dead in not knowing about the illegal State Dpet coup led
by Nuland? Holy smokes. Get with the f'ing program, man. Wake up for god's sake. Idiots like yourself
would probably vote "up" for a war if the US asked you. Based on zippo. Just like Iraq, just like
Afghanistan, just like Libya, just like Syria. Sleepwalking morons like you is what makes this country
doubly dangerous. Wake the F up!!!!!
Was there ever honor in signing up to go kill people? In hindsight how many of America's military
adventures were nothing more than neo-colonial expansions? Any free man born of his God given liberties
should tell the military to fuck off, all wars are banker's wars ultimately and the humans who fight
them considered expendable cannon fodder by the powers that be. The day the men of this planet realize
there is no reason to war with one another on behalf of some evil rulers will be the day we finally
advance as a species. Until then we will remain cattle, to be herded and slaughtered.
The US military has not backed the American people since before 1861. They have been puppets for
bankster wars and the elites. The should have arrested Abe Lincoln and his bankster cronies.
Every President who got America into a war or phony war should hve been arrested. Two real scumbags
were LBJ and George Bush. LBJ was in on the JFK murder for Vietnam war as was bush. Bush and his
Mormon See Eye Aye cronies Romney and the Hinckley klan see World Vision Hickley See Eye Aye front
tried to kill Reagan for NeoCon Wars.
Compared to many in the war machine of the USA that virtually always advocate for moar war/bombing
and increasing destabilization, yes he is. If the US wants to get some credibility on this shit then
stop supporting terrorists, oops "moderate rebels", and actually wipe these shitstains off the face
of the planet. Don't use them as your cats paw to get rid of Assad. Have the balls to just take him
out if you want to take him out and don't use terrorists for the regime change that you so clearly
want but dont have the balls to just do directly.
A lot of people here overestimate Russian military capabilities. They honestly believe that Russia
could win a war with the US. They are wrong. But the US seems afflicted by the more dangerous misperception
that the US could easily defeat the Russians. The Russians have to be practical in their dealings
with the US, because they know war would destroy their country. The US establishment, deluded about
its military prowess, is unafraid of war, believing it to be winnable at low cost. The US would ultimately
win simply because its economy is vastly larger and capable of supporting a prolonged war effort.
But make no mistake, a prolonged effort will be necessary, and the lethality will horrify and surprise
everyone involved. The recent US experience of 15 years of continuous warfare with only a few thousand
deaths has led too many to believe that war is a low cost political tool. These misconceptions are
what will allow the American people to be lead into war. The sudden and unexpected deaths of hundreds
or thousands of soldiers in the early days will fuel the anger necessary to sustain the popular support
for the war.
The down votes, I suspect, are from people who want to see Russia humiliate the US and destroy
the hubris with which it interacts with the world. Perhaps the better analogy is of the US as Evander
Holifield walking into a bar and picking a fight with an aging George Foreman. Holifield will win,
but he'll get hit with some big ass punches that will hurt like hell.
And, of course, nobody really wins that war, except for the few who will get rich off of it. But
I'm not in that club.
What the maniacs that are calling the shots for Unkle Skam are afraid of is losing the petro-dollar
and reserve currency status. Without that the fraudulent money-changing ponzi falls apart, and everything
else with it.
Since the start of the Syrian and Ukrainian conflicts, I have been trying to find the vital interests
which are driving the US foreign policy, and preservation of the petro dollar system is the only
thing which makes US policy seem rational. Either our leaders are irrational, or they see no way
to hold the system together if the petro dollar recycling system ends. But, I don't think it can
be preserved any longer, regardless of what they do.
Russia could win a 'defensive' war. And they could strip America of many allies. And they can speed
up loss of the Dollar as world reserve currency.
That is a pretty solid win, in my book, even if it isn't 'total annihiliation' or invasion of
America itself (which would be stupid of Russia, unless there comes a time where the American people
literally have to invite Russia in).
It's my unlearned opinion that USSA is very dangerous because it will have to go full retard in a
fight against Russia. Any victories by Russia will embolden Murika's fiefdoms to just say fuck off.
It's already happening fpr example Philipines.
The Russian military is defensive in nature, the US of offensive. The US has bases and interests
all over the world, the Russians... not so much. So I think the framing of your thought process of
how this would play out is probably wrong. The US and Russia would never go to war directly, as in
lobbing missles at each ones respective homeland, as that would mean complete annihilation of both
countries... but rather war by proxy. In that realm, the US has way more soft targets for the Russians
to hit. For a country already 20 trillion is debt, where is the tipping point? I would suggest a
lot closer than most people would think.
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.
"... These are accurate, statistically sound statements. But they are something else, too. Declarations that Trump is highly unlikely to win also serve as counters to the Republican nominee's warning that the "rigged" election could be " stolen from us ." ..."
Callum Borchers, author at the Washington Post blog The Fix, admits that the press is
declaring victory for Hillary Clinton - to discredit claims that the election is rigged.
Since the final presidential debate last week, many news outlets have been delivering an unvarnished
message to Donald Trump supporters: Your candidate is virtually certain to lose the election Nov.
8.
These are accurate, statistically sound statements. But they are something else, too. Declarations
that Trump is highly unlikely to win also serve as counters to the Republican nominee's warning that
the "rigged" election could be "
stolen from us ."
"... In Germany, some 60 percent of A.F.D. supporters say globalization has "mainly negative" effects. We live in a world, the liberal British historian Timothy Garton Ash noted lately, "which would have Marx rubbing his hands with Schadenfreude." ..."
"... When Hillary Clinton calls half of Mr. Trump's voters a "basket of deplorables," she sounds as aloof as Marie Antoinette, telling French subjects who had no bread to "eat cake." ..."
HAMBURG, Germany - We have a word in German, "Wutbürger," which means "angry citizen" - though
like many German compound words, its meaning can never quite be captured in a pithy English translation.
And yet nothing in either language quite frames this current political moment.
It is a relatively new expression, with a derogatory connotation. A Wutbürger rages against a
new train station and tilts against
wind turbines . Wutbürgers came out in protest after the Berlin government decided to bail out
Greece and to accept roughly one million refugees and migrants into Germany.
Wutbürgers lie at both ends of the political spectrum; they flock to the right-wing Alternative
für Deutschland (A.F.D.) and the socialist Linke (Left) Party. The left wing has long had a place
in German politics, and the Linke has deep roots in the former East Germany's ruling party. And we've
had a fringe right wing since the postwar period began. But the populist anger of the A.F.D. is something
new: Anti-establishment, anti-European Union and anti-globalization, the A.F.D. didn't exist four
years ago. Today, 18 percent of Germans would consider voting for it.
The same thing is happening elsewhere in Europe: Many British Wutbürgers voted for Brexit. French
Wutbürgers will vote for Marine Le Pen's National Front. Perhaps the most powerful Wutbürger of them
all is Donald J. Trump.
Which raises the question: How was anger hijacked?
In its pure form, anger is a wonderful force of change. Just imagine a world without anger. In
Germany, without the anger of the labor movement, we would still have a class-based voting system
that privileged the wealthy, and workers would still toil 16 hours a day without pension rights.
Britain and France would still be ruled by absolute monarchs. The Iron Curtain would still divide
Europe, the United States would still be a British colony and its slaves could only dream of casting
a vote this Nov. 8.
Karl Marx was a Wutbürger. So were Montesquieu, William Wilberforce, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr. and the tens of thousands of Eastern German protesters who brought down the
Berlin Wall in 1989.
Now: Compare these spirits to the current parties claiming to stand for necessary change. Mr.
Trump vs. Dr. King. Sadly, the leaders of today's Wutbürger movements never grasped the difference
between anger driven by righteousness and anger driven by hate.
Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board
and contributing writers from around the world.
Anger works like gasoline. If you use it intelligently and in a controlled manner, you can move
the world. That's called progress. Or you just spill it about and ignite it, creating spectacular
explosions. That's called arson.
Unfortunately, a lack of maturity and prudence today exists among not just the new populist class,
but parts of the political establishment. The governing class needs to understand that just because
people are embittered and paranoid doesn't mean they don't have a case. A growing number of voters
are going into meltdown because they believe that politicians - and journalists - don't see what
they see.
Sure, the injustices they see are, in historical perspective, less stark and obvious than in the
days of Marx or King. The injustices of today are smaller, but they are more complex. And this is
what makes them all the more terrifying.
If John Steinbeck could travel the West today as he traveled America three generations ago, leaving
the highways to visit forgotten towns, documenting people's struggles as he did in "The Grapes of
Wrath,'' he would find much the same to write about. Globalization and its masters have capitalized
on enormous pay gaps between West and East, at a huge profit for them, and huge cost to others.
The upper class has gained much more from the internationalization of trade and finances than
the working class has, often in obscene ways. Bankers get bonuses despite making idiotic decisions
that trigger staggering losses. Giant enterprises like Facebook or Apple pay minimal taxes, while
blue-collar workers have to labor harder - even taking a second or third job - to maintain their
standard of living. And this is as true in Germany, France or Austria as it is in Ohio or Florida.
In Germany, some 60 percent of A.F.D. supporters say globalization has "mainly negative" effects.
We live in a world, the liberal British historian Timothy Garton Ash noted lately, "which would have
Marx rubbing his hands with Schadenfreude."
The grievances of white, often less-educated voters on both sides of the Atlantic are often dismissed
as xenophobic, simplistic hillbillyism. But doing so comes at a cost. Europe's traditional force
of social change, its social democrats, appear to just not get it. When Hillary Clinton calls half
of Mr. Trump's voters a "basket of deplorables," she sounds as aloof as Marie Antoinette, telling
French subjects who had no bread to "eat cake." In Germany, a deputy Social Democrat leader, Ralf Stegner, displays a similar arrogance when he calls A.F.D. supporters "racists" and "skunks." Media
reports often convey the same degree of contempt.
In Germany a recent poll showed that only 14 percent of the citizens trusted the politicians.
This is an alarming figure, in a country where faith in a progressive, democratic government has
been a cornerstone of our postwar peace. But this presumes that legitimate anger will be acknowledged
as such. If this faith is rattled, democracy loses its basic promise.
Amid their mutual finger-pointing, neither populist nor established parties acknowledge that both
are squandering people's anger, either by turning this anger into counterproductive hatred or by
denouncing and dismissing it. Mrs. Clinton has the chance to change, by leading a political establishment
that examines and processes anger instead of merely producing and dismissing it. If she does, let's
hope Europe once again looks to America as a model for democracy.
Jochen Bittner is a political editor for the weekly newspaper Die Zeit and a contributing
opinion writer. Follow The New York Times Opinion section on
Facebook and
Twitter , and sign up for the
Opinion Today newsletter
.
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.
"... The simplest explanation is usually best. All the indicators, especially the support of the donor class, elites of all kinds
etc. points towards a Democratic victory, perhaps a very strong victory if the poll numbers last weekend translate into electoral college
numbers. ..."
I stopped by to check if my comment had cleared moderation. What follows is a more thorough examination (not my own, entirely)
on Corey's point 1, and some data that may point towards a much narrower race than we're led to believe.
The leaked emails from one Democratic super-pac, the over-sampling I cited at zerohedge (@13o) is part of a two-step process
involving over-sampling of Democrats in polls combined with high frequency polling. The point being to encourage media
to promote the idea that the race is already over. We saw quite a bit of this last weekend. Let's say the leaked emails are reliable.
This suggests to me two things: first – the obvious, the race is much closer than the polls indicated, certainly the poll cited
by Corey in the OP. Corey questioned the validity of this poll, at least obliquely. Second, at least one super-pac working with
the campaign sees the need to depress Trump turn-out. The first point is the clearest and the most important – the polls, some
at least, are intentionally tilted to support a 'Hillary wins easily' narrative. The second allows for some possibly useful speculation
regarding the Clinton campaigns confidence in their own GOTV success.
The simplest explanation is usually best. All the indicators, especially the support of the donor class, elites of all
kinds etc. points towards a Democratic victory, perhaps a very strong victory if the poll numbers last weekend translate into
electoral college numbers.
That's a big if. I suggest Hillary continues to lead but by much smaller margins in key states. It's also useful to
point out that Trump's support in traditionally GOP states may well be equally shaky.
And that really is it from me on this topic barring a double digit swing to Hillary in the LA Times poll that has the race
at dead even.
Layman 10.25.16 at 11:31 am
kidneystones:
"The leaked emails from one Democratic super-pac, the over-sampling I cited at zerohedge (@13o) is part of a two-step
process involving over-sampling of Democrats in polls combined with high frequency polling."
Excellent analysis, only the email in question is eight years old. And it refers to a request for internal polling done by
the campaign. And it suggests over-sampling of particular demographics so the campaign could better assess attitudes among those
demographics.
And this is a completely normal practice which has nothing to do with the polling carried out by independent third parties
(e.g. Gallup, Ipsos, etc) for the purposes of gauging and reporting to the public the state of the race.
And when pollsters to over-sample, the over-sampling is used for analysis but is not reflected in the top-line poll results.
"... "This was a calibration error of the touch-screen on the machine," Scalzitti said. "When Mr. Moynihan used the touch-screen, it improperly assigned his votes due to improper calibration." ..."
CHICAGO - Early voting in Illinois got off to a rocky start Monday, as votes being cast
for Republican candidates were transformed into votes for Democrats.
Republican state representative candidate Jim Moynihan went to vote Monday at the Schaumburg Public
Library.
"I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent," Moynihan said.
"You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to
vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat."
The conservative website Illinois Review reported that "While using a touch screen voting machine
in Schaumburg, Moynihan voted for several races on the ballot, only to find that whenever he voted
for a Republican candidate, the machine registered the vote for a Democrat in the same race. He notified
the election judge at his polling place and demonstrated that it continued to cast a vote for the
opposing candidate's party. Moynihan was eventually allowed to vote for Republican candidates, including
his own race.
Moynihan offered this gracious lesson to his followers on Twitter: "Be careful when you vote in
Illinois. Make sure you take the time to check your votes before submitting."
Cook County Board of Elections Deputy Communications Director Jim Scalzitti, told Illinois Watchdog,
the machine was taken out of service and tested.
"This was a calibration error of the touch-screen on the machine," Scalzitti said. "When Mr. Moynihan
used the touch-screen, it improperly assigned his votes due to improper calibration."
I thought I'd never say this, but Glenn
Beck gave a very thoughtful interview with Charley Rose last night. He raised a lot of issues that
the other Glenn (Glenn Greenwald) has been raising --
the moral bankruptcy of each political
party and the tendency of each to attack the other for things that they themselves would deny, excuse,
and say that it doesn't
matter when their own party does it.
Glenn is not supporting Trump. But he gives the example
of the many Republicans who viciously attacked Bill Clinton for his sexual behavior but now deny,
excuse and say that it doesn't matter when Trump does it.
The flip side, of course, is found with the many Democrats who viciously attack Trump but denied,
excused, and said that it didn't matter when Bill Clinton did it.
Glenn says that to restore trust with the American people, both parties need to clean their
houses and become parties that put laws and principles first, which implies criticizing their own
instead of shielding them when they misbehave.
The for-profit media thrive and depend on controversy and generally
content that is emotionally engaging. Racism is only a small
part of it, it is much more broadly appealing - it is essentially
"addressing", channeling, amplifying, and redirecting existing
grievances of a large part of the public. If economy and society
would be doing great and a large majority of people would be
happy/contented, these anger-based media formats wouldn't find
an audience.
The same underlying causes as the success of Trump.
The reason why he can maintain considerable success despite of
grave shortcomings is because he continues to be a channel for
the anger that is not disappearing. (With the support of the
media, who are also interested in an ongoing controversy with
details as scandalous as possible.)
"... This outcome has an objective character. The two-party system is a political monopoly of the capitalist class. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are political instruments of big business. The claims of Bernie Sanders and his pseudo-left apologists that it is possible to reform or pressure the Democrats-and even carry out a "political revolution" through it-have proven to be lies ..."
"The 2016 election campaign was dominated for many months by explosive popular disaffection with
the whole political and corporate establishment. But it has concluded in a contest between two candidates
who personify that establishment-one a billionaire from the criminal world of real-estate swindling,
the other the consensus choice of the military-intelligence apparatus and Wall Street.
This outcome has an objective character. The two-party system is a political monopoly of the
capitalist class. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are political instruments of
big business. The claims of Bernie Sanders and his pseudo-left apologists that it is possible to
reform or pressure the Democrats-and even carry out a "political revolution" through it-have proven
to be lies."
I disagree with the basic premise of the post in that the right has been beaten because it
has won.
That's certainly not how the right sees the landscape. The tea party of 2010 was co-opted by
Richard Armey and the Kochs on the one hand and buried under a mountain of forms by Lois Lerner
on the other. The Armey group rallies to Ted Cruz, who is sure to have something to say about
America and the future of the Republican party should Trump be undone because of his lewd behavior
and actions.
The media is certain to be savaged no matter what the outcome. The number of artists and musicians
who both profit from and promote misogyny and violence invited to the WH over the last 8 years
to serve as role models for America's youth should raise nary an eyebrow. The prudery of the moment
is going to be the template for 'social reform' under the Republicans. If Hillary and her
media allies succeed in derailing the Trump insurgency via his mouth, his hands, and his zipper
they're going to face an extremely hostile electorate. Cruz is certain to try to step into Trump's
shoes as leader, preaching that Trump was a flawed messenger undone by an unforgiving god. This
will make sense for too many Americans to completely ignore. The unhappy white males who have
yet to self-identify as angry white males, rather than simply as Americans, may well decide to
do so.
Whatever few victories the Democrats enjoy lower down the ticket are unlikely to survive skyrocketing
Affordable Care Act premiums, some form of amnesty, and an extension of America's wars in the
ME. The Democrats are betting the farm that Republicans will never unlock the padlock Democrats
maintain over socially-conservative minorities. Cruz's ground game and networking with the evangelical
community didn't get the job done in 2016, but we can be sure that he and his team are already
mapping 2020.
Trump should be defeated according to most here. Some may actually believe Trump really
is the anti-Christ Hitler we've been constantly told he is, instead of a widely watched and often
admired vulgarian capitalist welcomed into living rooms across America for more than a decade.
Whatever Trump is, he's not Cruz. His supporters are not Cruz supporters. Yet.
I've no idea whether those supporting the Democratic candidate expect her to wake up on November
9, should she win, and suddenly decide to abandon the practices that got her this far. I certainly
don't. If you're nauseated at the prospect of 4-8 more years of secrecy, war, lies, and corruption
you're going to need to keep more than barf bags at hand, however. The polarization that has divided
America over the last 8 years is, imho, far more likely to become much more corrosive and
damaging with Democrats in charge.
Ted Cruz will literally be burning crosses and probably books, pornography, and anyone/thing
else that strikes his fancy. The donor class is praying that Hillary/Bush can stamp out the fires.
With rising unemployment, stagnating wages, and more and more Americans feeling that the system
isn't interested in them, or their children, there may very well be a little hell to pay, or a
lot.
@ 14 It won't surprise you to learn I think you're wrong about Trump. The battle against Trump
is for many a rejection of what they see in the mirror transposed onto Trump, as far as males
go. Many women, including some who support him, see in Trump a dangerous predator who offers the
promise of protection and wealth, but at a cost. Good thing no woman would ever sell herself,
or her principles, to such a man – and if Bill Clinton pops into your head, please don't blame
me.
Which is why, in this instance, I think the polls are wrong. Who in their right mind is
going to ever admit that Trump's language and behavior is not offensive? Nobody. Who in their
right mind looks out at America and sees Donald Trump, not Bill Cosby etc, etc, etc as a threat
to their own daughters, sisters, sons, etc? Which is why, in the end, enough voters are going
to say no thanks to Hillary and roll the dice with Donald.
I like your question re: Cruz. I find him such a phenomenally transparent phony that I can't
quite believe anyone trusts him. With Trump, and Bill Clinton, what you see is what you get –
Slick Willie.
At the moment Americans are being told they don't like what they see in Trump, but if that
were the case, why was he so popular back when he was actually on the Howard Stern show and otherwise
acting out? I frankly don't think most Americans give a toss what Trump did or said this week,
much less ten years ago. The stink coming out of the Clinton campaign is so rank it's actually
penetrating the media wall of silence. Given that social media provides numerous ways for candidates
to bypass the gate-keepers, I suspect enough voters are learning what's in the emails whether
CNN, or the Wapo, report the discoveries, or not.
Like I said. I think it will be close and right now I still say Trump edges it.
"... The establishment GOP and establishment DNC have become almost identical in their support of big banks, big corporations, and extremely hawkish overseas military policies. Favorites of the top 10% in the US. ..."
"... The biggest reason why it kicked this cycle. Historically only the bottom 20% or so have been heavily exploited. After 8 years of net loss (economic growth < population growth), almost everyone outside the elites of society are feeling the pinch. ..."
"... There's British voters that claim Hillary Clinton would be a Tory there for example. ..."
"... One specific example would be immigration, where voters don't agree with the Republican position on hardline enforcement of the law, nor with the Democratic position on continuing to expand immigration and granting legal status to those who have come illegally. ..."
"... The government bailouts from the banking crash of 2007-8 really kickstarted the angry voter here in the U.S. ..."
"... For the record, Sanders voted against the bank bailout. Obama and Clinton voted for it. Trump was not an elected official at the time of course. And Cruz was not yet in the Senate, but voter anger over items like this propelled him there. ..."
"... A part of what you describe is due to the capture of the state and media by a modern clerisy, all clinging to power by chasing the same (presumed centrist) voter. Voter disgust at this class and their short-sighted decisions is fully understandable. ..."
"... voting for a candidate who signals a Left/Right wing inclination (Clinton, NuLabour, Trump?) but has no intention of delivering - is a deliberate and willful disenfranchisement of the voter. ..."
It's a bigly trend
with enormous consequences for fiscal and monetary policy. But the rise of voter rage in advanced
democracies is a hard narrative to chart, what with the lack of data and the abundance of anecdote.
However, this seems a pretty decent attempt:
That's from Barclay's Marvin Barth - who has set out to measure "voter rage as a drop in the combined
vote share of the centre-right and centre-left parties as voters shift to parties that they believe
better reflect their frustrations," in a 73-page note.
And the exercise perhaps demonstrates that Brexit wasn't much of an exception after all:
Interesting/telling that commodity exporters such as Norway and Australia bucked the general trend,
no? Although you have to wonder how long that will last as the commodity boom fades.
Another interesting question ( asked by Joseph, with his hat on as Southern Africa correspondent
): is South Africa - where unemployment is over 30 per cent and the economy is really feeling
the pain of the commodity bust - part of the politics of rage?
The rising number of violent
'service delivery protests' and the current unrest on university campuses both suggest that South
Africa could be. On the other hand, in party politics itself, one curious thing about the fracturing
of the African National Congress is that there hasn't been more support for radical alternatives.
There are the Economic Freedom Fighters of course - but the party didn't do well enough capture
any municipalities in recent local elections. The centre-focused Democratic Alliance took the prizes
instead. Disaffected ANC voters are if anything staying home instead. Of course South Africa is full
of political risk in several other ways. But it may be an interesting exception to the voter rage
narrative.
Anyway, elsewhere, in European democracies, Barclays say that the drop in centre-party support
has actually been more like a collapse :
Greece (GR), perhaps unsurprisingly, has had roughly a 50pp drop in its centre vote share on
all three measures. But the 44-64pp drop in Austria (AT) is more shocking. In relative terms,
the 24-37pp drop in the Netherlands (NL) is even more startling given that the centre vote share
rarely ever has topped 50%; similarly striking is the 15-22pp drop in Belgium (BE), a country
famous for its linguistically divided parliament. Even in countries that traditionally have fewer
competitive parties, the declines have been large: Germany (DE) 20-27pp, France (FR) 18-32pp,
and Spain (ES) 15-28pp.
The broad-based decline also is unprecedented. Figure 3 charts a time series of the centre
vote share in advanced economies, grouped by type, from 1970 to the present. While there has been
a longer-term trend of mild erosion, a cross-country collapse in the political centre of the current
scale has not occurred previously. Reviewing the entire post-WWII period, there is no other similar
event. Nor was such a wide-ranging drop in the political centre visible during the inter-war,
Great Depression years.
… Figure 3 and Figure 4 also highlight another noteworthy point: voter rage does not seem to
be due (solely) to severe economic distress, contrary to one popular notion. Not only did the
Great Depression fail to provoke a similar collapse in the political centre among ongoing democracies
in the 1930s, but the current bout of political rage appears to pre-date the Global Financial
Crisis (GFC). As Figure 3 shows, the peak in the centre vote share was 2008 for Southern Europe,
but in the US, non-euro area Europe and the northern euro area, the deterioration of the political
centre began in 2003-05.
There's more in
the usual place for those that want it, as we're loath to rerun the full list of potential reasons
for this phenomenon here. Demographics, globalisation, xenophobia all get an airing and all get assigned
to a "yeah, probably, but where does one begin and another end" bucket.
For what it's worth, Barc's underlying contention is that the "biggest source of voter rage appears
to be a sense of economic and political disenfranchisement due to imperfect representation in national
governments and delegation of sovereignty to supranational and intergovernmental organizations."
Apparently 16 of 17 parties Barc looked at demanded "greater protection of, or retaking of, national
sovereignty."
Taking back control is more universal a wish than you might have imagined. It doesn't make
you very confident about globalisation's fate.
In the other direction, Barc suggest "the label 'populist' does not appear to fit the economic
policies of a majority of the parties challenging the political centre." Also in that direction,
"redistribution and corporate taxation, issues closely related to anger over increasing income inequality
appear to be lower-order campaign issues for most alternative parties even if it is of primary importance
for the remainder."
It all seems plausible enough as theories go, but we reserve the right to grab on to any other
narrative that comes along and which does a better job of grouping together what is a large number
of competing, non-mutually exclusive, narratives. Tracking voter-to-party preferences in immigration,
free trade, inequality (and so on) yield confusing results and, anyway, it seems unlikely to us that
party policy as presented is always fully understood or taken at face value by supporters.
Still, Barc themselves are humble about the data being used here and say they are "left to use
logic and narrative to analyse numerous bivariate relationships" and the direction of causality is
often impossible to determine.
In short, this is a worthy exercise - but handle with care.
10 hours ago
Interesting too that the decline from Chart 5
seems to coincide with the emergence and growth of the world wide web and the many distinct/fractious
perspectives and opinions instead of the more consensual/centralized editorial hubs typical of the
previous "age". Also- it seems the concept of "enlightened self-interest" has been displaced a more
dog-eat-dog-materialism where the winner takes all. The roots of rebellion and revolution have not
changed so it is good to see some thought by a "winning" organization is seeking an explanation.
Pi1010 5pts Featured
11 hours ago
Entrenched political alignment does not change much within a population, left and right winged-ness
follows a normal distribution. Around the early 80's political parties got scientific and professional,
they realised they only needed to win over the centrally minded swing voters but could ignore those
outside the center who would vote for them anyway. At the same time politicians became stage managed
by their media minders, Tony Blair being the master of this.
Voters outside the center, taken for granted have gone elsewhere and also find the rare genuine
politician appealing (Farage, Trump, Sanders, Corbyn). If voter rage is a problem, and I'm not convinced
it is, then mainstream parties need to broaden their appeal away from the center, they won't though
in case they lose to the other side, prisoners dilemma indeed.
The late Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky apparently proposed to Vladimir Putin that the oligarchs
fund and control two parties, which would play out bitterly contested elections, while the same
groups kept control behind the scenes. Putin in the end betrayed the oligarchs for his conception
of Russian national interest (which may still involve oligarchs).
As Russia Insider noted
"(In) the U.S we have two capitalist parties that largely agree on everything. The exceptions
are issues that matter a lot to the regular people who make up the two parties' bases, but are largely
irrelevant to party elites who fund and run both of them."
Which is why Trump, an outsider who cares about these issues, Is Literally Hitler as far as the
corporate media are concerned, and why the DNC cheated Sanders.
In defense of labantall. First, the earlier citation of Frost was apposite; thought-provoking,
if not completely convincing. Second, that both of the 2 parties are (usually) professional and (possibly)
competent servants of their (admittedly disparate sets of) clients ought not be in dispute.
The alleged
Russian plan would be a sham, in that the clientele of the 2 parties would be the same - which is
not the case in America - but I defend the observation as germane, even if it is fallacious in fact.
The Russians just don't get it, and why would that be a surprise. I don't agree that Trump gets bad
press only because he is an outsider, I think he's doing himself in; but that's not an absurd opinion.
Regardless of the source.... The analysis is largely correct.
The establishment GOP and establishment DNC have become almost identical in their support of big
banks, big corporations, and extremely hawkish overseas military policies. Favorites of the top 10%
in the US.
Simultaneous, anti-establishment movements happened in both primaries (Sanders & Trump). While "The
Wall" stands as very different as a policy, both candidates agreed on some big issues impacting the
bulk of the american populace such as,
Mass immigration = Wage suppression
Banks are too big. Sanders advocates the re-imposition of Glass Stegall
The biggest reason why it kicked this cycle. Historically only the bottom 20% or so have been
heavily exploited. After 8 years of net loss (economic growth < population growth), almost everyone
outside the elites of society are feeling the pinch.
@ Londo
@ Paul Murphy
@ rj1
@ labantall
As the child of Labour-voting parents in the Eisenhower era, both US parties seemed
pretty much alike to me. So when my aunt who lived in the US came over to visit, I asked her why
they had two such similar parties?
She replied "Because every office door has an inside and an outside..."
Russia Insider is a website run by Western expats in Russia. I suppose it could be a fake site.
I just found it by googling "Berezovsky two parties". You can find the original Berezovsky interview
by Masha Gessen, who is as far from a Putin mouthpiece as you can get.
"The idea that US democrats and republicans largely agree on everything is absurd"
I think you have to distinguish between those at the top of the parties (and their funders) and
the rank and file.
Thanks to those commenters who defended my right to a different opinion ;-)
@ labantall
@ Paul Murphy
Erm, the Dems and GOP are so in agreement we've had close to legislative grid-lock
for the past eight years. All this wing-nuttery about global elites being in bed with the media,
keeping a boot on the throat of the common man, etc etc, doesn't really have a place here on FTAV.
So take a rest from this post -- and the site -- please.
Not convinced that they can quantify this accurately. Assessing the vote of "centre-x" parties
is both highly subjective, and also affected by longer-term trends in the parties themselves.
Just to take the example of the UK. You might argue that the rise of UKIP, and perhaps the Green
party, reflected an increased vote for more extreme parties. But maybe it reflected instead a move
to the centre ground by the two main parties (big tents re-pitched so they no longer cover the extremes).
Both Labour and the Conservatives have dramatically shifted positions over the years, in both
directions. Was Michael Foot's Labout party a "centre-left" party? Were Michael Howard's Conservatives
"centre-right"? I am sure for the purposes of this analysis, the answer was "yes" both times, but
I would answer with two "no"s.
@ Pharma
The terms themselves lose meaning when we go to a country-by-country basis. There's
British voters that claim Hillary Clinton would be a Tory there for example.
I've always wished someone could break down for me the difference between center, center-right,
right, and far-right (ditto moving left) as 4 separate viewpoints.
Hmm. 'New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook For Rigging Polls Through "Oversamples"' on Zero Hedge
seems to have more than one million page views at the moment.
The U.S. numbers are a bit misleading, since significant numbers of independent voters are
actually in between the two parties on political views.
One specific example would be immigration, where voters don't agree with the Republican position
on hardline enforcement of the law, nor with the Democratic position on continuing to expand immigration
and granting legal status to those who have come illegally.
Hence, a lot of independent voters are up for grabs by whichever party happens to strike a more
moderate tone. The challenge for the parties is in getting moderate candidates through the primary
process, which of late has been dominated by hardliners and party loyalists who are not in tune with
the general public's views (hence how both parties succeeded in nominating the candidate with the
lowest favorability rating).
Along with economic and political disenfranchisement (see the billionaires response "Guess
it takes a study to point out the obvious" to research concluding the US is no longer a democracy)
don't forget demographic disenfranchisement.
As the Canadian anthropologist Peter Frost puts it :
"In late capitalism, the elites are no longer restrained by ties of national identity and are
thus freer to enrich themselves at the expense of their host society. This clash of interests lies
at the heart of the globalist project: on the one hand, jobs are outsourced to low-wage countries;
on the other, low-wage labor is insourced for jobs that cannot be relocated, such as in the construction
and service industries. This two-way movement redistributes wealth from owners of labor to owners of capital. Business people
benefit from access to lower-paid workers and weaker labor and environmental standards. Working people
are meanwhile thrown into competition with these other workers. As a result, the top 10% of society
is pulling farther and farther ahead of everyone else, and this trend is taking place throughout
the developed world. The rich are getting richer … not by making a better product but by making the
same product with cheaper and less troublesome inputs of labor."
In order for a government to achieve anything constructive, a significant proportion of the
population have to reach broad agreement on what policies are desirable, and what means of implementing
them are acceptable. The political centre is where this broad agreement normally occurs.
We appear to have entered a period where a majority of the population can agree on what they don't
like (banker/CEO salaries, zero-hour contracts, housing shortage), but cannot agree on policies to
expunge these outrages from our society. This fills me with foreboding.
@ Patience
Well, in the United States, for the first time ever, entitlement "reform" was not
an issue during a presidential campaign. Trump has vowed to not touch Medicare or Social Security,
while HRC has promised to perhaps enhance both entitlement programs.
I believe that a consensus has developed in the United States that, due to income inequality,
th budget for entitlement programs must be increased, not "streamlined".
Regardless of what happens in two weeks, I doubt that a GOP presidential nominee can ever run
on a platform to "reform" entitlement programs.
The government bailouts from the banking crash
of 2007-8 really kickstarted the angry voter here in the U.S. Don't know if you can ever find an
identifiable cause across multiple democracies, but that's a key one common to the U.S. and Europe.
For the record, Sanders voted against the
bank bailout. Obama and Clinton voted for it. Trump was not an elected official at the time of course.
And Cruz was not yet in the Senate, but voter anger over items like this propelled him there.
" issues closely related to anger over increasing income inequality appear to be lower-order campaign
issues for most alternative parties "
This is because the f**k-witted managerial metropolitan centrists (as exemplified by the FT) fail
to realise that income inequality (poverty) is seen as analogous to 'immigration' because right wing
parties hijack the agenda and centrist governments are either 1) monumentally incompetent or 2) wholly
captured by financial interests. (the answer is '2' btw)
What people see are bankers back to getting paid millions, house prices rocketing out of any normal
persons reach, wages stagnating and immigrants flooding in. Their lives are half what they used to
be and the real, actual ignoramuses - politicians and media - sneer at people and telling them that
_they_ are ignorant.
'Dont believe your own eyes or experiences - believe us - youre worthless and ignorant'. . If
this occured in a soap opera there'd be an outcry. Its the mantra of the abuser, writ national.
And applauded by the FT.
What youre observing is an economic revolt against the Reification Fallacy promulgated and promoted
by the media.
Economic models are notional constructs, they are neither real nor accurate. By messing around
with the management of the country these bull*hit artists have cost ordinary people a decade of their
productive lives. Enough is enough.
People dont realise why this has happened but when they do - when its explained to them properly
that a combination of 'professionals' fixated on imaginary models (how is this different from a mental
illness?) and 'regulatory capture' (corruption) by financial interests has made them homeless/pensionless/savingsless
there will be wholesale revolt.
In addition, the increasingly shrill and unhinged demonisation by politicians and the media of
peoples correctly expressed (if wrongly rooted) frustrations is evidence that the establishment realise
their error. Yet they _still_ refuse to call for or enact a reversal of the Odious policies they
operate!
Looking forward to the Austrian election re-run and the Italian referendum, on top of general
elections across Europe next year, I can only quote a recent noble laureate 'I dont need a weatherman
to know which way the wind blows'
(And I dont need a bank or a newspaper to tell me either.)
@ ceraunavolta
I find these ideas about RWAs and the order/authoritarian openness axis very
unsavoury. To me it just looks like de-humanising pejorative tribalism/categorisation dressed
up as quantitative/objective analysis. A world neatly divided between nice clever open outward
looking groovy people (like US) and horrid narrow-minded inward looking vengeful people (like
THEM).
This stuff is surely skirting the borders of medicalising dissent – which seldom ends well.
Also – it's pretty lightweight if you think about it for more than about thirty seconds: On Brexit,
for example, it surely could be argued that, for some, supporting continued EU membership actually
represented a vote *for* order and an expression of a lack of openness to the possibility of change.
Surely one person's order can be another's chaos – and one person's perception of what is 'other'
can be another person's 'familiar' – so even if there is an intrinsic and fixed difference between
people in their preference for order or openness you wouldn't necessarily expect such an intrinsic
bias to be strongly predicative on any binary issue unless everyone's circumstances were the same
(with regards to what for them constituted 'order' and 'other').
I'm wondering if anyone's looked for evidence of a distinct personality type (perhaps at higher
prevalence among academics) characterised by an over willingness to believe that people are automaton-like
with inflexible fixed character traits (a view of humanity which, as it happens, is conveniently
susceptible to simple numerical modelling and the production of impressive looking true-because-numbers/sciencey
graphs)?
I'm thinking we could call such people NHDs – 'naive human determinists' or possibly 'numerical human
determinists'?
Excellent – I applaud your caution/scepticism David.
Could it perhaps be that the reason the 'rise of the angry voter' is hard to chart is because
it is not actually an independently identifiable thing? Most people, on all sides, tend to try lazily
to medicalise/infantilise people who don't agree with them as being stupid, ill-educated/over-educated,
indoctrinated by the evil media (left-wing or right-wing media respectively), angry/complacent, left-behind-socially-excluded/out-of-touch-wealthy-elitists
and/or suffering from cognitive biases etc. Everyone but themselves, apparently, is susceptible to
these sorts of factors – but I think it is basically pretty lazy (and dangerous!) for people to try
to 'metta' out of (often difficult, complicated, non-simple right/wrong goody/baddy) arguments over
the actual issues, and instead go for a kind of class-action-ad-hominem 'you only think that because
you are this-that-or-the-other'.
From a parochial perspective, back in the eighties, the 'variance' of mainstream politics in the
UK was massive – people like Norman Tebbit on the one hand, and Michael Foot on the other were mainstream
political figures – there was a massive absence of consensus. There was a lot of anger. The anger,
presumably, was a *downstream* consequence of the realities. By the standards of the subsequent anodyne
managerialist political/media merry-go-round we'd arrived at by the mid 2000s the gulf across the
entire mainstream of UK politics was virtually infinitesimally small by comparison. Things have started
to heat up again. This is all part of the process. This is how it is supposed to work. It ebbs and
it flows – I imagine – for good reason. I'm inclined to think that trying to identify some sort of
new thing – 'identity politics' or 'the new politics of rage' is mostly just displacement behaviour
by people who, for a variety of reasons, don't really want to get their hands dirty with the real
issues.
I remember, I think it was Peter Mandelson, said back during the New Labour years something like
'politics doesn't really matter when times are good'. I think perhaps some people are starting to
discover (some of them for the first time in their lives) why it is that we actually have politics.
I think the SA example from Joseph is also very good – it illustrates that 'things are complicated'
and that simple 'narratives' are no substitute for actually being on the ground and trying to understand
what's actually going on.
@ Skwosh
A part of what you describe is due to the capture of the state and media by a modern
clerisy, all clinging to power by chasing the same (presumed centrist) voter. Voter disgust at this
class and their short-sighted decisions is fully understandable.
@ DaniaDelendaEst
@ Skwosh
I'd briefly add that voting for a candidate who signals a Left/Right wing inclination
(Clinton, NuLabour, Trump?) but has no intention of delivering - is a deliberate and willful disenfranchisement
of the voter.
I don't disagree – and I take the point made by you and other commenters about 'chasing the centre
ground' in political/electoral strategy – but I'm not so sure it is avoidable. For sure, when the
electoral conditions are right then you can win by appealing to a small number of often centrist
swing voters, but it only works *if* those conditions already exist – and when those conditions exist
then people who use that strategy will prevail and get to make policy (inclined to pander to the
centre) – and if they instead fall on their swords and decided to loose honourably then another,
different (and possibly less honourable) lot will play to the centre ground and win instead. It works
until it doesn't. I grant that this approach is likely to end up going on for too long, allowing
polarization and genuine disenfranchisement to build – but I think this is unfortunately all part
of the process – one of the unavoidable costs of democracy's least-worst-ness. These electoral conditions
wax and wane – there is only so far-apart or ill-balanced the political spectrum can get before there
is no centre that can swing it. When it breaks – when the centre cannot (and probably should not)
hold any longer then the particular reasons for this will presumably be many, varied, complicated
and messy in any given instance and at any given point in political history – difficult to generalise
about – and difficult to unify into a single 'narrative'.
I am certainly not saying that there is no anger or disgust – and I'm not saying that these things
are not justified. That there is anger and disgust is part of why things are heating up politically
– and this is as it should be; this is what shifts a consensus that may have outlived its utility
and/or establishes a new consensuses in an area where there was none before. During the transition
such processes are inevitably shouty. My problem is with the idea that the 'anger' or the 'disgust'
is somehow the causative thing that is making politics all 'freaky'. For one thing I don't really
accept that politics has yet become *that* freaky (yet anyway). It is certainly freakier than of
late, but I think some people need to get out more (in terms of historical perspective) if they think
that this sort of thing is somehow unprecedented. It seems obvious to me that the anger and disgust
is an inevitable consequence of the underlying grievances that people have – so if someone wants
to understand 'what is going on' then they need to look at these underlying grievances rather than
trying to understand it all in terms of being 'anger-driven'. Anger is something people naturally
feel and express when they're unhappy about stuff and/or they think they (or others) are being treated
unfairly, marginalised, patronised etc. (not that I'm implying either of you would disagree with
this).
"... My impression is that Trump_vs_deep_state is more about dissatisfaction of the Republican base with the Republican brass (which fully endorsed neoliberal globalization), the phenomenon somewhat similar to Sanders. ..."
"... Working class and lower middle class essentially abandoned DemoRats (Clinton democrats) after so many years of betrayal and "they have nowhere to go" attitude. ..."
"... Now they try to forge the alliance of highly paid professionals who benefitted from globalization("creative class"), financial speculators and minorities. Which does not look like a stable coalition to me. ..."
"... In other words both Parties are now split and have two mini-parties inside. I am not sure that Sanders part of Democratic party would support Hillary. The wounds caused by DNC betrayal and double dealing are still too fresh. ..."
"... We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses control of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would be otherwise. That's why they resort to war propaganda tricks. ..."
"That's not untrue, but it seems to me to be getting worse."
Because of economic stagnation and anxiety among lower class Republicans. Trump blames immigration
and trade unlike traditional elite Republicans. These are economic issues.
Trump supporters no longer believe or trust the Republican elite who they see as corrupt
which is partly true. They've been backing Nixon, Reagan, Bush etc and things are just getting
worse. They've been played.
Granted it's complicated and partly they see their side as losing and so are doubling down
on the conservatism, racism, sexism etc. But Trump *brags* that he was against the Iraq war.
That's not an elite Republican opinion.
likbez -> DrDick... , -1
My impression is that Trump_vs_deep_state is more about dissatisfaction of the Republican base with the Republican
brass (which fully endorsed neoliberal globalization), the phenomenon somewhat similar to Sanders.
Working class and lower middle class essentially abandoned DemoRats (Clinton democrats) after
so many years of betrayal and "they have nowhere to go" attitude.
Looks like they have found were to go this election cycle and this loss of the base is probably
was the biggest surprise for neoliberal Democrats.
Now they try to forge the alliance of highly paid professionals who benefitted from globalization("creative
class"), financial speculators and minorities. Which does not look like a stable coalition to
me.
Some data suggest that among unions which endorsed Hillary 3 out of 4 members will vote against
her. And that are data from union brass. Lower middle class might also demonstrate the same pattern
this election cycle.
In other words both Parties are now split and have two mini-parties inside. I am not sure that
Sanders part of Democratic party would support Hillary. The wounds caused by DNC betrayal and
double dealing are still too fresh.
We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses control
of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would be
otherwise. That's why they resort to war propaganda tricks.
"... But 30 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats agree that voter suppression occurs by purging eligible voters from the registration rolls. ..."
A
Washington Post analysis of Pollfish data shows that 84 percent of Republicans, 52 percent
of Democrats, and 75 percent of independents believe that a "meaningful amount" of voter fraud occurs
during elections.
Sixty percent of Republicans believe that illegal immigrants are voting, much higher than Democrats
and independents.
Democrats focus more on voter ID laws, with 32 percent suggesting that it contributes to voter
suppression. (Only 26 percent of Republicans feel the same way.)
But 30 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats agree that voter suppression occurs
by purging eligible voters from the registration rolls.
"... Obama said back in 2008: "I want to be honest, it's not as if it's just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in the past. Sometimes, Democrats have, too." ..."
"... hillary goes along with CIA and the neocon/zionist/MIC agenda but she's replaceable. ..."
"... An out of control, above the law, criminal mafia acting on behalf of the Saudis and Israelis (if you think Syria is about the petrodollar or a Qatari pipeline... Think again - it's about Iran and Russia and about Greater Israel and its Leviathan and Golan gas most of all - Zbig et al would prefer to be full battle rattle in Ukraine and Chechnya...) is stopped how? ..."
A U.K. based company that has provided voting machines for 16 states, including important battleground
states like Florida and Arizona, has direct ties with billionaire leftist and Clinton crusader George
Soros.
As Lifezette
reports , the fact that the man in control of voting machines in 16 states is tied directly to
the man who has given millions of dollars to the Clinton campaign and various progressive and globalist
causes will surely leave a bad taste in the mouth of many a voter.
The balloting equipment tied to Soros is coming from the U.K. based Smartmatic company, whose
chairman Mark Malloch-Brown is a former UN official and sits on the board of Soros' Open Society
Foundation.
According to Lifezette , Malloch-Brown was part of the Soros Advisory Committee on Bosnia and
also is a member of the executive committee of the International Crisis Group, an organization he
co-founded in the 1990s and built with funds from George Soros' personal fortune.
In 2007 Soros appointed Malloch-Brown vice-president of his Quantum Funds, vice-chairman of Soros
Fund Management, and vice-chairman of the Open Society Institute (former name of OSF).
Browns ties also intertwine with the Clintons as he was a partner with Sawyer-Miller, the consulting
firm where close Clinton associate Mandy Grunwald worked. Brown also was also a senior advisor to
FTI Consulting, a firm at which Jackson Dunn, who spent 15 years working as an aide to the Clintons,
is a senior managing director.
When taking that into account, along with the poor track record Smartmatic has of providing free
and fair elections, this all becomes quite terrifying.
An astonishing 2006 classified U.S. diplomatic cable obtained and released by WikiLeaks reveals
the extent to which Smartmatic may have played a hand in rigging the 2004 Venezuelan recall election
under a section titled "A Shadow of Fraud." The memo stated that "Smartmatic Corporation is a
riddle both in ownership and operation, complicated by the fact that its machines have overseen
several landslide (and contested) victories by President Hugo Chavez and his supporters."
"The Smartmatic machines used in Venezuela are widely suspected of, though never proven conclusively
to be, susceptible to fraud," the memo continued. "The Venezuelan opposition is convinced that
the Smartmatic machines robbed them of victory in the August 2004 referendum. Since then, there
have been at least eight statistical analyses performed on the referendum results."
"One study obtained the data log from the CANTV network and supposedly proved that the Smartmatic
machines were bi-directional and in fact showed irregularities in how they reported their results
to the CNE central server during the referendum," it read.
With such suspicion and a study which claims to prove that the U.K. firm's equipment tampered
with the 2004 Venezuelan recall election, should be enough for states to reject these machines if
they desire a fair election.
Smartmatic is providing machines to Arizona, California, Colorado, Washington DC, Florida, Illinois,
Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington and
Wisconsin, which means these Soros and Clinton linked machines are going to take the votes of thousands
of Americans.
While GOP nominee Donald Trump has been voicing his opinion that the elections are indeed rigged
due to media bias, and the proof that
mainstream polls are heavily weighted to favor Clinton , it is needless to say that if the results
show Hillary as a winner in November, there is going to a mess to shuffle through to find signs of
honesty.
MSNBC are reporting that Hillary is absolutely surging and now leading by double digits! America
is going absolutely wild for Hillary!! This is very exciting – I can sense victory, and I see
that bitter right-wingers can sense defeat as they pre-emptively blame their loss on vote rigging.
There is no such thing as election rigging, unless we're talking about Al Gore losing to Bush
– there was clear evidence of rigging during this election. But Republicans are known for rigging
elections. Democrats have never, and will never rig an election.
Two words: PAPER BALLOTS!!! How anyone with 3 brain cells or more can't see that paper ballots
are the way to go when voting is beyond me. There is a paper trail, and they cannot be hacked.
They can be recounted. Machines are easily manipulated and there is NO PAPER trail to recount.
Use paper ballots and tell Gerge Soros to go fuck himself.
The Soros voting machine issue is one of the largest problems with this election. Trump has mentioned
him by name twice during the debates and has also talked openly about a 'rigged' election. I hope
he will address this directly.
We're already seeing the polls skew in Clinton's direction in unusual states like Arizona so
even that is on the cards to be stolen.
LOL, not even your big hero Barry would claim that. To wit: Obama said back in 2008: "I want
to be honest, it's not as if it's just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in
the past. Sometimes, Democrats have, too."
And this time, it seems to be more than some monkeying on part of Hitlery and Barry. Rather
"we rigged some votes and screwed some folks." Go figure.
Speaking at a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, Million Dollar Bonus said: "To say you won't
respect the results of the election, that is a direct threat to our democracy.
"The peaceful transfer of power is one of the things that makes America America.
And look, some people are sore losers, and we just got to keep going" It was actually Hillary
Clinton who said that, same difference lol,
You make a good point, and to distill the matter to its essence, apart from a controlled media
and well established and entrenched special, foreign and banking interests in DC... The CIA is
a CRIMINAL MAFIA acting under color of law, currently taking Saudi money to pay jihadi and 'blackwater'
type mercs in Syria, and by the way Yemen, and elsewhere, to include the slow ramp up in E Ukraine.
hillary goes along with CIA and the neocon/zionist/MIC agenda but she's replaceable.
No they can and will steal this election if, in fact, Trump were to get a majority of votes
(which by the way is unlikely - study the demographics... trump can not beat hillary when she
has 70/80% of women, the latinos, blacks, leftists, and so on) - but the underlying issue remains:
An out of control, above the law, criminal mafia acting on behalf of the Saudis and Israelis
(if you think Syria is about the petrodollar or a Qatari pipeline... Think again - it's about
Iran and Russia and about Greater Israel and its Leviathan and Golan gas most of all - Zbig et
al would prefer to be full battle rattle in Ukraine and Chechnya...) is stopped how?
Considering that US military personnel may quite literally be killed by CIA provided weapons,
one might posit that one scenario is CIA personnel being hunted down and arrested (or not) by
elements of the US special forces although this doesn't happen without either strong and secure
leadership or some paradigm-shifting revelation.
For example- if more knew how exceedingly likely it is that 9/11 was an inside/Israeli job...
Knew it... Things might change.
but I'm not optimistic.
hillary means ww3, and we are not the good guys. If we ever were..
Things were way different back when JFK was killed, I know I was around then.
For one thing there was no internet, and people trusted and respected the media (TV and Newspapers)
This trust made it very easy to coverup and / or bury details.
People overwhelmingly trusted government officials, Very few people questioned what government
and media told them, again this makes it super easy to lie and coverup
I repect your question, and I hope you consider what I said. I am trying to make the case that
assasination is no longer an option, not unless they want to truly start a real civil war. Which
I would not rule out. But if they wish to keep the status quo and the sheep silent, assasination
is way way to risky for the reasons I mentioned above
"... the discontent that motivates the Trump voters seems less likely to just vanish. We seem to be in the midst of a realignment of both UK and US politics, of which Trump and Farrage are just symptoms ..."
"... Trump should be defeated according to most here. Some may actually believe Trump really is the anti-Christ Hitler we've been constantly told he is, instead of a widely watched and often admired vulgarian capitalist welcomed into living rooms across America for more than a decade. Whatever Trump is, he's not Cruz. His supporters are not Cruz supporters. Yet. ..."
"... Which is why, in this instance, I think the polls are wrong. Who in their right mind is going to ever admit that Trump's language and behavior is not offensive? Nobody. Who in their right mind looks out at America and sees Donald Trump, not Bill Cosby etc, etc, etc as a threat to their own daughters, sisters, sons, etc? Which is why, in the end, enough voters are going to say no thanks to Hillary and roll the dice with Donald. ..."
"... The stink coming out of the Clinton campaign is so rank it's actually penetrating the media wall of silence. Given that social media provides numerous ways for candidates to bypass the gate-keepers, I suspect enough voters are learning what's in the emails whether CNN, or the Wapo, report the discoveries, or not. ..."
"... On most wedge issues, Trump is running as a bog-standard Republican conservative, and he's losing on those issues. ..."
"... Indeed I see the synthesis of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism as the final consolidation of conservatism and the end of what we have understood as history – the final triumph of capitalism as it dies. ..."
"... The right has also succeeded in the same way to reduce consumer rights. Arbitration agreements are attached to almost everything you buy that needs an agreement (software, mobile phones, etc.) before use. The agreements not only mandate secret arbitration they also prevent consumers from banding together in order to form a class thus making each individual consumer litigate alone. Obviously this reduces the power of individual consumers and also decreases the incentive for any one consumer to do something about what, on the individual level, may be a small injury. Basically it allows business to steal a small amount from a lot of people. ..."
"... On the "economy", "taxes", and, "foreign affairs" the respondents "trust" the GOP more than the Dems. Though on one key measure "caring about people like you" the Dems are trusted over the GOP by a slight margin. ..."
"... The reduction of marginal income tax rates on the highest "wage" incomes combined with new doctrines of corporate business leadership that emphasized the maximization of shareholder value created a new class of C-suite business executives occupying positions of great political power as allies and servants of the rentier class of Capital owners. The elaborate structures of financial repression and mutual finance were systematically demolished, removing many of the protections from financial predation afforded the working and middle classes. ..."
"... she's the least popular Democratic candidate perhaps ever! That's the only reason it would be close. A party built around the principles of white male supremacy and dedicated to expanding the wealth and income gap is at a massive disadvantage in any non-gerrymandered election. ..."
"... It is striking to me how even on the left the discussion of U.S. militarism and imperialism has been marginalized and does not come up much in casual conversation. We had an active peace movement through the worst days of the Cold War, and then there was a bit of a resurgence of it in response to the Iraq War. But Obama's acceptance of the core assumptions of the 'War on Terror' (even as he waged it more responsibly) seems to have led to the war party co-opting the liberals as well until there is no longer an effective opposition. The rhetoric of 'humanitarian intervention' has been hugely successful in that effort. ..."
Trump himself will go away, I think. But the discontent that motivates the Trump voters
seems less likely to just vanish. We seem to be in the midst of a realignment of both UK and US
politics, of which Trump and Farrage are just symptoms. Farrage has already made an attempt
at retiring from politics, and I could easily see Trump going back to reality television after
the election. The real question is: what will their supporters do next?
I am also surprised that Corey thinks feminism and the civil rights movement has been defeated.
These seem to me to be areas in which some progress has been made (along with other forms of identity
politics, e.g. gay marriage). It's been the class-based labour/union movement that's been the
real loser.
Possibly it depends on which time scale you're talking about, and that some of us now count
as old people, in that our implicit timescale is over our lifetimes. Maybe young college students
think that all the progress made by feminism happened before they were even born, and things have
slowed down of late. (With a slight hat-tip to Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions
, I could easily see some further progress on feminist issues being made simply by the older
guys in management positions dying off, and being replaced by younger people who grew up in a
different culture),
I disagree with the basic premise of the post in that the right has been beaten because it
has won.
That's certainly not how the right sees the landscape. The tea party of 2010 was co-opted by
Richard Armey and the Kochs on the one hand and buried under a mountain of forms by Lois Lerner
on the other. The Armey group rallies to Ted Cruz, who is sure to have something to say about
America and the future of the Republican party should Trump be undone because of his lewd behavior
and actions.
The media is certain to be savaged no matter what the outcome. The number of artists and musicians
who both profit from and promote misogyny and violence invited to the WH over the last 8 years
to serve as role models for America's youth should raise nary an eyebrow. The prudery of the moment
is going to be the template for 'social reform' under the Republicans. If Hillary and her
media allies succeed in derailing the Trump insurgency via his mouth, his hands, and his zipper
they're going to face an extremely hostile electorate. Cruz is certain to try to step into Trump's
shoes as leader, preaching that Trump was a flawed messenger undone by an unforgiving god. This
will make sense for too many Americans to completely ignore. The unhappy white males who have
yet to self-identify as angry white males, rather than simply as Americans, may well decide to
do so.
Whatever few victories the Democrats enjoy lower down the ticket are unlikely to survive skyrocketing
Affordable Care Act premiums, some form of amnesty, and an extension of America's wars in the
ME. The Democrats are betting the farm that Republicans will never unlock the padlock Democrats
maintain over socially-conservative minorities. Cruz's ground game and networking with the evangelical
community didn't get the job done in 2016, but we can be sure that he and his team are already
mapping 2020.
Trump should be defeated according to most here. Some may actually believe Trump really
is the anti-Christ Hitler we've been constantly told he is, instead of a widely watched and often
admired vulgarian capitalist welcomed into living rooms across America for more than a decade.
Whatever Trump is, he's not Cruz. His supporters are not Cruz supporters. Yet.
I've no idea whether those supporting the Democratic candidate expect her to wake up on November
9, should she win, and suddenly decide to abandon the practices that got her this far. I certainly
don't. If you're nauseated at the prospect of 4-8 more years of secrecy, war, lies, and corruption
you're going to need to keep more than barf bags at hand, however. The polarization that has divided
America over the last 8 years is, imho, far more likely to become much more corrosive and
damaging with Democrats in charge.
Ted Cruz will literally be burning crosses and probably books, pornography, and anyone/thing
else that strikes his fancy. The donor class is praying that Hillary/Bush can stamp out the fires.
With rising unemployment, stagnating wages, and more and more Americans feeling that the system
isn't interested in them, or their children, there may very well be a little hell to pay, or a
lot.
kidneystones 10.24.16 at 12:37 pm @ 14
It won't surprise you to learn I think you're wrong about Trump. The battle against Trump is
for many a rejection of what they see in the mirror transposed onto Trump, as far as males go.
Many women, including some who support him, see in Trump a dangerous predator who offers the promise
of protection and wealth, but at a cost. Good thing no woman would ever sell herself, or her principles,
to such a man – and if Bill Clinton pops into your head, please don't blame me.
Which is why, in this instance, I think the polls are wrong. Who in their right mind is
going to ever admit that Trump's language and behavior is not offensive? Nobody. Who in their
right mind looks out at America and sees Donald Trump, not Bill Cosby etc, etc, etc as a threat
to their own daughters, sisters, sons, etc? Which is why, in the end, enough voters are going
to say no thanks to Hillary and roll the dice with Donald.
I like your question re: Cruz. I find him such a phenomenally transparent phony that I can't
quite believe anyone trusts him. With Trump, and Bill Clinton, what you see is what you get –
Slick Willie.
At the moment Americans are being told they don't like what they see in Trump, but if that
were the case, why was he so popular back when he was actually on the Howard Stern show and otherwise
acting out? I frankly don't think most Americans give a toss what Trump did or said this week,
much less ten years ago.
The stink coming out of the Clinton campaign is so rank it's actually penetrating the media
wall of silence. Given that social media provides numerous ways for candidates to bypass the gate-keepers,
I suspect enough voters are learning what's in the emails whether CNN, or the Wapo, report the
discoveries, or not.
Like I said. I think it will be close and right now I still say Trump edges it.
Layman 10.24.16 at 12:55 pm
"Clinton will win easily, but it could easily be argued that the victory will be over
Trump the man than over any ideology. If Clinton were running against Cruz – who on any reasonable
measure is well to the right of Trump – would she be 20 points ahead with women?"
Hard to find more recent polling than this; but based on this, women would solidly still prefer
Clinton over Cruz.
I also doubt that notion that it is Trump's vulgarity, on its own, rather than Republican conservative
ideology which is driving the likely result. Trump does himself no favors, but Clinton's negatives
hold her back, too. On most wedge issues, Trump is running as a bog-standard Republican conservative,
and he's losing on those issues.
Which is why, in the end, enough voters are going to say no thanks to Hillary and roll the
dice with Donald.
What odds would you accept on this outcome?
SusanC 10.24.16 at 2:26 pm @20.
Indeed. There's a difference between a biased sample and the oversampling technique. The difference
being that with oversampling you statistically correct for the fact that you've intentionally
sampled some subpopulation more frequently than you would have done if you just chose members
of the whole population uniformly at random (while a biased sample just ignores or is ignorant
of the problem…)
(I hope this isn't too much of a derail. There is a grand CT tradition of yawn-not-that-again
OPs with derails where you might learn something).
I am not sanguine about the apparent collapse of this version (Trump) of American fascism. If
conservatism can be said to be that which argues for the preservation of traditional social institutions
and traditional political values then conservatism is far from dying. Indeed I see the synthesis
of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism as the final consolidation of conservatism and the end
of what we have understood as history – the final triumph of capitalism as it dies.
Bernard Yomtov 10.24.16 at 3:59 pm
the reason I think the right has not much of a future is that it has won. If you consider its
great animating energies since the New Deal-anti-labor, anti-civil rights, and anti-feminism-the
right has achieved a considerable amount of success.
I agree with dd that this is just wrong. Are labor, the civil rights movement, women's rights,
worse than they were at the end of the New Deal? I don't see how.
The right has won or is winning in an some ways on labor and civil rights issues by changing the
procedure by which one can assert the rights that may exist.
The number of strikes are down as someone else mentioned. But the Right has also largely succeeded
in reducing the ability of individual employees to engage in private actions to vindicate their
rights. E.g. the huge increase in enforceable arbitration agreements in what are essentially contracts
of adhesion. The Right has solidified the ability of business to prevent employees from using
the independent, publicly funded judiciary, and instead forces them to use private, secretive,
arbitrators who essentially work for the companies (because the business is a repeat player and
the arbitrators rely on being chosen to arbitrate in order to make their money).
The right has also succeeded in the same way to reduce consumer rights. Arbitration agreements
are attached to almost everything you buy that needs an agreement (software, mobile phones, etc.)
before use. The agreements not only mandate secret arbitration they also prevent consumers from
banding together in order to form a class thus making each individual consumer litigate alone.
Obviously this reduces the power of individual consumers and also decreases the incentive for
any one consumer to do something about what, on the individual level, may be a small injury. Basically
it allows business to steal a small amount from a lot of people.
In regards to Clinton and her chances against any other Republican, here is some polling which
suggests the country at least trust the GOP over the Dems on a number of important issues. It
is from April, 2016 so not the freshest data. But it might indicate Trump's bog standard GOP policies
are not what is driving votes to Clinton/away from Trump.
On the "economy", "taxes", and, "foreign affairs" the respondents "trust" the GOP more
than the Dems. Though on one key measure "caring about people like you" the Dems are trusted over
the GOP by a slight margin.
bruce wilder 10.24.16 at 5:04 pm
Among the most successful projects of the Right was financialization of the economy.
The reduction of marginal income tax rates on the highest "wage" incomes combined with
new doctrines of corporate business leadership that emphasized the maximization of shareholder
value created a new class of C-suite business executives occupying positions of great political
power as allies and servants of the rentier class of Capital owners. The elaborate structures
of financial repression and mutual finance were systematically demolished, removing many of the
protections from financial predation afforded the working and middle classes.
In the current election, the Democratic Party has split on financial reform issues, with the
dominant faction represented by the Party's candidate prioritizing issues of race and gender equality.
"In regards to Clinton and her chances against any other Republican, here is some polling
which suggests the country at least trust the GOP over the Dems on a number of important issues."
I imagine any poll pitting 'generic Republican' against Hillary Clinton in April of this year
would have shown 'generic Republican' winning. The problem is, you can't run 'generic Republican'.
I'm hard pressed to point at any prominent Republican who I think would be handily beating
Clinton now. Once you name them, they have to say what they're for and against, and she takes
her shot at them, and they're fighting an uphill battle. And she's the least popular Democratic
candidate perhaps ever! That's the only reason it would be close. A party built around the principles
of white male supremacy and dedicated to expanding the wealth and income gap is at a massive disadvantage
in any non-gerrymandered election.
PGD 10.24.16 at 6:28 pm
It is striking to me how even on the left the discussion of U.S. militarism and imperialism
has been marginalized and does not come up much in casual conversation. We had an active peace
movement through the worst days of the Cold War, and then there was a bit of a resurgence of it
in response to the Iraq War. But Obama's acceptance of the core assumptions of the 'War on Terror'
(even as he waged it more responsibly) seems to have led to the war party co-opting the liberals
as well until there is no longer an effective opposition. The rhetoric of 'humanitarian intervention'
has been hugely successful in that effort.
One of the most depressing things about this election campaign to me has been to see
the Democrats using their full spectrum media dominance not to fight for a mandate for left policies,
but to run a coordinated and effective propaganda campaign for greater U.S. military involvement
in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, focusing on demonizing Putin and on humanitarian intervention
rhetoric around Aleppo and the like.
Last week, Jame O'keefe and Project Veritas Action potentially
altered the course of the U.S. election, or at a minimum raised serious doubts about the practices of the Clinton campaign and
the DNC, after releasing two undercover videos that revealed efforts of democrat operatives to incite violence at republican rallies
and commit "mass voter fraud." While democrats have vehemently denied the authenticity of the videos, two democratic operatives,
Robert Creamer and Scott Foval, have both been forced to resign over the allegations.
Many democrats made the rounds on various mainstream media outlets over the weekend in an attempt to debunk the Project Veritas
videos. Unfortunately for them, O'Keefe fired back with warnings that part 3 of his multi-part series was forthcoming and would
implicate Hillary Clinton directly.
Anything happens to me, there's a deadman's switch on Part III, which will be released Monday.
@HillaryClinton and
@donnabrazile implicated.
Now, we have the 3rd installment of O'Keefe's videos which does seemingly reveal direct coordination between Hillary Clinton,
Donna Brazile, Robert Creamer and Scott Foval to organize a smear campaign over Trump's failure to release his tax returns. Per
Project Veritas :
Part III of the undercover Project Veritas Action investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic
politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton's campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization
Americans United for Change. And, it's all disguised as a duck. In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists
catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations. " In the end, it was the candidate,
Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground," says Creamer in one of several
exchanges. "So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground." It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized
that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: "Don't repeat that
to anybody."
Within the video both Clinton and Brazile are directly implicated by Creamer during the following exchange:
"The duck has to be an Americans United for Change entity. This had to do only with some problem between Donna Brazile and
ABC, which is owned by Disney, because they were worried about a trademark issue. That's why. It's really silly.
We originally launched this duck because Hillary Clinton wants the duck .
In any case, so she really wanted this duck figure out there doing this stuff, so that was fine. So, we put all these ducks
out there and got a lot of coverage. And Trump taxes. And then ABC/Disney went crazy because they thought our original slogan
was 'Donald ducks his taxes, releasing his tax returns."
They said it was a trademark issue. It's not, but anyway, Donna Brazile had a connection with them and she didn't want to
get sued. So we switched the ownership of the duck to Americans United for Change and now our signs say 'Trump ducks releasing
his tax returns.' And we haven't had anymore trouble."
As Project Veritas points out, this direct coordination between Clinton, Brazile and Americans United For Change is a violation
of federal election laws:
"The ducks on the ground are likely 'public communications' for purposes of the law. It's political activity opposing Trump,
paid for by Americans United For Change funds but controlled by Clinton/her campaign."
"As Project Veritas points out, this direct coordination between Clinton, Brazile and Americans United For Change is a violation
of federal election laws "
Yeah, you pretty much got the head shot there. Unfortunately, no gun to shoot it from. The enforcement authorities all work
FOR the Democrat party.
Full spectrum dominance. It's a bitch. Even if you catch them red-haned there's no "authorities" to report it to that will
listen to you.
Remember what happened to Planned Parenthood when they were caught red-handed selling human tissue for profit (which is also
illegal)? That's right. Nothing. Same thing here.
The problem is that the MSM isn't reporting on any of this stuff about Hillary. And, the Republicans in office aren't on the news
at all to talk about any of this. So, the only place it is reported is on the Trump campaign trail where just a few thousand hear
about.
If the media won't report it and the Republicans won't talk about it, Hillary gets a pass. The audience for sites like ZH and
Drudge are just preaching to the chior and not reaching the people who could change their minds or haven't made up their minds.
froze25 -> ImGumbydmmt •Oct 24, 2016 3:40 PM
What this video is, is evidence of collusion between a campaign and a SuperPac. That is illegal in a criminal court. This is enough
to open an investigation, problem is nothing will be done by Nov 8th. All we can do is share it non-stop.
Bastiat d Haus-Targaryen •Oct 24, 2016 2:11 PM
Don't discount the Enquirer: remember who took down Gary Hart and John Edwards:
Hillary Clinton's shady Mr. Fix It will tell all on TV tonight, just days after his explosive confession in The National ENQUIRER
hit the stands.
The man who's rocked Washington, D.C., will join Sean Hannity on tonight's episode of "Hannity" - airing on the FOX News Channel
at 10 p.m. EST - to reveal his true identity at last.
"... US-Russia-China cooperation will eliminate for the US the threat of war with the only two powers whose nuclear capabilities could pose existential threats to the US. ..."
"... Simultaneously, Trump will put an end to "the prevailing view that the U.S. is, and always must be, the benign hegemon, altruistically policing the world, while allowing its allies, satellites-and even rivals-to manufacture everything and thereby generate the jobs, profits, and knowhow…a view that elevated the ambitions and pretensions of the American elite over the well-being of the larger U.S. population…Instead of sacrificing American economic interests on the altar of U.S. 'leadership,' [Trump] will view the strengthening of the American economy as central to American greatness." ..."
"... President Trump will rebuild the decimated US manufacturing sector and return to Americans those tens of millions of jobs that America's globalist elites were allowed to ship overseas. Rebuilding the US economy – and jobs! – will be the centerpiece of a Donald Trump presidency. ..."
"... The problem is that everyone wants to call themselves a Realist, even the Neocons. The Neocons proclaim that promoting Democracy, nation building, and being the world's policeman is 'realism' because if you withdraw from the world the problems follow you home. Tom Rogan bellowed that we needed to destroy Syria in the name of realism. They are totally wrong but the point is that everyone wants to claim this mantle which is why I tend to avoid this term. ..."
"... I think we should embrace the Putin Doctrine but that name is toxic. Basically, he eschews destroying standing govts because it is highly destabilizing. This is common sense. ..."
"... Oh, when I hear 'Bush kept us safe' it tears my heart out when I see guys in their 20/30's walking around with those titanium prosthetics. Do the 4,000+ men who died in Iraq and 10,000+ severely wounded count? And this does not even start to count the chaos and death in the M.E. ..."
"... Mainstream media are besides themselves at the prospect of their masters having to relinquish their special entitlements; namely, designer wars, selection of the few to govern the many (Supreme Court and the Fed), and putting foreign dictates over American interests at an incredible cost to the U.S. in human and non-human resources. ..."
Donald Trump played a wily capitalistic trick on his Republican opponents in the primary fights
this year-he served an underserved market.
By now it's a cliché that Trump, while on his way to the GOP nomination, tapped into an unnoticed
reservoir of right-of-center opinion on domestic and economic concerns-namely, the populist-nationalists
who felt left out of the reigning market-libertarianism of the last few decades.
Indeed, of the 17 Republicans who ran this year, Trump had mostly to himself the populist issues:
that is, opposition to open borders, to free trade, and to earned-entitlement cutting. When the other
candidates were zigging toward the familiar-and unpopular-Chamber of Commerce-approved orthodoxy,
Trump was zagging toward the voters.
Moreover, the same sort of populist-nationalist reservoir-tapping was evident in the realm of
foreign affairs. To put it in bluntly Trumpian terms, the New Yorker hit 'em where they weren't.
The fact that Trump was doing something dramatically different became clear in the make-or-break
Republican debate in Greenville, S.C., on February 13. Back in those early days of the campaign,
Trump had lost one contest (Iowa) and won one (New Hampshire), and it was still anybody's guess who
would emerge victorious.
During that debate, Trump took what seemed to be an extraordinary gamble: he ripped into George
W. Bush's national-security record-in a state where the 43rd president was still popular. Speaking
of the Iraq War, Trump said, "George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was
a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East."
And then Trump went further, aiming indirectly at the former president, while slugging his brother
Jeb directly: "The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign, remember that."
In response, Jeb intoned the usual Republican line, "He kept us safe." And others on the stage
in Greenville that night rushed to associate themselves with Bush 43.
In the aftermath of this verbal melee, many thought that Trump had doomed himself. As one unnamed
Republican "strategist" chortled to Politico , "Trump's attack on President George W. Bush
was galactic-level stupid in South Carolina."
Well, not quite: Trump triumphed in the Palmetto State primary a week later, winning by a 10-point
margin.
Thus, as we can see in retrospect, something had changed within the GOP. After 9/11, in the early
years of this century, South Carolinians had been eager to fight. Yet by the middle of the second
decade, they-or at least a plurality of them-had grown weary of endless foreign war.
Trump's victory in the Palmetto State was decisive, yet it was nevertheless only a plurality,
32.5 percent. Meanwhile, Sen. Marco Rubio, running as an unabashed neocon hawk, finished second.
So we can see that the Republican foreign-policy "market" is now segmented. And while Trump proved
effective at targeting crucial segments, they weren't the only segments-because, in actuality, there
are four easily identifiable blocs on the foreign-policy right. And as we delineate these four segments,
we can see that while some are highly organized and tightly articulate, others are loose and inchoate:
First, the libertarians. That is, the Cato Institute and other free-market think tanks, Reason
magazine, and so on. Libertarians are not so numerous around the country, but they are strong
among the intelligentsia.
Second, the old-right "isolationists." These folks, also known as "paleocons," often find common
ground with libertarians, yet their origins are different, and so is their outlook. Whereas the libertarians
typically have issued a blanket anathema to all foreign entanglements, the isolationists have been
more selective. During World War I, for example, their intellectual forbears were hostile to U.S.
involvement on the side of the Allies, but that was often because of specifically anti-English or
pro-German sentiments, not because they felt guided by an overall principle of non-intervention.
Indeed, the same isolationists were often eager to intervene in Latin America and in the Far East.
More recently, the temperamentally isolationist bloc has joined with the libertarians in opposition
to deeper U.S. involvement in the Middle East.
Third, the traditional hawks. On the proverbial Main Street, USA, plenty of people-not limited
to the active-duty military, veterans, and law-enforcers-believe that America's national honor is
worth fighting for.
Fourth, the neoconservatives. This group, which takes hawkishness to an avant-garde extreme, is
so praised, and so criticized, that there's little that needs be added here. Yet we can say this:
as with the libertarians, they are concentrated in Washington, DC; by contrast, out beyond the Beltway,
they are relatively scarce. Because of their connections to big donors to both parties, however,
they have been powerful, even preeminent, in foreign-policy circles over the last quarter-century.
Yet today, it's the neocons who feel most threatened by, and most hostile to, the Trump phenomenon.
We can pause to offer a contextual point: floating somewhere among the first three categories-libertarians,
isolationists, hawks-are the foreign-policy realists. These, of course, are the people, following
in the tradition of the great scholar Hans Morgenthau, who pride themselves on seeing the world as
it is, regarding foreign policy as just another application of Bismarckian wisdom-"the art of the
possible."
The realists, disproportionately academics and think-tankers, are a savvy and well-credentialed
group-or, according to critics, cynical and world-weary. Yet either way, they have made many alliances
with the aforementioned trio of groups, even as they have usually maintained their ideological flexibility.
To borrow the celebrated wisdom of the 19th-century realpolitiker Lord Palmerston, realists don't
have permanent attachments; they have permanent interests. And so it seems likely that if Trump wins-or
anyone like Trump in the future-many realists will be willing to emerge from their wood-paneled precincts
to engage in the hurly-burly of public service.
Returning to our basic quartet of blocs, we can quickly see that two of them, the libertarians
and the neocons, have been loudly successful in the "battle of ideas." That is, almost everyone knows
where the libertarians and the neocons stand on the controversies of the moment. Meanwhile, the other
two groups-the isolationists and the traditional hawks-have failed to make themselves heard. That
is, until Trump.
For the most part, the isolationists and hawks have not been organized; they've just been clusters
of veterans, cops, gun owners, and like-minded souls gathering here and there, feeling strongly about
the issues but never finding a national megaphone. Indeed, even organized groups, such as the American
Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, sizable as they might be, have had little impact, of late,
on foreign affairs.
This paradoxical reality-that even big groups can be voiceless, allowing smaller groups to carry
the day-is well understood. Back in 1839, the historian Thomas Carlyle observed of his Britain, "The
speaking classes speak and debate," while the "deep-buried [working] class lies like an Enceladus"-a
mythological giant imprisoned under a volcano. Yet, Carlyle continued, the giant under the volcano
will not stay silent forever; one day it will erupt, and the inevitable eruption "has to produce
earthquakes!"
In our time, Trump has provoked the Enceladus-like earthquake. Over the past year, while the mainstream
media has continued to lavish attention on the fine points of libertarianism and neoconservatism,
the Peoples of the Volcano have blown up American politics.
Trump has spoken loudly to both of his groups. To the isolationists, he has highlighted his past
opposition to the Iraq and Libya misadventures, as well as his suspicions about NATO and other alliances.
(Here the libertarians, too, are on board.) At the same time, he has also talked the language of
the hawks, as when he has said, "Take the oil" and "Bomb the [bleep] out of them." Trump has also
attacked the Iran nuclear agreement, deriding it as "one of the worst deals ever made."
Thus earlier this year Trump mobilized the isolationists and the hawks, leaving the libertarians
to Rand Paul and the neocons to Rubio.
Now as we move to the general election, it appears that Trump has kept the loyalty of his core
groups. Many libertarians, meanwhile, are voting for Gary Johnson-the former Republican governor
at the top of the Libertarian Party's ticket-and they are being joined, most likely as a one-off,
by disaffected Republicans and Democrats. Meanwhile, the neocons, most of them, have become the objective
allies, if not the overt supporters, of Hillary Clinton.
Even if Trump loses, his energized supporters, having found their voice, will be a new and important
force within the GOP-a force that could make it significantly harder for a future president to, say,
"liberate" and "democratize" Syria.
♦♦♦
Yet now we must skip past the unknown unknowns of the election and ask: what might we expect if
Trump becomes president?
One immediate point to be borne in mind is that it will be a challenge to fill the cabinet and
the sub-cabinet-to say nothing of the thousands of "Schedule C" positions across the administration-with
true Trump loyalists. Yes, of course, if Trump wins that means he will have garnered 50 million or
more votes, but still, the number of people who have the right credentials and can pass all the background
checks-including, for most of the top jobs, Senate confirmation-is minuscule.
So here we might single out the foreign-policy realists as likely having a bright future in a
Trump administration: after all, they are often well-credentialed and, by their nature, have prudently
tended to keep their anti-Trump commentary to a minimum. (There's a piece of inside-the-Beltway realist
wisdom that seems relevant here: "You're for what happens.")
Yet the path to realist dominion in a Trump administration is not smooth. As a group, they have
been in eclipse since the Bush 41 era, so an entire generation of their cadres is missing. The realists
do not have long lists of age-appropriate alumni ready for another spin through the revolving door.
By contrast, the libertarians have lots of young staffers on some think-tank payroll or another.
And of course, the neocons have lots of experience and contacts-yes, they screwed up the last time
they were in power, but at least they know the jargon.
Thus, unless president-elect Trump makes a genuinely heroic effort to infuse his administration
with new blood, he will end up hiring a lot of folks who might not really agree with him-and who
perhaps even have strongly, if quietly, opposed him. That means that the path of a Trump presidency
could be channeled in an unexpected direction, as the adherents of other foreign-policy schools-including,
conceivably, schools from the left-clamber aboard. As they say in DC, "personnel is policy."
Still, Trump has a strong personality, and it's entirely possible that, as president, he will
succeed in imprinting his unique will on his appointees. (On the other hand, the career government,
starting with the State Department's foreign service officers, might well prove to be a different
story.)
Looking further ahead, as a hypothetical President Trump surveys the situation from the Sit Room,
here are nine things that will be in view:
1.
Trump will recall, always, that the Bush 43 presidency drove itself into a ditch on Iraq. So he
will surely see the supreme value of not sending U.S. ground troops-beyond a few advisors-into Middle
Eastern war zones.
2.
Trump will also realize that Barack Obama, for all his talk about hope and change, ended up preserving
the bulk of Bush 43's policies. The only difference is that Obama did it on the cheap, reducing defense
spending as he went along.
Obama similar to Bush-really? Yes. To be sure, Obama dropped all of Bush's democratic messianism,
but even with his cool detachment he kept all of Bush's alliances and commitments, including those
in Afghanistan and Iraq. And then he added a new international commitment: "climate change."
In other words, America now has a policy of "quintuple containment": Russia, China, Iran, ISIS/al-Qaeda,
and, of course, the carbon-dioxide molecule. Many would argue that today we aren't managing any of
these containments well; others insist that the Obama administration, perversely, seems most dedicated
to the containment of climate change: everything else can fall apart, but if the Obamans can maintain
the illusion of their international CO2 deals, as far as they are concerned all will be well.
In addition, Uncle Sam has another hundred or so minor commitments-including bilateral defense
treaties with countries most Americans have never heard of, along with special commitments to champion
the rights of children, women, dissidents, endangered species, etc. On a one-by-one basis, it's possible
to admire many of these efforts; on a cumulative basis, it's impossible to imagine how we can sustain
all of them.
3. A populist president like Trump will further realize that if the U.S. has just 4 percent of the
world's population and barely more than a fifth of world GDP, it's not possible that we can continue
to police the planet. Yes, we have many allies-on paper. Yet Trump's critique of many of them as
feckless, even faithless, resonated for one big reason: it was true.
So Trump will likely begin the process of rethinking U.S. commitments around the world. Do we
really want to risk nuclear war over the Spratly Islands? Or the eastern marches of Ukraine? Here,
Trump might well default to the wisdom of the realists: big powers are just that-big powers-and so
one must deal with them in all their authoritarian essentiality. And as for all the other countries
of the world-some we like and some we don't-we're not going to change them, either. (Although in
some cases, notably Iraq and Syria, partition, supervised by the great powers, may be the only solution.)
4.
Trump will surely see world diplomacy as an extension of what he has done best all his life-making
deals. This instinct will serve him well in two ways: first, he will be sharply separating himself
from his predecessors, Bush the hot-blooded unilateralist war-of-choicer and Obama the cool and detached
multilateralist leader-from-behind. Second, his deal-making desire will inspire him do what needs
to be done: build rapport with world leaders as a prelude to making things happen.
To cite one immediate example: there's no way that we will ever achieve anything resembling "peace
with honor" in Afghanistan without the full cooperation of the Taliban's masters in Pakistan. Ergo,
the needed deal must be struck in Islamabad, not Kabul.
Almost certainly, a President Trump will treat China and Russia as legitimate powers, not as rogue
states that must be single-handedly tamed by America.
Moreover, Trump's deal-making trope also suggests that instead of sacrificing American economic
interests on the altar of U.S. "leadership," he will view the strengthening of the American economy
as central to American greatness.
5.
Trump will further realize that his friends the realists have had a blind spot of late when it
comes to eco nomic matters. Once upon a time-that is, in the 19th century-economic nationalism was
at the forefront of American foreign-policy making. In the old days, as America's Manifest Destiny
stretched beyond the continental U.S., expansionism and Hamiltonianism went together: as they used
to say, trade follows the flag. Theodore Roosevelt's digging of the Panama Canal surely ranks as
one of the most successful fusions of foreign and economic policy in American history.
Yet in the past few decades, the economic nationalists and the foreign-policy realists have drifted
apart. For example, a Reagan official, Clyde Prestowitz of the Economic Strategy Institute, has been
mostly ignored by the realists, who have instead embraced the conventional elite view of free trade
and globalization.
So a President Trump will have the opportunity to reunite realism and economic nationalism; he
can once again put manufacturing exports, for example, at the top of the U.S. agenda. Indeed, Trump
might consider other economic-nationalist gambits: for example, if we are currently defending such
wealthy countries as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Norway, why aren't they investing some of the trillions
of dollars in their sovereign-wealth funds into, say, American infrastructure?
6.
Trump will also come into power realizing that he has few friends in the foreign-policy establishment;
after all, most establishmentarians opposed him vehemently. Yet that could turn out to be a real
plus for the 45th president because it could enable him to discard the stodgy and outworn thinking
of the "experts." In particular, he could refute the prevailing view that the U.S. is, and always
must be, the benign hegemon, altruistically policing the world, while allowing its allies, satellites-and
even rivals-to manufacture everything and thereby generate the jobs, profits, and knowhow. That was
always, of course, a view that elevated the ambitions and pretensions of the American elite over
the well-being of the larger U.S. population-and maybe Trump can come up with a better and fairer
vision.
7.
As an instinctive deal-maker, Trump will have the capacity to clear away the underbrush of accumulated
obsolete doctrines and dogmas. To cite just one small but tragic example, there's the dopey chain
of thinking that has guided U.S. policy toward South Sudan. Today, we officially condemn both sides
in that country's ongoing civil war. Yet we might ask, how can that work out well for American interests?
After all, one side or the other is going to win, and we presumably want a friend in Juba, not a
Chinese-affiliated foe.
On the larger canvas, Trump will observe that if the U.S., China, and Russia are the three countries
capable of destroying the world, then it's smart to figure out a modus vivendi among this
threesome. Such practical deal-making, of course, would undermine the moralistic narrative that Xi
Jinping and Vladimir Putin are the potentates of new evil empires.
8.
Whether or not he's currently familiar with the terminology, Trump seems likely to recapitulate
the "multipolar" system envisioned by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger in the 1970s. Back then,
the multipolar vision included the U.S., the USSR, Western Europe, China, and Japan.
Yet multipolarity was lost in the '80s, as the American economy was Reaganized, the Cold War grew
colder, and the Soviet Union staggered to its self-implosion. Then in the '90s we had the "unipolar
moment," when the U.S. enjoyed "hyper-power" primacy.
Yet as with all moments, unipolarity soon passed, undone by the Iraq quagmire, America's economic
stagnation, and the rise of other powers. So today, multipolarity seems destined to re-emerge with
a slightly upgraded cast of players: the U.S., China, Russia, the European Union, and perhaps India.
9.
And, of course, Trump will have to build that wall along the U.S.-Mexican border.
♦♦♦
Some might object that I am reading too much into Trump. Indeed, the conventional wisdom, even
today, maintains that Trump is visceral, not intellectual, that he is buffoonish, not Kissingerian.
To such critics, this Trump supporter feels compelled to respond: when has the conventional wisdom
about the New Yorker been proven correct?
It's not easy to become president. In all of U.S. history, just 42 individuals have been elected
to the presidency-or to the vice presidency and succeeded a fallen president. That is, indeed, an
exclusive club. Or as Trump himself might say, it's not a club for dummies.
If Trump does, in fact, become the 45th president, then by definition, he will have proven himself
to be pretty darn strategic. And that's a portent that bodes well for his foreign policy.
James P. Pinkerton is a contributor to the Fox News Channel.
Among James Pinkerton's most compelling reasons to hope for a Trump presidency are these two:
[1] "Almost certainly, a President Trump will treat China and Russia as legitimate powers, not
as rogue states that must be single-handedly tamed by America…Trump will observe that if the U.S.,
China, and Russia are the three countries capable of destroying the world, then it's smart to
figure out amodus vivendi among this threesome…"
US-Russia-China cooperation will eliminate for the US the threat of war with the only two
powers whose nuclear capabilities could pose existential threats to the US.
[2] Simultaneously, Trump will put an end to "the prevailing view that the U.S. is,
and always must be, the benign hegemon, altruistically policing the world, while allowing its
allies, satellites-and even rivals-to manufacture everything and thereby generate the jobs, profits,
and knowhow…a view that elevated the ambitions and pretensions of the American elite over the
well-being of the larger U.S. population…Instead of sacrificing American economic interests on
the altar of U.S. 'leadership,' [Trump] will view the strengthening of the American economy as
central to American greatness."
President Trump will rebuild the decimated US manufacturing sector and return to Americans
those tens of millions of jobs that America's globalist elites were allowed to ship overseas.
Rebuilding the US economy – and jobs! – will be the centerpiece of a Donald Trump presidency.<
The problem is that everyone wants to call themselves a Realist, even the Neocons. The Neocons
proclaim that promoting Democracy, nation building, and being the world's policeman is 'realism'
because if you withdraw from the world the problems follow you home. Tom Rogan bellowed that we
needed to destroy Syria in the name of realism. They are totally wrong but the point is that everyone
wants to claim this mantle which is why I tend to avoid this term.
I think we should
embrace the Putin Doctrine but that name is toxic. Basically, he eschews destroying standing govts
because it is highly destabilizing. This is common sense.
Oh, when I hear 'Bush kept us safe' it tears my heart out when I see guys in their 20/30's
walking around with those titanium prosthetics. Do the 4,000+ men who died in Iraq and 10,000+
severely wounded count? And this does not even start to count the chaos and death in the M.E.
Trump just came across as different while maintaining conservative, albeit middle-American values.
Mainstream media are besides themselves at the prospect of their masters having to relinquish
their special entitlements; namely, designer wars, selection of the few to govern the many (Supreme
Court and the Fed), and putting foreign dictates over American interests at an incredible cost
to the U.S. in human and non-human resources.
The song goes on. Trump hit a real nerve. Even if he loses, the American people have had a
small but important victory. We are frustrated with the ruling cabal. A sleeping giant has been
awoken. This election could be the political Perl Harbor….
Pinkerton has spent thousands of words writing about someone who is not the Donald Trump anyone
has ever seen.
In this, he joins every other member of the Right, who wait in hopeful anticipation
to see a Champion for their cause in Donald Trump, and are willing to turn a blind eye to his
ignorance, outright stupidity, lack of self-discipline, and lack of serious intent.
Pinkerton, he will only follow your lead here if he sees what's in it for HIM, not for the
Right and certainly not for the benefit of the American people.
Flawed premise. This opine works its way through the rabbit hole pretzel of current methodologies
in D.C. The ones that don't work. The city of NY had a similar outcome building a certain ice
skating facility within the confines of a system designed to fail.
What Trump does is implode those failed systems, implements a methodology that has proven to
succeed, and then does it. Under budget and before the deadline. Finding the *right* bodies to
make it all work isn't as difficult as is surmised. What that shows is how difficult that task
would be for the author. Whenever I hear some pundit claim that Trump can't possibly do all that
means is the pundit couldn't possibly do it.
The current system is full of youcan'tdoits, what have you got to lose, more of the same?
"... It is an obvious fact that the oligarchic One Percent have anointed Hillary, despite her myriad problems to be President of the US. There are reports that her staff are already moving into their White House offices. This much confidence before the vote does suggest that the skids have been greased. ..."
"... Stolen elections are the American tradition. Elections are stolen at every level-state, local, and federal. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley's theft of the Chicago and, thereby, Illinois vote for John F. Kennedy is legendary. The Republican US Supreme Court's theft of the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore by preventing the Florida vote recount is another legendary example. The discrepancies between exit polls and the vote count of the secretly programmed electronic voting machines that have no paper trails are also legendary. ..."
"... The presstitutes have gone all out to demonize both Trump and any mention of election rigging, because they know for a fact that the election will be stolen and that they will have the job of covering up the theft. ..."
"... Don't believe the polls that say Hillary won the Q&A sessions or the polls that say Hillary is ahead in the election. Pollsters work for political organizations. If pollsters produce unwelcome results, they don't have any customers. The desired results are that Hillary wins. The purpose of the rigged polls showing her to be ahead is to discourage Trump supporters from voting. ..."
"... Don't vote early. The purpose of early voting is to show the One Percent how the vote is shaping up. From this information, the oligarchs learn how to program the electronic machines in order to elect the candidate that they want. ..."
It is an obvious fact that the oligarchic One Percent have anointed Hillary, despite her myriad
problems to be President of the US. There are reports that her staff are already moving into their
White House offices. This much confidence before the vote does suggest that the skids have been greased.
The current cause celebre against Trump is his conditional statement that he might not accept
the election results if they appear to have been rigged. The presstitutes immediately jumped on him
for "discrediting American democracy" and for "breaking American tradition of accepting the people's
will."
What nonsense! Stolen elections are the American tradition. Elections are stolen at every
level-state, local, and federal. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley's theft of the Chicago and, thereby,
Illinois vote for John F. Kennedy is legendary. The Republican US Supreme Court's theft of the 2000
presidential election from Al Gore by preventing the Florida vote recount is another legendary example.
The discrepancies between exit polls and the vote count of the secretly programmed electronic voting
machines that have no paper trails are also legendary.
So what's the big deal about Trump's suspicion of election rigging?
The black civil rights movement has fought vote rigging for decades. The rigging takes place in
a number of ways. Blacks simply can't get registered to vote. If they do get registered, there are
few polling places in their districts. And so on. After decades of struggle it is impossible that
there are any blacks who are not aware of how hard it can be for them to vote. Yet, I heard on the
presstitute radio network, NPR, Hillary's Uncle Toms saying how awful it was that Trump had cast
aspersion on the credibility of American election results.
I also heard a NPR announcer suggest that Russia had not only hacked Hillary's emails, but also
had altered them in order to make incriminating documents out of harmless emails.
The presstitutes have gone all out to demonize both Trump and any mention of election rigging,
because they know for a fact that the election will be stolen and that they will have the job of
covering up the theft.
Don't believe the polls that say Hillary won the Q&A sessions or the polls that say Hillary
is ahead in the election. Pollsters work for political organizations. If pollsters produce unwelcome
results, they don't have any customers. The desired results are that Hillary wins. The purpose of
the rigged polls showing her to be ahead is to discourage Trump supporters from voting.
Don't vote early. The purpose of early voting is to show the One Percent how the vote is shaping
up. From this information, the oligarchs learn how to program the electronic machines in order to
elect the candidate that they want.
"... I would agree that Trump is horrible candidate. The candidate who (like Hillary) suggests complete degeneration of the US neoliberal elite. ..."
"... But the problem is that Hillary is even worse. Much worse and more dangerous because in addition to being a closet Republican she is also a warmonger. In foreign policy area she is John McCain in pantsuit. And if you believe that after one hour in White House she does not abandon all her election promises and start behaving like a far-right republican in foreign policy and a moderate republican in domestic policy, it's you who drunk too much Cool Aid. ..."
"... In other words, the USA [workers and middle class] now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang: we face a choice between the compulsive liar, unrepentant, extremely dangerous and unstable warmonger with failing health vs. a bombastic, completely unprepared to governance of such a huge country crook. ..."
The key problems with Democratic Party and Hillary is that they lost working class and middle
class voters, becoming another party of highly paid professionals and Wall Street speculators
(let's say top 10%, not just 1%), the party of neoliberal elite.
It will be interesting to see if yet another attempt to "bait and switch" working class and
lower middle class works this time. I think it will not. Even upper middle class is very resentful
of Democrats and Hillary. So many votes will be not "for" but "against". This is the scenario
Democratic strategists fear the most, but they can do nothing about it.
She overplayed "identity politics" card. Her "identity politics" and her fake feminism are
completely insincere. She is completely numb to human suffering and interests of females and minorities.
Looks like she has a total lack of empathy for other people.
"What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the
generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not
hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times (
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html ) revealed
that she always advocates the most muscular and reckless dispositions of U.S. military forces
whenever her opinion is solicited. "
Usually people are resentful about Party which betrayed them so many times. It would be interesting
to see how this will play this time.
Beverly Mann October 23, 2016 12:00 pm
It will be interesting to see if yet another attempt to "bait and switch" working class and
lower middle class works this time?
Yup. The Republicans definitely have the interests of the working class and lower middle class
at heart when they give, and propose, ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, the repeal of the
estate tax that by now applies only to estates of more than $5 million, complete deregulation
of the finance industry, industry capture of every federal regulatory agency and cabinet department
and commission or board, from the SEC, to the EPA, to the Interior Dept. (in order to hand over
to the oil, gas and timber industries vast parts of federal lands), the FDA, the FTC, the FCC,
the NLRB, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Justice Dept. (including the Antitrust
Division)-to name only some.
And OF COURSE it's to serve the interests of the working class and lower middle class that
they concertedly appoint Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges that are unabashed
proxies of big business.
And then there's the incessant push to privatize Social Security and Medicare. It ain't the
Dems that are pushing that.
You're drinking wayyy too much Kool Aid, likbez. Or maybe just reading too much Ayn Rand, at
Paul Ryan's recommendation.
beene October 23, 2016 10:31 am
I would suggest despite most of the elite in both parties supporting Hillary, and saying
she has the election in the bag is premature. In my opinion the fact that Trump rallies still
has large attendance; where Hillary's rallies would have trouble filling up a large room is a
better indication that Trump will win.
Even democrats are not voting democratic this time to be ignored till election again.
likbez October 23, 2016 12:56 pm
Beverly,
=== quote ===
Yup. The Republicans definitely have the interests of the working class and lower middle class
at heart when they give, and propose, ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, the repeal of the
estate tax that by now applies only to estates of more than $5 million, complete deregulation
of the finance industry, industry capture of every federal regulatory agency and cabinet department
and commission or board, from the SEC, to the EPA, to the Interior Dept. (in order to hand
over to the oil, gas and timber industries vast parts of federal lands), the FDA, the FTC,
the FCC, the NLRB, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Justice Dept. (including
the Antitrust Division) -- to name only some.
And OF COURSE it's to serve the interests of the working class and lower middle class that
they concertedly appoint Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges that are unabashed
proxies of big business.
=== end of quote ===
This is all true. But Trump essentially running not as a Republican but as an independent on
(mostly) populist platform (with elements of nativism). That's why a large part of Republican
brass explicitly abandoned him. That does not exclude that he easily will be co-opted after the
election, if he wins.
And I would not be surprised one bit if Dick Cheney, Victoria Nuland, Paul Wolfowitz and Perle
vote for Hillary. Robert Kagan and papa Bush already declared such an intention. She is a neocon.
A wolf in sheep clothing, if we are talking about real anti-war democrats, not the USA brand of
DemoRats. She is crazy warmonger, no question about it, trying to compensate a complete lack of
diplomatic skills with jingoism and saber rattling.
The problem here might be that you implicitly idealize Hillary and demonize Trump.
I would agree that Trump is horrible candidate. The candidate who (like Hillary) suggests
complete degeneration of the US neoliberal elite.
But the problem is that Hillary is even worse. Much worse and more dangerous because in
addition to being a closet Republican she is also a warmonger. In foreign policy area she is John
McCain in pantsuit. And if you believe that after one hour in White House she does not abandon
all her election promises and start behaving like a far-right republican in foreign policy and
a moderate republican in domestic policy, it's you who drunk too much Cool Aid.
That's what classic neoliberal DemoRats "bait and switch" maneuver (previously executed
by Obama two times) means. And that's why working class now abandoned Democratic Party. Even unions
members of unions which endorses Clinton are expected to vote 3:1 against her. Serial betrayal
of interests of working class (and lower middle class) after 25 years gets on nerve. Not that
their choice is wise, but they made a choice. This is "What's the matter with Kansas" all over
again.
It reminds me the situation when Stalin was asked whether right revisionism of Marxism (social
democrats) or left (Trotskyites with their dream of World revolution) is better. He answered "both
are worse" :-).
In other words, the USA [workers and middle class] now is in the political position that
in chess is called Zugzwang: we face a choice between the compulsive liar, unrepentant, extremely
dangerous and unstable warmonger with failing health vs. a bombastic, completely unprepared to
governance of such a huge country crook.
Of course, we need also remember about existence of "deep state" which make each of
them mostly a figurehead, but still the power of "deep state" is not absolute and this is a very
sad situation.
Beverly Mann, October 23, 2016 1:57 pm
Good grace.
Two points: First, you apparently are unaware of Trump's proposed tax plan, written by Heritage
Foundation economists and political-think-tank types. It's literally more regressively extreme
evn than Paul Ryan's. It gives tax cuts to the wealthy that are exponentially more generous percentage-wise
than G.W. Bush's two tax cuts together were, it eliminates the estate tax, and it gives massive
tax cuts to corporations, including yuge ones.
Two billionaire Hamptons-based hedge funders, Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, have
been funding a super PAC for Trump and since late spring have met with Trump and handed him policy
proposals and suggestions for administrative agency heads and judicial appointments. Other yuge
funders are members of the Ricketts family, including Thomas Ricketts, CEO of TD Ameritrade and
a son of its founder.
Two other billionaires funding Trump: Forrest Lucas, founder of Lucas Oil and reportedly Trump's
choice for Interior Secretary if you and the working class and lower middle class folks whose
interests Trump has at heart get their way.
And then there's Texas oil billionaire Harold Hamm, Trump's very first billionaire mega-donor.
One of my recurring pet peeves about Clinton and her campaign is her failure to tell the public
that these billionaires are contributing mega-bucks to help fund Trump's campaign, and to tell
the public who exactly they are. As well as her failure to make a concerted effort to educate
the public about the the specifics of Trump's fiscal and deregulatory agenda as he has published
it.
As for your belief that I idealize Clinton, you obviously are very new to Angry Bear. I was
a virulent Sanders supporter throughout the primaries, to the very end. In 2008 I originally supported
John Edwards during the primaries and then, when it became clear that it was a two-candidate race,
supported Obama. My reason? I really, really, REALLY did not want to see another triangulation
Democratic administration. That's largely what we got during Obama's first term, though, and I
was not happy about it.
Bottom line: I'm not the gullible one here. You are.
likbez, October 23, 2016 2:37 pm
You demonstrate complete inability to weight the gravity of two dismal, but unequal in their
gravity options.
All your arguments about Supreme Court justices, taxes, inheritance and other similar things
make sense if and only if the country continues to exist.
Which is not given due to the craziness and the level of degeneration of neoliberal elite and
specifically Hillary ("no fly zone in Syria" is one example of her craziness). Playing chickens
with a nuclear power for the sake of proving imperial dominance in Middle East is a crazy policy.
Neocons rule the roost in both parties, which essentially became a single War Party with two
wings. Trump looks like the only chance somewhat to limit their influence and reach some détente
with Russia.
Looks like you organically unable to understand that your choice in this particular case is
between the decimation of the last remnants of the New Deal and a real chance of WWIII.
This is not "pick your poison" situation. Those are two events of completely difference magnitude:
one is reversible (and please note that Trump is bound by very controversial obligations to his
electorate and faces hostile Congress), the other is not.
We all should do our best to prevent the unleashing WWIII even if that means temporary decimation
of the remnants of New Deal.
Neoliberalism after 2008 entered zombie state, so while it is still strong, aggressive and
bloodthirsty it might not last for long. And in such case the defeat of democratic forces on domestic
front is temporary.
Those waking up to read the news this morning will undoubtedly be "shocked" by the latest ABC
/ Washington Post goal seeking report (aka "poll") that shows Hillary opening up a 12-point lead
with likely voters after the latest debate last Wednesday. Ironically, this latest polling farce
was "embargoed for release after 9 a.m." EST which will certainly make it a dominant topic of conversation
on all the morning talk shows.
"METHODOLOGY – This ABC News poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Oct. 20-22,
2016, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 874 likely voters. Results have
a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are
36-27-31 percent, Democrats - Republicans - Independents."
As we've pointed out numerous times in the past, in response to Reuters' efforts to "tweak" their
polls, per the
The Pew Research Center , at least since 1992, democrats have never enjoyed a 9-point registration
gap despite the folks at ABC and The Washington Post somehow convincing themselves it was a reasonable
margin.
Of course, despite the glaring bias in the sample pool, Hillary's obedient lap dog, John Harwood,
was among the first to pump the results by tweeting out the following just two minutes after the
embargo was lifted:
new ABC national poll: Clinton 50%, Trump 38%, Johnson 5%, Stein 2%
This new poll comes just 9 days after a previous ABC / Washington Post poll which showed only
a 4-point national lead for Clinton. While ABC and WaPo claim the massive swing came as the result
of Trump's "treatment of women and his reluctance to endorse the election's legitimacy" during the
debate, it seems unlikely that anyone truly believes that Wednesday's debate caused an 8-point swing
in voter preference. Certainly not these people on CNN:
In any event, here is how ABC and WaPo have seen the polling data trend over time. Ironically,
they found absolutely no dip for Hillary after her 9/11 "medical episode", probably one of the biggest
events of the election season so far, but were able to convince themselves that Wednesday's debate
caused an 8 point swing.
Meanwhile, with huge variances in preference across demographics one can easily see how simple
it is to "rig" a poll by over indexing to one group vs. another. While the pollsters release the
the split of the sample pool by political affiliation, they do not share the split by any of the
following demographics which are just as important to determining the outcome of the poll.
Just one more example of how to rig a poll and dominate a Sunday morning news cycle.
The most recent Investors Business Daily poll, showing Trump up by 2% is another rigged poll
as they all are. The pollsters have been rigging their results by sampling many more Democrats
than Republicans. Most people don't have the slightest idea how to figure statistics. Let me evaluate
this for you.
They polled 767 people
282 Democrats
226 Republicans
259 independents
So, lets just make if fair. Let's assume the people voted their party. We'll increase the number
of Republicans to 282. What does that do to the outcome? 46.5% for Trump and 38.0% for Clinton,
which gives trump a lead of 8.5%
If you take the recent Arizona poll that had Clinton up by 5% and do the same...
This poll shows they polled 713 people,
413 Democrats
168 Republicans
132 Ind
So, let's increase the number of Republicans to 413 and see how it affects the result, with
the same assumption.
When the sampling is made fair, Trump gets 51% and Clinton gets 29%, a lead for Trump of 22%.
Isn't that more in line with what you would expect from Arizona, a decidedly red state?
The ABC poll that is the subject of this article, seems to be fraudulent right from the get
go. First of all add up the percentages of groups sampled.
36% Democrat
27% Republicans
31% Independent
A total of 94%. Where's the other 6%? Are they aliens, or maybe Bob Creamer hired voters? From
what we have seen with the other polls, I would assume the numbers were really
42% Democrats 367 samples
27% Republicans 236 samples
31% independent 271 samples
But of course, there's no way to know.With bad data, it is hard to begin to figure out what
they did. One can only assume that they didn't want anyone to be able to figure out how they rigged
it.
So, lets do the same adjustment and analysis on the corrected samples, above.
We end up with Trump at 44% and Clinton at 41%. This is much more likely than their bogus numbers.
"... The oligarchy has spent decades on a project to "defund the Left," and they've succeeded in ways we're only just now grasping. "Defunding the Left" doesn't mean denying funds to the rotten Democratic Party; it means defunding everything that threatens the 1%'s hold on wealth and power. ..."
Yves here. Mark Ames wrote this post for our fundraiser five years ago. We've turned into a fundraiser
staple, since as long as Larry Summers is with us, this is the sort of classic worth reading regularly.
Think of it as our analogue to Christmas perennials like The Grinch That Stole Christmas or It's
a Wonderful Life. But not to worry, Ames being Ames and NC being NC, this is the antithesis of sappy.
(Mark, you are on notice that if by some miraculous bit of good fortune, Summers retreats from the
public sphere, we'll need you to provide an updated slant on elite venality).
And in the spirit of Christmas come a couple months early, we hope you'll leave something nice
in our stocking, um, Tip Jar -- We are raising our donor target to 1350 (Lambert has yet to update our thermometer) to help us
reach our final financial target for original reporting.
If you've been reading Naked Capitalism for any period of time without giving back in donations-and
most of us have been hooked from the time we discovered Yves Smith's powerful, sharp voice and brilliant
mind-then you you've been getting away with murder. Naked Capitalism is that rare blog that makes
you smarter. Smarter about a lot of things, but primarily about Yves' area of expertise, finance.
By a quirk of historical bad luck, the American Left has gone two generations without understanding
finance, or even caring to understand. It was the hippies who decided half a century ago that finance
was beneath them, so they happily ceded the entire field-finance, business, economics, money-otherwise
known as "political power"-to the other side. Walking away from the finance struggle was like that
hitchhiker handing the gun back to the Manson Family. There's a great line from Charles Portis's
anti-hippie novel, "Dog of the South" that captures the Boomers' self-righteous disdain for "figures":
He would always say-boast, the way those people do-that he had no head for figures and couldn't
do things with his hands, slyly suggesting the presence of finer qualities.
That part about the hands-that would refer to the hippies' other great failure, turning their
backs on Labor, because Labor didn't groove with the Hippies' Culture War. So the Left finds itself,
fifty years later, dealing with the consequences of all those years of ruinous neglect of finance
and labor-the consequences being powerlessness and political impotence.
That's why Yves Smith is so important to anyone who cares about politics and the bad direction
this country is taking. In 2008, the Left suddenly discovered that although it could bray with the
best of 'em about how bad foreign wars are, and how wrong racism and sexism an homophobia are, it
was caught completely and shamefully by surprise by the financial collapse of 2008. The ignorance
was paralyzing, politically and intellectually. Even the lexicon was alien. Unless of course you
were one of the early followers of Yves Smith's blog.
It wasn't always this way.
Back in the 1930s, the Left was firmly grounded in economics, money and finance; back then, the
Left and Labor were practically one. With a foundation in finance and economics, the Left understood
labor and political power and ideology and organization much better than the Left today, which at
best can parry back the idiotic malice-flak that the Right specializes in spraying us with. We're
only just learning how politically stunted and ignorant we are, how much time and knowledge we've
lost, and how much catching up we have to do.
Which is why Yves Smith's Naked Capitalism is one of the 99%'s most valuable asset in the long
struggle ahead: She is both analyst and educator, with a rare literary talent (especially for finance).
One thing that's protected the financial oligarchy is the turgid horrible prose that they camouflage
their toxic ideas and concepts in. Yves is one of the rare few who can make reading finance as emotionally
charged as it needs to be.
Naked Capitalism is our online university in finance and politics and ideology. Whereas other
online universities are set up to turn millions of gullible youths into debt-shackled Wall Street
feeding cows, Naked Capitalism is the opposite: Completely free, consistently brilliant, vital, and
necessary, making us smarter, teaching us how we might one day overthrow the financial oligarchy.
One other difference between Naked Capitalism and online university swindles: (Stanley Kaplan cough-cough!)
Your donations won't end up paying Ezra Klein's salary.
Which brings me back to my whole "Shame on you!" point I was trying to make earlier. When it comes
to fundraising, nothing works like shaming. That's how those late-night commercials work: You're
sitting there in your nice comfortable home, and then suddenly there's this three-legged dog hobbling
into its cage, with big wet eyes, and then some bearded pedophile comes on and says, "Poor Rusty
has endured more abuse and pain than you can ever imagine, and tomorrow, he will be gassed to death
in a slow, horrible poison death chamber. And you-look at you, sitting there with your Chunky Monkey
and your central heating, what kind of sick bastard are you? Get your goddamn Visa Mastercard out
and send money to Rusty, or else his death is on your head. I hope you sleep well at night."
Now I know that this sort of appeal wouldn't work on the Naked Capitalism crowd-too many economists
here, and as everyone knows, you can't appeal to economists' hearts because, well, see under "Larry
Summers World Bank Memo"… I can imagine Larry watching that late night commercial with the three-legged
dog, powering a 2-liter bottle of Diet Coke and devouring a bag of Kettle Salt & Vinegar potato chips,
calculating the productive worth of the three-legged dog, unmoved by the sentimental appeal. Larry
grabs a dictaphone: "Item: How to end dog-gassings? Solution: Ship all three-legged stray dogs to
sub-Saharan Africa. Africans won't even notice. Dogs saved. Private capital freed up. Problem solved."
So some of you have no hearts, and some of us have no shame. But we all do understand how vital
Naked Capitalism has been in educating us. I'm sure that the other side knows how dangerous a site
like this is, because as we become more educated and more political, we become more and more of a
threat.
The oligarchy has spent decades on a project to "defund the Left," and they've succeeded in
ways we're only just now grasping. "Defunding the Left" doesn't mean denying funds to the rotten
Democratic Party; it means defunding everything that threatens the 1%'s hold on wealth and power.
One of their greatest successes, whether by design or not, has been the gutting of journalism,
shrinking it down to a manageable size where its integrity can be drowned in a bathtub. It's nearly
impossible to make a living as a journalist these days; and with the economics of the journalism
business still in free-fall like the Soviet refrigerator industry in the 1990s, media outlets are
even less inclined to challenge power, journalists are less inclined to rock the boat than ever,
and everyone is more inclined to corruption (see: Washington Post, Atlantic Monthly). A ProPublica
study in May put it in numbers: In 1980, the ratio of PR flaks to journalists was roughly 1:3. In
2008, there were 3 PR flaks for every 1 journalist. And that was before the 2008 shit hit the journalism
fan.
This is what an oligarchy looks like. I saw the exact same dynamic in Russia under Yeltsin: When
he took power in 1991, Russia had the most fearless and most ideologically diverse journalism culture
of any I've ever seen, a lo-fi, hi-octane version of American journalism in the 1970s. But as soon
as Yeltsin created a class of oligarchs to ensure his election victory in 1996, the oligarchs snapped
up all the free media outlets, and forced out anyone who challenged power, one by one. By the time
Putin came to power, all the great Russian journalists that I and Taibbi knew had abandoned the profession
for PR or political whoring. It was the oligarchy that killed Russian journalism; Putin merely mopped
up a few remaining pockets of resistance.
The only way to prevent that from happening to is to support the best of what we have left. Working
for free sucks. It can't hold, and it won't.
There are multiple ways to give. The first is here on the blog,
the Tip Jar , which takes you
to PayPal. There you can use a debit card, a credit card or a PayPal account (the charge will be
in the name of Aurora Advisors).
You can also send a check (or multiple post dated checks) in the name of Aurora Advisors Incorporated
to
Aurora Advisors Incorporated
903 Park Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10075
Please also send an e-mail to [email protected] with the headline "Check is in the mail"
(and just the $ en route in the message) to have your contribution included in the total number of
donations.
So donate now to Naked Capitalism
. If you can't afford much, give what you can. If you can afford more, give more. If you can
give a lot, give a lot. Whether you can contribute $5 or $5,000, it will pay for itself, I guarantee
you. This isn't just giving, it's a statement that you are want a different debate, a different society,
and a different culture.
Who knows, maybe we'll win; maybe we'll even figure out a way to seal Larry Summers in a kind
of space barge, and fire him off into deep space, to orbit Uranus for eternity. Yves? Could it be
financed?
And you-look at you, sitting there with your Chunky Monkey and your central heating, what
kind of sick bastard are you? Get your goddamn Visa Mastercard out and send money to Rusty,
or else his death is on your head. I hope you sleep well at night.
I'd already shelled out for the NC fundraiser, but this one got me to pull out the MasterCard
and finally get around to becoming a subscriber to Ames' fantastic Radio War Nerd podcast, which
I discovered thanks to the NC commentariat.
Interesting how people become the Other over time. Go back to the videos of crowds taunting
and attacking black kids being escorted by federal marshals into "white" schools, and you see
clean-shaven crew cuts and perms and wife-beater t-shirts and pegged pants and real boots. Go
look at the videos of redneck activity now, NASCAR and "mudding" (pickups with huge tires and
engines slogging through pits of slimy red Georgia mud" and gatherings of motorboats on Southern
lakes, and it's all beards and pony tails (on guys and gals? Says Jeff Foxworthy) and tie-died
clothing (along with the Confederate battle flags and gunz and all.
I got my BA in history from Lake Forest College, in a snotty sick-wealthy northern suburb of
Chicago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Forest_College
My years there, '69-72, after my volunteer "service" in the US Army and a year doing "Racket"
duty in Vietnam, were a "hippie" tour de force. All social concerns and "anti-war" (actually "escape
the draft" by young people who were largely those who could not get into the really prestigious
Ivy League facilities, despite great family wealth, or who had been booted from the same. Heavy
drug use, supine administration ("laissez faire"), endless debates over Marxism Leninism Trotskyism
etc. Ineffectual "peace marches," to do stuff like "blocking" an unused entrance to Ft. Sheridan,
just down the road - a few TV reporters to document the tomfoolery - "Stop The War Machine!" Motions
toward communes, DOA when the practicalities of sharing, comity, ran up against the selfish consumerism
of the privileged: ""I don't get my own room and stereo? I get to copulate with others, but you,
my steady, must remain my sole property!" It helped the transformation that the daughter of the
Dean did a Janis Joplin at the very end of my matriculation there - all of a sudden the local
police were invited in, to search student rooms and cars and engage in all the funsies of "drug
enforcement" with stings, etc.
Lake Forest very quickly morphed, once the draft ended, into a very much focused "business
school," to teach the young budding not-ready-for-MIT-or-Wharton capitalists the rudiments of
their craft. Graduating about 450 looting-ready young folks a year. ?(Not all of them, of course…)
Pretty amazing, not surprising.
Neither the rednecks nor the "hippies" were much interested in what the parasites were doing
to "FIRE" over those decades and generations. That's the thing about parasites: most of what they
do is invisible until the infection gets severe and vital organs are damaged, while the host goes
about generating the nutrition that feeds the critters until whooops! Time to shed some segments
into the water supply, lay some eggs, encyst, find another host…
"... Establishment panic is traceable to another fear: its [neoliberal] ideology, its political religion, is seen by growing millions as a golden calf, a 20th-century god that has failed. ..."
"... After having expunged Christianity from our public life and public square, our establishment installed "democracy" as the new deity, at whose altars we should all worship. And so our schools began to teach. ..."
"... Today, Clintons, Obamas, and Bushes send soldiers and secularist tutors to "establish democracy" among the "lesser breeds without the Law." ..."
"... By suggesting he might not accept the results of a "rigged election," Trump is committing an unpardonable sin. But this new cult, this devotion to a new holy trinity of diversity, democracy, and equality, is of recent vintage and has shallow roots. ..."
"... For none of the three-diversity, equality, democracy-is to be found in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, or the Pledge of Allegiance. In the pledge, we are a republic. ..."
"... Among many in the silent majority, Clintonian democracy is not an improvement upon the old republic; it is the corruption of it. ..."
"... Consider: six months ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton bundler, announced that by executive action he would convert 200,000 convicted felons into eligible voters by November. ..."
"... Yet, some of us recall another time, when Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in "Points of Rebellion": "We must realize that today's Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution." ..."
"... Baby-boomer radicals loved it, raising their fists in defiance of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. But now that it is the populist-nationalist right that is moving beyond the niceties of liberal democracy to save the America that they love, elitist enthusiasm for "revolution" seems more constrained. ..."
What explains the hysteria of the establishment? In a word, fear. The establishment is horrified
at the Donald's defiance because, deep within its soul, it fears that the people for whom Trump speaks
no longer accept its political legitimacy or moral authority. It may rule and run the country, and
may rig the system through mass immigration and a mammoth welfare state so that Middle America is
never again able to elect one of its own. But that establishment, disconnected from the people it
rules, senses, rightly, that it is unloved and even detested.
Having fixed the future, the establishment
finds half of the country looking upon it with the same sullen contempt that our Founding Fathers
came to look upon the overlords Parliament sent to rule them.
Establishment panic is traceable to another fear: its [neoliberal] ideology, its political
religion, is seen by growing millions as a golden calf, a 20th-century god that has failed.
Trump is "talking down our democracy," said a shocked Clinton.
After having expunged Christianity from our public life and public square, our establishment
installed "democracy" as the new deity, at whose altars we should all worship. And so our schools
began to teach.
Half a millennia ago, missionaries and explorers set sail from Spain, England, and France to bring
Christianity to the New World.
Today, Clintons, Obamas, and Bushes send soldiers and secularist tutors to "establish democracy"
among the "lesser breeds without the Law."
Unfortunately, the natives, once democratized, return to their roots and vote for Hezbollah, Hamas,
and the Muslim Brotherhood, using democratic processes and procedures to reestablish their true God.
And Allah is no democrat.
By suggesting he might not accept the results of a "rigged election," Trump is committing
an unpardonable sin. But this new cult, this devotion to a new holy trinity of diversity, democracy,
and equality, is of recent vintage and has shallow roots.
For none of the three-diversity, equality, democracy-is to be found in the Constitution, the
Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, or the Pledge of Allegiance. In the pledge, we are a republic.
When Ben Franklin, emerging from the Philadelphia convention, was asked by a woman what kind of
government they had created, he answered, "A republic, if you can keep it."
Among many in the silent majority, Clintonian democracy is not an improvement upon the old
republic; it is the corruption of it.
Consider: six months ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton bundler, announced that
by executive action he would convert 200,000 convicted felons into eligible voters by November.
If that is democracy, many will say, to hell with it. And if felons decide the electoral votes
of Virginia, and Virginia decides who is our next U.S. president, are we obligated to honor that
election?
In 1824, Gen. Andrew Jackson ran first in popular and electoral votes. But, short of a majority,
the matter went to the House. There, Speaker Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams delivered the presidency
to Adams-and Adams made Clay secretary of state, putting him on the path to the presidency that had
been taken by Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Adams himself. Were Jackson's people wrong to regard
as a "corrupt bargain" the deal that robbed the general of the presidency? The establishment also
recoiled in horror from Milwaukee Sheriff Dave Clarke's declaration that it is now "torches and pitchforks
time."
Yet, some of us recall another time, when Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in
"Points of Rebellion": "We must realize that today's Establishment is the new George III. Whether
it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition,
is also revolution."
Baby-boomer radicals loved it, raising their fists in defiance of Richard Nixon and Spiro
Agnew. But now that it is the populist-nationalist right that is moving beyond the niceties of liberal
democracy to save the America that they love, elitist enthusiasm for "revolution" seems more constrained.
The only way Hillary could be stopped would be if the Republican Party elite stood with Trump,
so Soros and the other donor who owns voting machines could be blocked from flipping/fractionalizing
votes. But that isn't happening. Soros machines are in key swing states like Colorado and Pennsylvania,
and we already have data from the primary that a good 15% (at least) can be flipped, compared to
exit polls/hand counts/paper trail or non-donor machines.
I guess it's still possible, like what happened in the Michigan Democratic primary, that the real
numbers are more like a 10% lead for Trump and they come out in force in unexpected locations, and
Clinton's small, unenthusiastic base stays home, thus making it too difficult to successfully flip.
But I'm trying not to count on something like that, because it seems too close optomism bias driven
"poll unskewing" – I mean, the polls clearly ARE skewed in favor of Hillary, but I doubt they're
off by 15%.
Stein could never take over the Democratic Party. It isn't even clear to me that the Greens could
replace the Democrats, although I do think their massive increase in ballot access this year is a
credit to the party and to Stein. That shows real organizing and management effectiveness.
I started this campaign season advocating for purging Clintonians out of the now hollow Democratic
Party and taking it over. That still seems like the most efficient path to an actual left national
party, in part because our current system is so corrupted and calcified. But I'm not sure it's possible.
At this point, I can imagine a cataclysmic revolution happening during Clinton's term more easily
than a reformed, citizen friendly Democratic Party.
""Obama, Holder to lead post-Trump redistricting campaign" [Politico]. "The new group, called
the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, was developed in close consultation with the
White House. President Barack Obama himself has now identified the group - which will coordinate
campaign strategy, direct fundraising, organize ballot initiatives and put together legal challenges
to state redistricting maps "
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be
included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by
adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years,
and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.2 The actual Enumeration shall
be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within
every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of
Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least
one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall
be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one,
Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six,
Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
That the parties are even allowed anywhere near district-drawing processes is a sign that the
system is a sham designed to preserve them against us. How much more evidence do people need to
be hit over the head with that they're complicit in enforcing frauds and that's not okay?
Obama and Holder, fresh off their various triumphs - closing Gitmo, prosecuting the Bush-era
torturers, and sending top-level banksters to jail - just the team to sort this out. Not.
"... I find the spectacle of liberals heroically mounting the barricades against Trump-fascism rather amusing. ..."
"... Second thing is, Trump isn't fascist. In my opinion, Trump's an old-fashioned white American nativist, ..."
"... Tagging him as "fascist" allows his critics to put an alien, non-American gloss on a set of attitudes and policies that have been mainstreamed in American politics for at least 150 years and predate the formulation of fascism by several decades if not a century. Those nasty vetting/exclusion things he's proposing are as American as apple pie. For those interested in boning up on the Know Nothings and the Chinese Exclusion Act, I have this piece for you . ..."
"... Real fascism, in theory, is a rather interesting and nasty beast. In my opinion, it turns bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme, mobilizing force in national life. ..."
"... In both fascism and bolshevism, democratic outcomes lack inherent legitimacy. National legitimacy resides in the party, which embodies the essence of a threatened race or class in a way that Hegel might appreciate but Marx probably wouldn't. Subversion of democracy and seizure of state power are not only permissible; they are imperatives. ..."
"... The purest fascism movement I know of exists in Ukraine. I wrote about it here , and it's a piece I think is well worth reading to understand what a political movement organized on fascist principles really looks like. And Trump ain't no fascist. He's a nativist running a rather incompetent campaign. ..."
"... The most interesting application of the "fascist" analysis, rather surprisingly, applies to the Clinton campaign, not the Trump campaign, when considering the cultivation of a nexus between big business and *ahem* racially inflected politics. ..."
"... White labor originally had legal recourse to beating back the challenge/threat of African-American labor instead of accommodating it as a "class" ally; it subsequently relied on institutional and customary advantages. ..."
"... The most reliable wedge against working class solidarity and a socialist narrative in American politics used to be white privilege which, when it was reliably backed by US business and political muscle, was a doctrine of de facto white supremacy. ..."
"... The perception of marginalized white clout is reinforced by the nomination of Hillary Clinton and her campaign emphasis on the empowerment of previously marginalized but now demographically more important groups. ..."
"... The Clinton campaign has been all about race and its doppelganger -actually, the overarching and more ear-friendly term that encompasses racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual loyalties-"identity politics." ..."
"... The most calculated and systematic employment of racial politics was employed by the Hillary Clinton campaign in the Democratic primary to undercut the socialist-lite populist appeal of Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... My personal disdain for the Clinton campaign was born on the day that John Lewis intoned "I never saw him" in order to dismiss the civil rights credentials of Bernie Sanders ..."
"... In the primary, this translated into an attack on Sanders and the apparently mythical "Bernie bro" as racist swine threatening the legacy of the first black president, venerated by the African American electorate, Barack Obama. In the general, well, Donald Trump and his supporters provided acres more genuine grist for the identity warrior mill. ..."
"... Trump's ambitions to gain traction for a favorable American/populist/outsider narrative for his campaign have been frustrated by determined efforts to frame him as anti-Semitic, racist against blacks and Hispanics, sexist, and bigoted against the disabled-and ready to hold the door while Pepe the Frog feeds his opponents, including a large contingent of conservative and liberal Jewish journalists subjected to unimaginable invective by the Alt-Right– into the ovens. ..."
"... That campaign pretty much went by the wayside (as did Black Lives Matter, a racial justice initiative partially funded by core Clinton backer George Soros; interesting, no?) as a) black nationalists started shooting policemen and b) Clinton kicked off a charm campaign to help wedge the black-wary GOP establishment away from Trump. ..."
"... "Identity politics" is near the core of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism. ..."
"... Clinton's enduring and grotesque loyalty to her family's charitable foundation, an operation that in my opinion has no place on the resume of a public servant, as a font of prestige, conduit for influence, and model for billionaire-backed global engagement. ..."
"... By placing the focus of the campaign on identity politics and Trump's actual and putative crimes against various identity groups, the Clinton campaign has successfully obscured what I consider to be its fundamental identity as a vehicle for neoliberal globalists keen to preserve and employ the United States as a welcoming environment and supreme vehicle for supra-sovereign business interests. ..."
"... Clintonism's core identity is not, in other words, as a crusade for groups suffering from the legacy and future threat of oppression by Trump's white male followers. It is a full-court press to keep the wheels on the neoliberal sh*twagon as it careens down the road of globalization, and it recognizes the importance in American democracy of slicing and dicing the electorate by identity politics and co-opting useful demographics as the key to maintaining power. ..."
"... Trump has cornered the somewhat less entitled and increasingly threatened white ethnic group, some of whom are poised to make the jump to white nationalism with or without him. ..."
"... Clinton has cornered the increasingly entitled and assertive global billionaire group, which adores the class-busting anti-socialist identity-based politics she practices. ..."
I find the spectacle of liberals heroically mounting the barricades against Trump-fascism
rather amusing.
For one thing, liberals don't crush fascism. Liberals appease fascism, then they exploit fascism.
In between there's a great big war, where communists crush fascism. That's pretty much the lesson
of WWII.
Second thing is, Trump isn't fascist. In my opinion, Trump's an old-fashioned white American
nativist, which is pretty much indistinguishable from old-fashioned racist when considering
the subjugation of native Americans and African-Americans and Asian immigrants, but requires that
touch of "nativist" nuance when considering indigenous bigotry against Irish, Italian, and Jewish
immigrants and citizens.
Tagging him as "fascist" allows his critics to put an alien, non-American gloss on a set of
attitudes and policies that have been mainstreamed in American politics for at least 150 years and
predate the formulation of fascism by several decades if not a century. Those nasty vetting/exclusion
things he's proposing are as American as apple pie. For those interested in boning up on the Know
Nothings and the Chinese Exclusion Act,
I have this piece for you .
And for anybody who doesn't believe the US government does not already engage in intensive "extreme"
vetting and targeting of all Muslims immigrants, especially those from targeted countries, not only
to identify potential security risks but to groom potential intelligence assets, I got the Brooklyn
Bridge to sell you right here:
Real fascism, in theory, is a rather interesting and nasty beast. In my opinion, it turns
bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme,
mobilizing force in national life.
In both fascism and bolshevism, democratic outcomes lack inherent legitimacy. National legitimacy
resides in the party, which embodies the essence of a threatened race or class in a way that Hegel
might appreciate but Marx probably wouldn't. Subversion of democracy and seizure of state power are
not only permissible; they are imperatives.
The need to seize state power and hold it while a fascist or Bolshevik agenda is implemented dictates
the need for a military force loyal to and subservient to the party and its leadership, not the state.
The purest fascism movement I know of exists in Ukraine.
I wrote about it here , and it's a piece I think is well worth reading to understand what a political
movement organized on fascist principles really looks like. And Trump ain't no fascist. He's a nativist
running a rather incompetent campaign.
It's a little premature to throw dirt on the grave of the Trump candidacy, perhaps (I'll check
back in on November 9), but it looks like he spent too much time glorying in the adulation of his
white male nativist base and too little time, effort, and money trying to deliver a plausible message
that would allow other demographics to shrug off the "deplorable" tag and vote for him. I don't blame/credit
the media too much for burying Trump, a prejudice of mine perhaps. I blame Trump's inability to construct
an effective phalanx of pro-Trump messengers, a failure that's probably rooted in the fact that Trump
spent the primary and general campaign at war with the GOP establishment.
The only capital crime in politics is disunity, and the GOP and Trump are guilty on multiple counts.
The most interesting application of the "fascist" analysis, rather surprisingly, applies to
the Clinton campaign, not the Trump campaign, when considering the cultivation of a nexus between
big business and *ahem* racially inflected politics.
It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed
lumpen . It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case
in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives:
socialism and communism.
That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness.
That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the
United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. The North's
abhorrence at the spread of slavery into the American West before the Civil War had more to do a
desire to preserve these new realms for "free" labor-"free" in one context, from the competition
of slave labor-than egalitarian principle.
White labor originally had legal recourse to beating back the challenge/threat of African-American
labor instead of accommodating it as a "class" ally; it subsequently relied on institutional and
customary advantages.
If anyone harbors illusions concerning the kumbaya solidarity between white and black labor
in the post-World War II era, I think the article The Problem of Race in American Labor History
by Herbert Hill ( a freebie on
JSTOR ) is a good place to start.
The most reliable wedge against working class solidarity and a socialist narrative in American
politics used to be white privilege which, when it was reliably backed by US business and political
muscle, was a doctrine of de facto white supremacy.
However, in this campaign, the race wedge has cut the other way in a most interesting fashion.
White conservatives are appalled, and minority liberals energized, by the fact that the white guy,
despite winning the majority white male vote, lost to a black guy not once but twice, giving a White
Twilight/Black Dawn (TM) vibe to the national debate.
The perception of marginalized white clout is reinforced by the nomination of Hillary Clinton
and her campaign emphasis on the empowerment of previously marginalized but now demographically more
important groups.
The Clinton campaign has been all about race and its doppelganger -actually, the overarching
and more ear-friendly term that encompasses racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual loyalties-"identity
politics."
The most calculated and systematic employment of racial politics was employed by the Hillary
Clinton campaign in the Democratic primary to undercut the socialist-lite populist appeal of Bernie
Sanders.
My personal disdain for the Clinton campaign was born on the day that John Lewis intoned "I
never saw him" in order to dismiss the civil rights credentials of Bernie Sanders while announcing
the Black Congressional Caucus endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Bear in mind that during the 1960s,
Sanders had
affiliated his student group at the University of Chicago with Lewis' SNCC, the Student Nonviolent
Coordinating Committee; during the same era, Hillary Clinton was at Wellesley
condemning
"the snicks" for their excessively confrontational tactics.
Ah, politics.
To understand the significance of this event, one should read Fracture by the guru of woke
Clintonism, Joy Reid. Or read
my piece on the subject . Or simply understand that after Hillary Clinton lost Lewis's endorsement,
the black vote, and the southern Democratic primaries to Barack Obama in 2008, and she was determined
above all to secure and exploit monolithic black support in the primaries and, later on, the general
in 2016.
So, in order to prevent Sanders from splitting the black vote to her disadvantage on ideological/class
lines, Clinton played the race card. Or, as we put it today when discussing the championing of historically
disadvantaged a.k.a. non white male heterosexual groups, celebrated "identity politics".
In the primary, this translated into an attack on Sanders and the apparently mythical "Bernie
bro" as racist swine threatening the legacy of the first black president, venerated by the African
American electorate, Barack Obama. In the general, well, Donald Trump and his supporters provided
acres more genuine grist for the identity warrior mill.
Trump's populism draws its heat from American nativism, not "soak the rich" populism of the Sandernista
stripe, and it was easily submerged in the "identity politics" narrative.
Trump's ambitions to gain traction for a favorable American/populist/outsider narrative for
his campaign have been frustrated by determined efforts to frame him as anti-Semitic, racist against
blacks and Hispanics, sexist, and bigoted against the disabled-and ready to hold the door while Pepe
the Frog feeds his opponents, including a large contingent of conservative and liberal Jewish journalists
subjected to unimaginable invective by the Alt-Right– into the ovens.
As an indication of the fungible & opportunistic character of the "identity politics" approach,
as far as I can tell from a recent visit to a swing state, as the Clinton campaign pivoted to the
general, the theme of Trump's anti-black racism has been retired in favor of pushing his offenses
against women and the disabled. Perhaps this reflects the fact that Clinton has a well-advertised
lock on the African-American vote and doesn't need to cater to it; also, racism being what it is,
playing the black card is not the best way to lure Republicans and indies to the Clinton camp.
The high water mark of the Clinton African-American tilt was perhaps the abortive campaign to
turn gun control into a referendum on the domination of Congress by white male conservatives. It
happened a few months ago, so who remembers? But John Lewis led a sit-in occupation of the Senate
floor in the wake of the Orlando shootings to highlight how America's future was being held hostage
to the whims of Trump-inclined white pols.
That campaign pretty much went by the wayside (as did Black Lives Matter, a racial justice
initiative partially funded by core Clinton backer George Soros; interesting, no?) as a) black nationalists
started shooting policemen and b) Clinton kicked off a charm campaign to help wedge the black-wary
GOP establishment away from Trump.
There is more to Clintonism, I think, than simply playing the "identity politics" card to screw
Bernie Sanders or discombobulate the Trump campaign. "Identity politics" is near the core of
the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten her brand
of billionaire-friendly liberalism.
In my view, a key tell is Clinton's enduring and grotesque loyalty to her family's charitable
foundation, an operation that in my opinion has no place on the resume of a public servant, as a
font of prestige, conduit for influence, and model for billionaire-backed global engagement.
By placing the focus of the campaign on identity politics and Trump's actual and putative
crimes against various identity groups, the Clinton campaign has successfully obscured what I consider
to be its fundamental identity as a vehicle for neoliberal globalists keen to preserve and employ
the United States as a welcoming environment and supreme vehicle for supra-sovereign business interests.
Clintonism's core identity is not, in other words, as a crusade for groups suffering from
the legacy and future threat of oppression by Trump's white male followers. It is a full-court press
to keep the wheels on the neoliberal sh*twagon as it careens down the road of globalization, and
it recognizes the importance in American democracy of slicing and dicing the electorate by identity
politics and co-opting useful demographics as the key to maintaining power.
In my view, the Trump and Clinton campaigns are both protofascist.
Trump has cornered the somewhat less entitled and increasingly threatened white ethnic group,
some of whom are poised to make the jump to white nationalism with or without him.
Clinton has cornered the increasingly entitled and assertive global billionaire group, which
adores the class-busting anti-socialist identity-based politics she practices.
But the bottom line is race. U.S. racism has stacked up 400 years of tinder that might take a
few hundred more years, if ever, to burn off. And until it does, every politician in the country
is going to see his or her political future in flicking matches at it. And that's what we're seeing
in the current campaign. A lot. Not fascism.
(Reprinted from
China Matters by permission of author or representative)
Democrats can beat populists, and usually have, by attending to what underlies the surface ugliness.
This offends me so deeply! The suggestion that Democrats
should
defeat populists dishonors
the history of the term and, perhaps inadvertently, betrays what the Democratic "leadership" has sunk
to.
"We must realize that today's Establishment is the new George III. Whether
it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress,
honored in tradition, is also revolution."
Justice William O. Douglas wrote in "Points of Rebellion":
Unfortunately members of Japan's congress (the Diet) do from time to time put
in hammy displays of slanging matches and even the kind of stagey fisticuffs that
would have pro wrestling "competitors" complaining about bad acting. Perhaps it
is the Japanese people's way of reminding themselves and even outsiders that one
of their indisputable contributions to the performance arts is Kabuki.
The main audience is the constituents of the Diet members in question, and certainly not signifying
an attempt to steer policy responses (much to my chagrin if they do it in relation to the TPP debates).
As Europeans assess the fallout from the U.K.'s
Brexit referendum
, they face a series of elections that could equally shake the political establishment. In the
coming 12 months, four of Europe's five largest economies have votes that will almost certainly mean
serious gains for right-wing populists and nationalists. Once seen as fringe groups, France's National
Front, Italy's Five Star Movement, and the Freedom Party in the Netherlands have attracted legions
of followers by tapping discontent over immigration, terrorism, and feeble economic performance.
"The Netherlands should again become a country of and for the Dutch people," says Evert Davelaar,
a Freedom Party backer who says immigrants don't share "Western and Christian values."
... ... ....
The populists are deeply skeptical of European integration, and those in France and the Netherlands
want to follow Britain's lead and quit the European Union. "Political risk in Europe is now far more
significant than in the United States," says Ajay Rajadhyaksha, head of macro research at Barclays.
... ... ...
...the biggest risk of the nationalist groundswell: increasingly fragmented parliaments that will
be unable or unwilling to tackle the problems hobbling their economies. True, populist leaders might
not have enough clout to enact controversial measures such as the Dutch Freedom Party's call to close
mosques and deport Muslims. And while the Brexit vote in June helped energize Eurosceptics, it's
unlikely that any major European country will soon quit the EU, Morgan Stanley economists wrote in
a recent report. But they added that "the protest parties promise to turn back the clock" on free-market
reforms while leaving "sclerotic" labour and market regulations in place. France's National Front,
for example, wants to temporarily renationalise banks and increase tariffs while embracing cumbersome
labour rules widely blamed for chronic double-digit unemployment. Such policies could damp already
weak euro zone growth, forecast by the International Monetary Fund to drop from 2 percent in 2015
to 1.5 percent in 2017. "Politics introduces a downside skew to growth," the economists said.
"... which may be the story one wishes for. But if there were a spread to compare her win against, it was Bernie who massively beat the spread. I'll leave it as an exercise to others to determine if her unfair advantages were as large as the winning margin. ..."
"... He makes a good point and you dismiss it. You bashed Bernie Sanders and "Bernie Bros" during the primary. Then you lie about it. That's why you're the worst. Dishonest as hell. ..."
"... Remember one thing anne, America is not a country. It is an idea. You cannot arrest it, murder it, or pretend it isn't there. We as a people are not perfect. But Mr Putin is stabbing directly at our democracy, not Hillary Clinton and not Paul Krugman. Time to be a little more objective, of which you are even more capable of than me. ..."
"... It is not exactly McCarthyism as stated (although kthomas with his previous Putin comments looks like a modern day McCarthyist). I think this is a pretty clear formulation of the credo of American Exceptionalism -- a flavor of nationalism adapted to the realities of the new continent. ..."
"... And Robert Kagan explained it earlier much better ... I wonder if Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney vote for Hillary too. ..."
"...Mrs. Clinton won the Democratic nomination fairly easily..."
which may be the story one wishes for. But if there were a spread to compare her win against,
it was Bernie who massively beat the spread. I'll leave it as an exercise to others to determine
if her unfair advantages were as large as the winning margin.
"Why do people like you pretend to love Sen Sanders so much!?"
Why do you say he is pretending? What did he write to make you think that?
Are you just a dishonest troll centrist totebagger like PGL.
Peter K. -> to pgl...
What does that have to do with anything?
He makes a good point and you dismiss it. You bashed Bernie Sanders and "Bernie Bros" during
the primary. Then you lie about it. That's why you're the worst. Dishonest as hell. Are most
New Yorkers as dishonest as you, Trump, Guiliani, Christie, etc?
No. I am a fan of Sen Sanders, and not even he would believe your nonsense. History will not remember
it that way. What it will remember is how Putin Comrade meddled. And there is a price for that.
Sen Sanders wanted one, stated thing: to push the narrative to the left. He marginally accomplished
this. What he did succeed in was providing an opportunity for false-lefties like you and Mr Putin
who seem to think that America is the root of all evil.
Remember one thing anne, America is not a country. It is an idea. You cannot arrest it,
murder it, or pretend it isn't there. We as a people are not perfect. But Mr Putin is stabbing
directly at our democracy, not Hillary Clinton and not Paul Krugman. Time to be a little more
objective, of which you are even more capable of than me.
Sen Sanders wanted one stated thing: to push the narrative to the left. He marginally accomplished
this. What he did succeed in was providing an opportunity for false-lefties like --- and -- -----
who seem to think that America is the root of all evil....
[ Better to assume such an awful comment was never written, but the McCarthy-like tone to a
particular campaign has been disturbing and could prove lasting. ]
It is not exactly McCarthyism as stated (although kthomas with his previous Putin comments
looks like a modern day McCarthyist). I think this is a pretty clear formulation of the credo
of American Exceptionalism -- a flavor of nationalism adapted to the realities of the new continent.
BS, a remarkable.
No, I am sure he will be remembered more than that.
Bernard Sanders, last romantic politician to run his campaign on an average of $37 from 3,284,421
donations (or whatever Obama said at The Dinner). Remarkable but ineffectual. A good orator in
empty houses means he was practicing, not performing.
Why does Obama succeed and Sanders fail? Axelrod and co.
Peter K. -> cal... , -1
He was written off by the like of Krugman, PGL, you, KThomas etc.
He won what 13 million votes. Young people overwhelmingly voted for Sanders. He won New Hampshire,
Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, etc. etc. etc. And now the "unromantic"
complacent people have to lie about the campaign.
"... Instead of the investigative process being focused on achieving justice, Kucinich says it was "a very political process" that had "everything to do with the 2016 presidential election" in which Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Kucinich elaborates that "the executive branch of government made an early determination that no matter what came up that there was no way that Hillary Clinton was going to have to be accountable under law for anything dealing with the mishandling of classified information." ..."
Speaking Monday on Fox News with host Neil Cavuto, former Democratic presidential candidate
and United States House of Representatives Member from Ohio Dennis Kucinich opined that, from
early on, the US government's investigation of Hillary Clinton for mishandling confidential
information while she was Secretary of State was fixed in her favor.
Instead of the investigative process being focused on achieving justice, Kucinich says it
was "a very political process" that had "everything to do with the 2016 presidential election" in
which Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Kucinich elaborates that "the executive branch of
government made an early determination that no matter what came up that there was no way that
Hillary Clinton was going to have to be accountable under law for anything dealing with the
mishandling of classified information."
Its from World Socialist Web Site by thier analysys
does contain some valid points. Especially about betrayal of nomenklatura, and, especially, KGB nomenklatura,which was wholesale bought
by the USA for cash.
Note that the author is unable or unwilling to use the tterm "neoliberalism". Looks like orthodox Marxism has problem with this
notion as it contradict Marxism dogma that capitalism as an economic doctrine is final stage before arrival of socialism. Looks like
it is not the final ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Russia Since 1980 ..."
"... History reveals that the grandsons of the Bolshevik coup d'état didn't destroy the Soviet Union in a valiant effort to advance the cause of communist prosperity or even to return to their common European home; instead, it transformed Soviet managers and ministers into roving bandits (asset-grabbing privateers) with a tacit presidential charter to privatize the people's assets and revenues to themselves under the new Muscovite rule of men ..."
"... The scale of this plunder was astounding. It not only bankrupted the Soviet Union, forcing Russian President Boris Yeltsin to appeal to the G-7 for $6 billion of assistance on December 6, 1991, but triggered a free fall in aggregate production commencing in 1990, aptly known as catastroika. ..."
"... In retrospect, the Soviet economy didn't collapse because the liberalized command economy devised after 1953 was marked for death. The system was inefficient, corrupt and reprehensible in a myriad of ways, but sustainable, as the CIA and most Sovietologists maintained. It was destroyed by Gorbachev's tolerance and complicity in allowing privateers to misappropriate state revenues, pilfer materials, spontaneously privatize, and hotwire their ill-gotten gains abroad, all of which disorganized production. ..."
"... The rapid growth and increasing complexity of the Soviet economy required access to the resources of the world economy. ..."
"... For the Soviet bureaucracy, a parasitic social caste committed to the defense of its privileges and terrified of the working class, the revolutionary solution to the contradictions of the Soviet economy was absolutely unthinkable. The only course that it could contemplate was the second-capitulation to imperialism. ..."
"... In other words, the integration of the USSR into the structure of the world capitalist economy on a capitalist basis means not the slow development of a backward national economy, but the rapid destruction of one which has sustained living conditions which are, at least for the working class, far closer to those that exist in the advanced countries than in the third world. ..."
"... The Fourth International ..."
"... The End of the USSR, ..."
"... The report related the destruction of the USSR by the ruling bureaucracy to a broader international phenomenon. The smashing up of the USSR was mirrored in the United States by the destruction of the trade unions as even partial instruments of working-class defense. ..."
"... Millions of people are going to see imperialism for what it really is. The democratic mask is going to be torn off. The idea that imperialism is compatible with peace is going to be exposed. The very elements which drove masses into revolutionary struggle in the past are once again present. The workers of Russia and the Ukraine are going to be reminded why they made a revolution in the first place. The American workers are going to be reminded why they themselves in an earlier period engaged in the most massive struggles against the corporations. The workers of Europe are going to be reminded why their continent was the birthplace of socialism and Karl Marx. [p. 25] ..."
This analysis has been vindicated by scholarly investigations into the causes of the Soviet economic collapse that facilitated
the bureaucracy's dissolution of the USSR. In Russia Since 1980, published in 2008 by Cambridge University Press, Professors
Steven Rosefielde and Stefan Hedlund present evidence that Gorbachev introduced measures that appear, in retrospect, to have been
aimed at sabotaging the Soviet economy. "Gorbachev and his entourage," they write, "seem to have had a venal hidden agenda that caused
things to get out of hand quickly." [p. 38] In a devastating appraisal of Gorbachev's policies, Rosefielde and Hedlund state:
History reveals that the grandsons of the Bolshevik coup d'état didn't destroy the Soviet Union in a valiant effort to advance
the cause of communist prosperity or even to return to their common European home; instead, it transformed Soviet managers and ministers
into roving bandits (asset-grabbing privateers) with a tacit presidential charter to privatize the people's assets and revenues to
themselves under the new Muscovite rule of men. [p. 40]
Instead of displaying due diligence over personal use of state revenues, materials and property, inculcated in every Bolshevik
since 1917, Gorbachev winked at a counterrevolution from below opening Pandora's Box. He allowed enterprises and others not only
to profit maximize for the state in various ways, which was beneficial, but also to misappropriate state assets, and export the proceeds
abroad. In the process, red directors disregarded state contracts and obligations, disorganizing inter-industrial intermediate input
flows, and triggering a depression from which the Soviet Union never recovered and Russia has barely emerged. [p. 47]
Given all the heated debates that would later ensue about how Yeltsin and his shock therapy engendered mass plunder, it should
be noted that the looting began under Gorbachev's watch. It was his malign neglect that transformed the rhetoric of Market Communism
into the pillage of the nation's assets.
The scale of this plunder was astounding. It not only bankrupted the Soviet Union, forcing Russian President Boris Yeltsin
to appeal to the G-7 for $6 billion of assistance on December 6, 1991, but triggered a free fall in aggregate production commencing
in 1990, aptly known as catastroika.
In retrospect, the Soviet economy didn't collapse because the liberalized command economy devised after 1953 was marked for
death. The system was inefficient, corrupt and reprehensible in a myriad of ways, but sustainable, as the CIA and most Sovietologists
maintained. It was destroyed by Gorbachev's tolerance and complicity in allowing privateers to misappropriate state revenues, pilfer
materials, spontaneously privatize, and hotwire their ill-gotten gains abroad, all of which disorganized production. [p. 49]
The analysis of Rosefielde and Hedlund, while accurate in its assessment of Gorbachev's actions, is simplistic. Gorbachev's policies
can be understood only within the framework of more fundamental political and socioeconomic factors. First, and most important, the
real objective crisis of the Soviet economy (which existed and preceded by many decades the accession of Gorbachev to power) developed
out of the contradictions of the autarkic nationalist policies pursued by the Soviet regime since Stalin and Bukharin introduced
the program of "socialism in one country" in 1924. The rapid growth and increasing complexity of the Soviet economy required
access to the resources of the world economy. This access could be achieved only in one of two ways: either through the spread
of socialist revolution into the advanced capitalist countries, or through the counterrevolutionary integration of the USSR into
the economic structures of world capitalism.
For the Soviet bureaucracy, a parasitic social caste committed to the defense of its privileges and terrified of the working
class, the revolutionary solution to the contradictions of the Soviet economy was absolutely unthinkable. The only course that it
could contemplate was the second-capitulation to imperialism. This second course, moreover, opened for the leading sections
of the bureaucracy the possibility of permanently securing their privileges and vastly expanding their wealth. The privileged caste
would become a ruling class. The corruption of Gorbachev, Yeltsin and their associates was merely the necessary means employed by
the bureaucracy to achieve this utterly reactionary and immensely destructive outcome.
On October 3, 1991, less than three months before the dissolution of the USSR, I delivered a lecture in Kiev in which I challenged
the argument-which was widely propagated by the Stalinist regime-that the restoration of capitalism would bring immense benefits
to the people. I stated:
In this country, capitalist restoration can only take place on the basis of the widespread destruction of the already existing
productive forces and the social- cultural institutions that depended upon them. In other words, the integration of the USSR
into the structure of the world capitalist economy on a capitalist basis means not the slow development of a backward national economy,
but the rapid destruction of one which has sustained living conditions which are, at least for the working class, far closer to those
that exist in the advanced countries than in the third world. When one examines the various schemes hatched by proponents of
capitalist restoration, one cannot but conclude that they are no less ignorant than Stalin of the real workings of the world capitalist
economy. And they are preparing the ground for a social tragedy that will eclipse that produced by the pragmatic and nationalistic
policies of Stalin. ["Soviet Union at the Crossroads," published in The Fourth International (Fall- Winter 1992, Volume
19, No. 1, p. 109), Emphasis in the original.]
Almost exactly 20 years ago, on January 4, 1992, the Workers League held a party membership meeting in Detroit to consider the
historical, political and social implications of the dissolution of the USSR. Rereading this report so many years later, I believe
that it has stood the test of time. It stated that the dissolution of the USSR "represents the juridical liquidation of the workers'
state and its replacement with regimes that are openly and unequivocally devoted to the destruction of the remnants of the national
economy and the planning system that issued from the October Revolution. To define the CIS [Confederation of Independent States]
or its independent republics as workers states would be to completely separate the definition from the concrete content which it
expressed during the previous period." [David North, The End of the USSR, Labor Publications, 1992, p. 6]
The report continued:
"A revolutionary party must face reality and state what is. The Soviet working class has suffered a serious defeat. The bureaucracy
has devoured the workers state before the working class was able to clean out the bureaucracy. This fact, however unpleasant, does
not refute the perspective of the Fourth International. Since it was founded in 1938, our movement has repeatedly said that if the
working class was not able to destroy this bureaucracy, then the Soviet Union would suffer a shipwreck. Trotsky did not call for
political revolution as some sort of exaggerated response to this or that act of bureaucratic malfeasance. He said that a political
revolution was necessary because only in that way could the Soviet Union, as a workers state, be defended against imperialism." [p.
6]
I sought to explain why the Soviet working class had failed to rise up in opposition to the bureaucracy's liquidation of the Soviet
Union. How was it possible that the destruction of the Soviet Union-having survived the horrors of the Nazi invasion-could be carried
out "by a miserable group of petty gangsters, acting in the interests of the scum of Soviet society?" I offered the following answer:
We must reply to these questions by stressing the implications of the massive destruction of revolutionary cadre carried out within
the Soviet Union by the Stalinist regime. Virtually all the human representatives of the revolutionary tradition who consciously
prepared and led that revolution were wiped out. And along with the political leaders of the revolution, the most creative representatives
of the intelligentsia who had flourished in the early years of the Soviet state were also annihilated or terrorized into silence.
Furthermore, we must point to the deep-going alienation of the working class itself from state property. Property belonged to
the state, but the state "belonged" to the bureaucracy, as Trotsky noted. The fundamental distinction between state property and
bourgeois property-however important from a theoretical standpoint-became less and less relevant from a practical standpoint. It
is true that capitalist exploitation did not exist in the scientific sense of the term, but that did not alter the fact that the
day-to-day conditions of life in factories and mines and other workplaces were as miserable as are to be found in any of the advanced
capitalist countries, and, in many cases, far worse.
Finally, we must consider the consequences of the protracted decay of the international socialist movement...
Especially during the past decade, the collapse of effective working class resistance in any part of the world to the bourgeois
offensive had a demoralizing effect on Soviet workers. Capitalism assumed an aura of "invincibility," although this aura was merely
the illusory reflection of the spinelessness of the labor bureaucracies all over the world, which have on every occasion betrayed
the workers and capitulated to the bourgeoisie. What the Soviet workers saw was not the bitter resistance of sections of workers
to the international offensive of capital, but defeats and their consequences. [p. 13-14]
The report related the destruction of the USSR by the ruling bureaucracy to a broader international phenomenon. The smashing
up of the USSR was mirrored in the United States by the destruction of the trade unions as even partial instruments of working-class
defense.
In every part of the world, including the advanced countries, the workers are discovering that their own parties and their own
trade union organizations are engaged in the related task of systematically lowering and impoverishing the working class. [p. 22]
Finally, the report dismissed any notion that the dissolution of the USSR signified a new era of progressive capitalist development.
Millions of people are going to see imperialism for what it really is. The democratic mask is going to be torn off. The idea
that imperialism is compatible with peace is going to be exposed. The very elements which drove masses into revolutionary struggle
in the past are once again present. The workers of Russia and the Ukraine are going to be reminded why they made a revolution in
the first place. The American workers are going to be reminded why they themselves in an earlier period engaged in the most massive
struggles against the corporations. The workers of Europe are going to be reminded why their continent was the birthplace of socialism
and Karl Marx. [p. 25]
The aftermath of the dissolution of the USSR: 20 years of economic crisis, social decay, and political reaction
According to liberal theory, the dissolution of the Soviet Union ought to have produced a new flowering of democracy. Of course,
nothing of the sort occurred-not in the former USSR or, for that matter, in the United States. Moreover, the breakup of the Soviet
Union-the so-called defeat of communism-was not followed by a triumphant resurgence of its irreconcilable enemies in the international
workers' movement, the social democratic and reformist trade unions and political parties. The opposite occurred. All these organizations
experienced, in the aftermath of the breakup of the USSR, a devastating and even terminal crisis. In the United States, the trade
union movement-whose principal preoccupation during the entire Cold War had been the defeat of Communism-has all but collapsed. During
the two decades that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, the AFL-CIO lost a substantial portion of its membership, was reduced
to a state of utter impotence, and ceased to exist as a workers' organization in any socially significant sense of the term. At the
same time, everywhere in the world, the social position of the working class-from the standpoint of its influence on the direction
of state policy and its ability to increase its share of the surplus value produced by its own labor-deteriorated dramatically.
Certain important conclusions flow from this fact. First, the breakup of the Soviet Union did not flow from the supposed failure
of Marxism and socialism. If that had been the case, the anti-Marxist and antisocialist labor organizations should have thrived in
the post-Soviet era. The fact that these organizations experienced ignominious failure compels one to uncover the common feature
in the program and orientation of all the so-called labor organizations, "communist" and anticommunist alike. What was the common
element in the political DNA of all these organization? The answer is that regardless of their names, conflicting political alignments
and superficial ideological differences, the large labor organizations of the post-World War II period pursued essentially nationalist
policies. They tied the fate of the working class to one or another nation-state. This left them incapable of responding to the increasing
integration of the world economy. The emergence of transnational corporations and the associated phenomena of capitalist globalization
shattered all labor organizations that based themselves on a nationalist program.
The second conclusion is that the improvement of conditions of the international working class was linked, to one degree or another,
to the existence of the Soviet Union. Despite the treachery and crimes of the Stalinist bureaucracy, the existence of the USSR, a
state that arose on the basis of a socialist revolution, imposed upon American and European imperialism certain political and social
restraints that would otherwise have been unacceptable. The political environment of the past two decades-characterized by unrestrained
imperialist militarism, the violations of international law, and the repudiation of essential principles of bourgeois democracy-is
the direct outcome of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
The breakup of the USSR was, for the great masses of its former citizens, an unmitigated disaster. Twenty years after the October
Revolution, despite all the political crimes of the Stalinist regime, the new property relations established in the aftermath of
the October Revolution made possible an extraordinary social transformation of backward Russia. And even after suffering horrifying
losses during the four years of war with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union experienced in the 20 years that followed the war a stupendous
growth of its economy, which was accompanied by advances in science and culture that astonished the entire world.
But what is the verdict on the post-Soviet experience of the Russian people? First and foremost, the dissolution of the USSR set
into motion a demographic catastrophe. Ten years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Russian population was shrinking at an
annual rate of 750,000. Between 1983 and 2001, the number of annual births dropped by one half. 75 percent of pregnant women in Russia
suffered some form of illness that endangered their unborn child. Only one quarter of infants were born healthy.
The overall health of the Russian people deteriorated dramatically after the restoration of capitalism. There was a staggering
rise in alcoholism, heart disease, cancer and sexually transmitted diseases. All this occurred against the backdrop of a catastrophic
breakdown of the economy of the former USSR and a dramatic rise in mass poverty.
As for democracy, the post-Soviet system was consolidated on the basis of mass murder. For more than 70 years, the Bolshevik regime's
dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918-an event that did not entail the loss of a single life-was trumpeted as an
unforgettable and unforgivable violation of democratic principles. But in October 1993, having lost a majority in the popularly elected
parliament, the Yeltsin regime ordered the bombardment of the White House-the seat of the Russian parliament-located in the middle
of Moscow. Estimates of the number of people who were killed in the military assault run as high as 2,000. On the basis of this carnage,
the Yeltsin regime was effectively transformed into a dictatorship, based on the military and security forces. The regime of Putin-Medvedev
continues along the same dictatorial lines. The assault on the White House was supported by the Clinton administration. Unlike the
dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, the bombardment of the Russian parliament is an event that has been all but forgotten.
What is there to be said of post-Soviet Russian culture? As always, there are talented people who do their best to produce serious
work. But the general picture is one of desolation. The words that have emerged from the breakup of the USSR and that define modern
Russian culture, or what is left of it, are "mafia," "biznessman" and "oligarch."
What has occurred in Russia is only an extreme expression of a social and cultural breakdown that is to be observed in all capitalist
countries. Can it even be said with certainty that the economic system devised in Russia is more corrupt that that which exists in
Britain or the United States? The Russian oligarchs are probably cruder and more vulgar in the methods they employ. However, the
argument could be plausibly made that their methods of plunder are less efficient than those employed by their counterparts in the
summits of American finance. After all, the American financial oligarchs, whose speculative operations brought about the near-collapse
of the US and global economy in the autumn of 2008, were able to orchestrate, within a matter of days, the transfer of the full burden
of their losses to the public.
It is undoubtedly true that the dissolution of the USSR at the end of 1991 opened up endless opportunities for the use of American
power-in the Balkans, the Middle East and Central Asia. But the eruption of American militarism was, in the final analysis, the expression
of a more profound and historically significant tendency-the long-term decline of the economic position of American capitalism. This
tendency was not reversed by the breakup of the USSR. The history of American capitalism during the past two decades has been one
of decay. The brief episodes of economic growth have been based on reckless and unsustainable speculation. The Clinton boom of the
1990s was fueled by the "irrational exuberance" of Wall Street speculation, the so-called dot.com bubble. The great corporate icons
of the decade-of which Enron was the shining symbol-were assigned staggering valuations on the basis of thoroughly criminal operations.
It all collapsed in 2000-2001. The subsequent revival was fueled by frenzied speculation in housing. And, finally, the collapse in
2008, from which there has been no recovery.
When historians begin to recover from their intellectual stupor, they will see the collapse of the USSR and the protracted decline
of American capitalism as interrelated episodes of a global crisis, arising from the inability to develop the massive productive
forces developed by mankind on the basis of private ownership of the means of production and within the framework of the nation-state
system.
"... Clinton says publically she believes that. Meanwhile supposedly smart economists like Tyler Cowen say they don't. Boston Fed President Rosengren says there are too many jobs. We need more unemployed. I'm Fed Up with regional Fed Presidents like him. ..."
"... Class issues are now a tough nut to crack, partly I think because the Democrats and some liberals take demands for economic fairness and try to give us identity politics instead, ..."
"... The meritocratic class who Krugman speaks for and centrist politicians like Clinton will slow-walk class issues like how Tim Geithner slow-walked financial reform. It's part of their job description and milieu. ..."
"... It's funny when neo-liberals/libertarians hate an activity engaged in by workers in what is clearly the product of a free market -- exercising the right of free association and organizing to do collective bargaining -- while think it is perfectly OK -- indeed, so "natural" that any question wouldn't even occur to them -- for owners of capital to organize themselves under the special protections of the state-created corporation. ..."
"... It's understandable, though, that they would consider the corporation to be ordained by natural law: the Founding Fathers, after all, were dedicated to the proposition that all men and corporations are endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator. (Never mind that the creator of the corporations is the state.) ..."
I liked how Hillary said in the third debate that she was for raising the minimum wage because
people who work full time shouldn't live in poverty. And "Donald" is against it. That's why people
are voting for her.
That's an ethical or moral notion, combined with "morally neutral" economics. People who work
hard full time, play by the rules and pay their dues shouldn't live in poverty.
Clinton says publically she believes that. Meanwhile supposedly smart economists like Tyler
Cowen say they don't. Boston Fed President Rosengren says there are too many jobs. We need more
unemployed. I'm Fed Up with regional Fed Presidents like him.
Think about the debate between the centrists and progressives over Trump supporters. The centrists
argue Trump supporters (nor anyone else besides a few) aren't suffering from economic anxiety
- that it's racism all of the way down. Matt Yglesias. Dylan Matthews. Krugman. Meyerson. Etc.
The progressives admit there's racism, but there's a wider context. The Nazis were racists,
but there was also the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression. And Germany got better in
the decades after the war just as the American South is better than it once was. Steve Randy Waldman
and James Kwak discussed in blog post how the wider context should be taken into consideration.
On some "non-economic issues" there has been progress even though the recent decades haven't
been as booming as the post-WWII decades were with rising living standards for all.
A black President. Legalized gay marriage. Legalized pot. I wouldn't have thought these things
as likely to happen when I was a teenager because of the bigoted authoritarian nature of many
voters and elites. During the Progressive era and when the New Deal was enacted, racism and sexism
and bigotry and anti-science thinking was virulent. Yet economic progress was made on the class
front.
Class issues are now a tough nut to crack, partly I think because the Democrats and some
liberals take demands for economic fairness and try to give us identity politics instead,
not that the latter isn't worthwhile. Partly b/c of what Mike Konczal discussed in his recent
Medium piece.
If we can just apply the morality and politics of electing a black President and legalizing
gay marriage and pot, to class issues. The meritocratic class who Krugman speaks for and centrist
politicians like Clinton will slow-walk class issues like how Tim Geithner slow-walked financial
reform. It's part of their job description and milieu.
But Clinton did talk to it during the third debate when she said she'd raise the minimum wage
because people who work full time shouldn't live in poverty. That is a morale issue as the new
Pope has been talking about.
Hillary should have joked last night about what God's Catholic representative here on Earth
had to say about Trump.
urban legend said...
It's funny when neo-liberals/libertarians hate an activity engaged in by workers in what is
clearly the product of a free market -- exercising the right of free association and organizing
to do collective bargaining -- while think it is perfectly OK -- indeed, so "natural" that any
question wouldn't even occur to them -- for owners of capital to organize themselves under the
special protections of the state-created corporation.
It's understandable, though, that they would consider the corporation to be ordained by
natural law: the Founding Fathers, after all, were dedicated to the proposition that all men and
corporations are endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator. (Never mind that the
creator of the corporations is the state.)
"... Once again, during the last hour of the third debate, Clinton reiterated her position on a 'no fly zone' and 'safe zones' in Syria. She is absolutely committed to this policy position which aligns with the anonymous 50+ state dept lifers and Beltway neocons stance. ..."
"... Trump's candidacy = sovereignty - NO War. Clinton's candidacy = Globalism - WAR. Your vote is either for War or against War. It's that simple... ..."
"... Simply incredible the borg,and all those who say she is a lock are in for a big surprise,as Americans don't believe the serial liars anymore. ..."
"... It will be a 'fuck you' vote more than a vote for The Don. ..."
"... The dems forgot to switch off the internet. The anti-Trump MSM campaign is so total and over the top because it has to be --> CNN is so last century. No one is getting out of bed to vote Hillary. ..."
"... Step away from your TVs, smartphones and computers with your brains in the air. Let them breathe freely. ..."
"... Clinton seems to have had some of the questions ahead of time. She seemed to be reading the answers off a telepromter in her lecturn. ..."
"... He should declare that Hillary helped arm Al Qaeda to topple Assad for her banker buddies (cant mention the Jewishness/Israeli Firsterism of the 'neocons' of course, not because false but because true) and will be happy to send African Americans and Latinos to die for 'oil companies' and her 'banker friends' and after decades of establishment Dems promising the sky, maybe they dont need an inveterate liar who arms Islamic terrorists. ..."
"... Hillary armed Al Qaeda and possibly ISIS - both AngloZionist proxies. How in the fuck is she not in jail??? ..."
"... As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, duopolistic elections are merely mechanisms of manufactured consent. When each of the major parties are controlled by the different factions of the oligarchy, there is only afforded the option to vote for the ideology put forth by each oligarchic group. ..."
"... What fascinates me is how Obama went all public about Trumps assertions of rigged elections. It appears the puppet masters are very afraid of a "cynical" (realistic) population. Manufactured consent only works if people play the game. As evidenced in South Africa when no one showed up to vote, the government collapsed. ..."
"... "Your vote is either for War or against War. It's that simple." Is this being lost sight off amongst all the noise? I hope not, for the sake of the Ukrainians and the Syrians. And for the sake of the countries yet to be destabilised. ..."
"... A vote for Clinton = War and a vote for Trump = NO war ..."
"... Don't know when WH was created but the whitehelmets.org domain name was registered (in Beirut not Syria) in August 2014 and it is hosted on Cloudflare in Texas. Maybe it took some time get the brand recognition going? ..."
"... she also tends to repeat the same talking points 900 times so i knew what she'd say before she said it. did catch her whining about imaginary "russian rigging". again; no surprise there. ..."
"... as for trump, he mentioned abortion stuff more than usual in what i'm guessing is an attempt to win back any jesus freaks he lost with the billy bush tape. ..."
"... For the first time I listened to a Trump speech - delivered in Florida on the 13th of this month. What struck me is how much the media attacks on him and his family have got to him. He mentions how he could have settled for a leisurely retirement, but that he felt he had to do something for his country. ..."
"... perhaps he hadn't quite realized the array of power that is lined up against him. They are not going to let one dude wreck their party. ..."
"... It examines Trump through the prism as a likely "Jacksonian Conservative", who are not dissimilar to traditional conservatives but are not non-interventionists as such, just far more honest about their interventionism (as they are unburdened by the neocon bullshit about "killing them to make them barbarians more civilised") and really only likely to want to apply aggression where they feel that fundamental American interests are threatened. ..."
"... Getting Julian Assange's internet connection cut off just makes the Obama regime look even more stupid and pathetic now. The document dumps keep on coming. Did they really think they would stop that by shutting off the LAN in the Ecuadoran embassy? ..."
"... The underlying problem seems to be that John Podesta bought into the marketing bullshit about The Cloud. So he kept all his very sensitive correspondence at his Gmail account, apparently using it as the archive of his correspondence. ..."
"... I don't know if we'll ever know who hacked his account. It is not that hard to do, so it doesn't really require a "state actor". Google only gives you a few tries at entering your password, so Podesta's account couldn't have been hacked by randomly trying every possibility. Somehow, the hacker got the actual password. Either it was exposed somewhere, or it was obtained by spear phishing . That involves sending your target an email that directs him to a Web page that asks him to enter his password. All that's required to do that is being able to write a plausible email, and setting up a Web site to mimic the Web site where the account you want to hack resides, Gmail in this case. ..."
"... Nearly all information technology security breaches are insider jobs, genuine crackers/hackers are rare. Wikileaks is by far the most likely being fed from the inside of the DNC etc. and/or from their suppliers or security detail by people that are disgusted, have personal vendettas, and so on. It's the real Anonymous, anyone anywhere, not the inept CIA stooges or the faux organized or ideological pretenders. In addition any analyst at the NSA with access to XKeyScore can supply Wikileaks with all the Podesta emails on a whim in less than half an hour of "work" and the actual data to be sent would be gotten with a single XKeyScore database query. That sort of query is exactly what the XKeyScore backend part was built to do as documented by Snowden and affirmed by Binney and others. ..."
"... Duterte may well be flawed but he has a keen nose for where things are heading, Filipinos should be proud of him. ..."
"... 'Hillary "We will follow ISIS to Raqqa to take it "back"' (take Raqqa back from the Syrians?) ..."
"... The crazy hyper-entitled White Supremacist bi*ch is beyond any belief. ..."
"... Jesus Christ, Adolf F. Hitler would've blushed if he said some of her shit. This woman admits she is a war criminal in real time. ..."
"... If Hillary is elected, she will be haunted by her 'mistakes' and by the exposure of her double face by Wikileaks. She is stigmatized as 'crooked Hillary' and as an unreliable decision maker. From now on, all her decisions will be tainted with suspicion. I doubt that she'll be able to lead the country properly during the 4 years she hopes to stay in power. ..."
"... the United States has strayed from its democratically-based roots to become a banking and corporate plutocracy. ..."
The candidates are not the first to blame for this. The first to blame are the moderators of such
debates, the alleged journalists 8and their overlords) who do not ask questions that are relevant
for the life of the general votes and who do not intervene at all when the debaters run off course.
The second group to blame are the general horse-race media who each play up their (owner's) special-interest
hobbyhorses as if those will be the decisive issue for the next four years. The candidates fight
for the attention of these media and adopt to them.
I didn't watch yesterday's debate but every media I skimmed tells me that Clinton was gorgeous
and Trump very bad. That means she said what they wanted to hear and Trump didn't. It doesn't
say what other people who watched though of it. Especially in the rural parts of the country they
likely fear the consequences of climate change way more than Russia, ISIS and Iran together.
Another reason why both candidates avoided to bring up the issues low in the list above is that
both hold positions that are socially somewhat liberal and both are corporatists. None of those low
ranked issues is personally relevant to them. No realistic answer to these would better their campaign
finances or their personal standing in the circles they move in. Personally they are both east coast
elite and don't give a fu***** sh** what real people care about.
As far as I can discern it from the various reports no new political issues were touched. Clinton
ran her usual focus group tested lies while Trump refrained from attacking her hard. A huge mistake
in my view. He can beat her by attacking her really, really hard, not on issues but personality.
Her disliked rate (like Trump's) is over -40%. She is vulnerable on many, many things in her past.
Her foreign policy is way more aggressive than most voters like. Calling this back into mind again
and again could probably send her below -50%. Who told him to leave that stuff alone? Trump is a
major
political disruption . He should have emphasized that but he barely hinted at it for whatever
reason.
The voters are served badly -if at all- by the TV debates in their current form. These do not
explain real choices. That is what this whole election circus should be about. But that is no longer
the case and maybe it never was.
I watched a couple of minutes of the Hillary&Donald show. Then got a book and read instead.
Granted the Queen of Chaos will now have an empire to rule over ... but there will be no honeymoon
- there are a lot of issues that will dog her heels irrespective of the so-called press trying
to help cover-up. The good news in that is the probability of political gridlock. The bad news
is that the QoC will have almost no control over her neo-con handlers, the military nor the CIA
...
It's going to be a helluva ride. The DuhMurriKKKan people have little to do with anything ...
and it is possible the economy may show a slight increase as the DuhMurriKKKan people do what
they've been trained to do: go on a shopping spree for shit they don't need on the grounds that
it'll make them feel better.
Plus, the DNC bus did dump shit in the street in Georgia ... a fitting symbol for politics
in Dumb-shit-MurriKKKah. Doh!
"In this venue, your honours, in this venue, I announce my separation from the United States,"
Duterte said to applause at a Chinese forum in the Great Hall of the People attended by Chinese
Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli. "Both in military, not maybe social, but economics also. America has
lost."
Obviously, TheRealDonald's missing Minot nuke will be visiting the Duterte presidential compound
shortly after the Trump-Clinton fraud selection, then Der Decider, whoever plays that 'hope and
chains' spox role for Deep State, will announce it was a 'Russian strike', against US 'peace-keeping'
forces in the Western Pacific, and then proceed accordingly to attack and occupy Crimea, to 'protect
our BFF in the Middle East, Israel'.
Deep State has already cued up a SCOTUS decision on Citizens United Ultra for 2017. QEn+ already
cued up to support junk T-bonds for 'The Wall' or 'The Infrastructure'. US national 'debt' (sic)
will hit $25,000,000,000,000 by 2020, then it's game over.
as an American citizen, I am truly terrified of this election. Hillary Clinton will most likely
start WW3 to serve her masters in Saudi Arabia which seek to eliminate Iran and Russia. Most of
us who read this page see Russia as the country fighting terrorist and the US as the one supporting
terrorism. Not good. The problem is Trump does himself no favors with the women voters. This election
I think also put the world and the normally clueless and self centered American citizens that
we are in alot of trouble. The fact that these are the two candidates means we are in serious
decline. The world has known that for a while and to be honest, a multi polar world is a good
thing
Hillary Clinton will most likely start WW3 to serve her masters in Saudi Arabia which seek
to eliminate Iran and Russia
Saudis are dumb, it was about them, now famous, Lavrov's phrase--debily, blyad' (fvcking morons),
but even they do understand that should the shit hit the fan--one of the first targets (even in
the counter-force mode) will be Saudi territory with one of the specific targets being Saudi royal
family and those who "serve" them. It is time to end Wahhabi scourge anyway.
I watched, it was boring. And I agree, Trump should have been more on the offensive, but with
more precision, not just his usual rambling.
jdmckay | Oct 20, 2016 10:26:19 AM | 11 He tried to distance himself from Putin, oddly the only thing he had going for him in my book
(realization Putin's got things done right, things we should have done, and US has lied about
it). Trump backed off...
YES, major point.
Once again, during the last hour of the third debate, Clinton reiterated her position on a
'no fly zone' and 'safe zones' in Syria. She is absolutely committed to this policy position which
aligns with the anonymous 50+ state dept lifers and Beltway neocons stance.
This irresponsible, shortsighted, deadly position alone disqualifies her completely from serving
as Commander in Chief.
Imagine, if you will, she wins. She convenes her military advisors and they discuss how to
implement this policy - no fly zone. Dunsford tells her, again, if said policy were to be implemented
we, the US, would risk shooting down a Russian fighter jet(s) who is safeguarding, by invitation,
the air space of the sovereign state of Syria. She says that is a risk we must take b/c our 'clients'
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel are demanding such action and Assad must go.
Kaboom - we either have a very real WWIII scenario on our hands OR a complete revolt by our
armed forces...nobody in their right mind wants to go to war with Russia...and I'm no longer convinced
she's in her right mind.
So, what if Hillary wants WWIII?
What if this is in her and her fellow travelers long-term game 'Global' plan?
What if she's insane enough to believe the U.S. and our allies could beat Russia and their
allies?
What if she gets back into the WH and we spend the next four years poking, taunting, propagandizing
pure hate and fear at the bear all the while brainwashing the American psyche to hate, loathe
and fear all things Russian? How maddening will that be? Haven't we already been through enough
psychological warfare?
What if one of the next steps in the New World Order or Global governments game plan is to
untether the U.S. military from the shores of the U.S. and grow it into a Global government military
force? You know, the world's police force.
What if they scenario'd out WWIII plans and the implementation of a no fly zone in Syria is
where it all begins?
What if this is the reason Clinton isn't budging from her 'no fly zone' position? She wants
war. She believes we can win the war. If we win the war the American Globalists morph into 'World'
leaders.
Who in the hell would want this other than those that are quietly leading and championing this
monster. I don't. Do you?
This election is about one thing and one thing only. The people of the United States, our founding
documents, our sovereignty vs the American Globalist class, their control and their Global government
wet dream.
Trump's candidacy = sovereignty - NO War. Clinton's candidacy = Globalism - WAR. Your vote
is either for War or against War. It's that simple...
Simply incredible the borg,and all those who say she is a lock are in for a big surprise,as
Americans don't believe the serial liars anymore.
dahoit | Oct 20, 2016 10:47:07 AM | 14
I believe your assertion is correct. A low turn out, monster win is out there. It will
be a 'fuck you' vote more than a vote for The Don. I would imagine a lot of people are in
for a shock - and a bigger shock than the public backlash against austerity that Brexit was, where
'respected' polling was off by 10 points by election day.
The dems forgot to switch off the internet. The anti-Trump MSM campaign is so total and
over the top because it has to be --> CNN is so last century. No one is getting out of bed to
vote Hillary.
Scylla and Charybdis. Does it really matter much which one wins? I await the collapse of this
empire and pray that it does not totally explode. What we say and/or think will make absolutely
no difference to the final result. The controllers are in control and have been so since the assassination
'60s.
Step away from your TVs, smartphones and computers with your brains in the air. Let them
breathe freely.
The Strait of Messina is dangerous waters so the American public's only logical recourse is
to steer the ship of democracy towards sense and sensibility and let go the anchor of "None of
The Above". The people must demand new candidates who are worthy of holding the Office of the
President. The federal bureaucracy will continue to run the government through September of 2017,
plenty of time for a new election.
Declare Tuesday, November 8th a national day of voter independence and stay home!
That's a simply ludicrous position to take! Trump's 'The Wall' together with 'Defeat ISIS'
together with 'Stand with Israel' is EXACTLY the same Yinon Plan as Clinton's, although it probably
spares the poor folks in Crimea, now under the Russian Oligarchy, and does nothing at all for
the poor folks of Ukraine, now under the Israeli Junta Coup.
Either candidate is proposing soon $TRILLION Full Battle Rattle NeoCon DOD-DHS-NSA-CIA There's
zero daylight between them. The only difference is Trump will make sure that the Exceptionals
are relieved of any tax burden, while Clinton will make sure the burden falls on the Middle Class.
Again, there is zero daylight between them. For every tax increase, Mil.Gov.Fed.Biz receives the
equivalent salary increase or annual bonus.
This whole shittery falls on the Middle Class, and metastasizes OneParty to Stage Five.
Trump won't win in any case. His role was to throw FarRightRabbinicals off the cliff, and make
Hillary appear to voters to be a Nice Old Gal Centrist. She's not. The whole thing was rigged
from the 1998 and 9/11 coup, from Bernie and Donald, on down the rabbit hole.
Debates are to convince, not to illuminate. What a person did not figure out before the debates,
it is rather hopeless to explain.
Thus the stress on issues that are familiar even to the least inquisitive voters, heavily overrepresented
among the "undecided voters" who are, after all, the chief target. Number one, who is, and who
is not a bimbo?
The high position of Putin on the topic list is well deserved. This is about defending everything
we hold pure and dear. We do not want our daughters and our e-mail violated, unless we like to
read the content. Daughters are troublesome enough, but the threat to e-mails is something that
is hard to understand, and that necessitates nonsense. Somehow Putin gets in the mix, rather than
Microsoft, Apple, Google and other companies that destroyed the privacy of communications with
crappy software.
But does it matter? It is like exam in literature or history. It does not matter what the topic
is, but we want to see if the candidates can handle it to our satisfaction. For myself, I like
Clinton formula: "You will never find me signing praises of foreign dictators and strongmen who
do not love America". It is so realistic! First, given her age and fragile throat, I should advise
Mrs. Clinton to refrain from singing. And if she does, the subject should be on the well vetted
list, "leaders who love America". That touches upon some thorny issues, like "what is love", but
as long as Mrs. Clinton does not sing, it is fine.
Trump, if I understand him, took a more risky path, namely, the he is more highly regarded
by people who count, primarily Putin, than schwartzer Obama and "not so well looking chick" Clinton.
Why primarily Putin? It is a bit hard to see who else. The person should have some important leadership
position. And he/she should be on the record saying something nice about Trump. At that point
the scope of name-dropping is narrow.
Wasn't ''PEOPLES GET THE GOVERNMENT THEY DESERVE'',the regime change war cry of so called ''US''?.Dont
see why Madame ''we came we saw he died'' become POTUS approves ''no fly'' wet dream of war mongers
gets shot down by ''evil '' putin and aliies from the skies of Syria onto the ground in pieces.Than
discrimination for hundreds of years while ''americans'' figure out what happened withdrawing
into a shell like a wounded animal leaving the rest of the world to live in peace!
He should declare that Hillary helped arm Al Qaeda to topple Assad for her banker buddies
(cant mention the Jewishness/Israeli Firsterism of the 'neocons' of course, not because false
but because true) and will be happy to send African Americans and Latinos to die for 'oil companies'
and her 'banker friends' and after decades of establishment Dems promising the sky, maybe they
dont need an inveterate liar who arms Islamic terrorists.
Hillary armed Al Qaeda and possibly ISIS - both AngloZionist proxies. How in the fuck is
she not in jail???
As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, duopolistic elections are merely mechanisms of manufactured
consent. When each of the major parties are controlled by the different factions of the oligarchy,
there is only afforded the option to vote for the ideology put forth by each oligarchic group.
Each party defines their ideology to distinguish itself from the other to assure a divided
population. They also manipulate the population via identity politics and state it in such a way
that voters decisions are not rationally resolved but emotionally so, to assure that sufficient
cognitive dissonance is developed to produce a risky shift to a make a decision in favor of a
candidate that would otherwise be unacceptable.
Rigged from the get go is definitely true.
What fascinates me is how Obama went all public about Trumps assertions of rigged elections.
It appears the puppet masters are very afraid of a "cynical" (realistic) population. Manufactured
consent only works if people play the game. As evidenced in South Africa when no one showed up
to vote, the government collapsed.
"Your vote is either for War or against War. It's that simple." Is this being lost sight
off amongst all the noise? I hope not, for the sake of the Ukrainians and the Syrians. And for
the sake of the countries yet to be destabilised.
Where has Trump once advocated for a no fly zone let alone war? Links and sources please. Enlighten
me.
The only candidate who has been steadfast in support of a no fly zone in Syria is Clinton.
Trump avoids the entire Syrian mess like the plague. Have you not heard him attack Hillary on
her Iraq vote, Libyan tragedy, Syria etc? He's not only attacking her for her incompetence and
dishonesty, but b/c he finds these wars/regime changes abominable. As do I.
A vote for Clinton = War and a vote for Trump = NO war
I share your frustration. In my opinion televised 'debates' should be banned, and we should go
back to the time-honored technique of looking at the record. Whether Clinton is smooth or has
a weird smile, or Trump is composed or goes on a rant, makes no difference to me.
I know what Hillary Clinton will do, which is, what she has done for the past 20+ years. She
will aggressively fight even more wars, maybe even attacking Russian forces in Syria (!). She
will spend trillions on all this 'nation-destroying' folly, and of course, that will necessitate
gutting social security because deficits are bad. She will throw what's left of our retirement
funds to the tender mercies of Wall Street, and after they are through with us we will be lucky
to get pennies on the dollar. She will open the borders even more to unchecked third-world immigration,
which will kill the working class. She will push for having our laws and judiciary over-ruled
by foreign corporate lawyers meeting in secret (TPP etc. are not about trade - tariffs are already
near zero - they are about giving multinational corporations de-facto supreme legislative and
judicial power. Really). She will remain the Queen of Chaos, the candidate of Wall Street and
War, who never met a country that she didn't want to bomb into a post-apocalyptic wasteland.
Trump? He says a lot of sensible things, and despite his mouthing off in public, he has a track
record of amicably cooperating with people on long-term projects. But he has no track record in
governance, so of course, I don't really know. He's a gamble.
But right now I am so fed up with the status quo that I am willing to roll the dice. Trump
2016.
I agree Trump has had chance after chance to effectively attack Clinton. But here is the problem.
Much of that attack would have had to be done from a leftist angle. Outside of Russia, Trump looks
to be as much a militarist as Obama at least. The gop money daddies are just as militarist as
the democratic party money daddies. The gop is pro-war just they don't want democrats running
them.
Benghazi is a perfect example. They refuse to attack Clinton on her pro-war, destroy everybody
policies, so they they make up attacks about the handling of the Benghazi attacks, rather than
the reason why Americans were there--to send arms to jihadist terrorists in Syria. (By the way
this is why silence on Obama letting criminal banksters go--they would have done the same thing.)
Trump is intellectually challenged. He could have seen what was happening and brought along
his base to an anti-war position and attracted more people. His base was soft clay in his hands
as even he noticed. However he had no skills as political leader to understand nor the ability
to sculpt his base and win the election, which was given Clinton's horrible numbers, his to lose.
Q: Where you are on the question of a safe zone or a no-fly zone in Syria?
TRUMP: I love a safe zone for people. I do not like the migration. I do not like the people
coming. What they should do is, the countries should all get together, including the Gulf states,
who have nothing but money, they should all get together and they should take a big swath of land
in Syria and they do a safe zone for people, where they could to live, and then ultimately go
back to their country, go back to where they came from.
Q: Does the U.S. get involved in making that safe zone?
TRUMP: I would help them economically, even though we owe $19 trillion.
Source: CBS Face the Nation 2015 interview on Syrian Refugee crisis , Oct 11, 2015
I don't know about your read of Trump's response, but I don't think he's talking about the
same kind of safe zone the Brookings Institute has in mind aka carving up Syria. His answer suggests
he's thinking a 'safe zone' as more in terms of a temporary refugee zone/space/camp...'they do
a safe zone for people, where they could to live, and then ultimately go back to their country,
go back to where they came from.'
btw, does anyone know which exact month in 2013 the WH were founded?
It´s a minor detail, but it would fit so neatly if it is after the first week of September '13
when the "humanitarian" airstrike for the false-flag Ghouta attack was called off. Demonstrating
it was conceived as Project R2P Intervention 2.0 after the first one failed.
Don't know when WH was created but the whitehelmets.org domain name was registered (in
Beirut not Syria) in August 2014 and it is hosted on Cloudflare in Texas. Maybe it took some time
get the brand recognition going?
Le Mesurier claims that he persoanlly trained the first group of 20 volunteers in early 2013.
It seems these 20 'carefully vetted moderate rebels' each went on to train further groups of 20.
So, if we allow 1-2 months training, it looks like mid-late 2013 might be a reasonable date for
them to take an effective role in the PR business.
b, 'The voters are served badly -if at all- by the TV debates in their current form. These do
not explain real choices. That is what this whole election circus should be about. But that is
no longer the case and maybe it never was.'
No 'maybe' ... the 'political' process in the US is a complete fraud. The present political
class must be removed and replaced. People term 3rd Party/Write-in votes as 'protest votes' but
they can - must in my view - be more than that. They must be the first step taken to simply seize
power and control of the USA by US citizens. We cannot have a democracy - anywhere - without an
engaged demos. That's just the way it is.
No
to Clinton, no to Trump . No to the elephants and the jackasses and the menagerie. It will
take a decade/a dozen years. If we had begun in 2004 we'd be there by now.
downloaded it from youtube late last night. that gave me the option of skimming past hillary and
her WASPy passive aggressive act. she also tends to repeat the same talking points 900 times
so i knew what she'd say before she said it. did catch her whining about imaginary "russian rigging".
again; no surprise there.
as for trump, he mentioned abortion stuff more than usual in what i'm guessing is an attempt
to win back any jesus freaks he lost with the billy bush tape. the fact that he supposedly
went so far down in the polls from that tape makes the whole thing seem pointless ("who can pander
to uptight morons with moronic priorities more") but saying silly stuff about overturning roe
v wade seemed desperate. even if he got to appoint more than the one judge replacing the fat dead
greaseball he probably won't get another. and even in that case he would need approval from a
congress that agrees on nothing but their hatred for him.
even the things that got more mentions didn't matter. all i saw on the screeching MSM (especially
CliNtoN) was "oh mah gerd he said he's waiting until election day to comment on the election!
that means riots and bloodshed cuz that's what goes on in our dumb fuck heads all day!"
at least canada will be spared all the rich whining hipster pieces of trash like lena dunham.
small consolation.
For the first time I listened to a Trump speech - delivered in Florida on the 13th of this
month. What struck me is how much the media attacks on him and his family have got to him. He
mentions how he could have settled for a leisurely retirement, but that he felt he had to do something
for his country.
It's almost as if he'd already decided to back off, convincing himself
that maybe he can do more outside the White House. There is a resigned tone to his voice especially
the way he finishes sentences. Maybe he just knows, or was told, that he'd be assassinated if
he ever got elected. Or perhaps he hadn't quite realized the array of power that is lined
up against him. They are not going to let one dude wreck their party.
Good, substantive
interview with Jill Stein . Includes insightful discussion on ME, Syria & relations with Putin/Russia.
Especially for those not familiar with her may find this interesting. Conducted yesterday (10/19).
Nah, it's ludicrous. 'Cuz this is like the gazillionth time I posted this. And will sadly have
to do it a few more times in the next three weeks.
The Donald Trump dove myth dies hard.
In the past five years, Trump has consistently pushed one big foreign policy idea: America
should steal other countries' oil....
"In the old days when you won a war, you won a war. You kept the country," Trump said. "We
go fight a war for 10 years, 12 years, lose thousands of people, spend $1.5 trillion, and then
we hand the keys over to people that hate us on some council." He has repeated this idea for
years, saying during one 2013 Fox News appearance, "I've said it a thousand times."
....To be clear: Trump's plan is to use American ground troops to forcibly seize the most
valuable resource in two different sovereign countries. The word for that is colonialism.
Trump wants to wage war in the name of explicitly ransacking poorer countries for their
natural resources - something that's far more militarily aggressive than anything Clinton has
suggested.
This doesn't really track as "hawkishness" for most people, mostly because it's so outlandish.
A policy of naked colonialism has been completely unacceptable in American public discourse
for decades, so it seems hard to take Trump's proposals as seriously as, say, Clinton's support
for intervening more forcefully in Syria....
He also wants to bring back torture that's "much tougher" than waterboarding. "Don't kid
yourself, folks. It works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn't work,"
he said at a November campaign event. But "if it doesn't work, they deserve it anyway, for
what they're doing."
....The problem is that Trump's instincts are not actually that dovish. Trump... has a consistent
pattern of saying things that sound skeptical of war, while actually endorsing fairly aggressive
policies.
....In a March 2011 vlog post uncovered by BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski and Christopher Massie,
Trump full-throatedly endorsed intervening in the country's civil war - albeit on humanitarian
grounds, not for its oil.
"Qaddafi in Libya is killing thousands of people, nobody knows how bad it is, and we're
sitting around," Trump said. "We should go in, we should stop this guy, which would be very
easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it, and save these lives."
In a later interview, he went further, endorsing outright regime change: "if you don't get
rid of Gaddafi, it's a major, major black eye for this country."
Shortly after the US intervention in Libya began in March 2011, Trump criticized the Obama
administration's approach - for not being aggressive enough. Trump warned that the US was too
concerned with supporting the rebels and not trying hard enough to - you guessed it - take
the oil.
"I would take the oil - and stop this baby stuff," Trump declared. "I'm only interested
in Libya if we take the oil. If we don't take the oil, I'm not interested."
Throw in a needy, fragile ego -- the braggadocio is overcompensation -- and a hairtrigger temper,
and the invasion scenarios write themselves.
And by the way, he's apparently not really that good a businessman either.
Riches-to-Riches Trump Spins Fake Horatio Alger Tale . If he'd put his money into S&P 500
index fund, he'd be worth about eight times what he likely is now. Which is very likely substantially
less than what he says he is. Good reason to withhold the tax returns, no?
So I guess his only recommendation is a reality show with the tagline "You're fired!" All surface,
no depth, the ultimate post-modernist candidate. No fixed mean to that text, alright, he both
invites you to write your interpretation but polices "the other" outside of it.
Interesting that the first post-modern candidate is a bloodthirsty fascist (given his refusal
to accept the electoral results, I would now consider this not wholly inappropriate).
But then again, someone as innocent as
Chauncey Gardiner was
unlikely to emerge from the media.
Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
" Obama: Vote Rigging Is Impossible - If In Favor Of Hillary Clinton | Main
October 20, 2016
This Election Circus Is A Disservice To The People
Via Adam Johnson:
"Total mentions all 4 debates:
Russia/Putin 178
ISIS/terror 132
Iran 67
...
Abortion 17
Poverty 10
Climate change 4
Campaign finance 3
Privacy 0"
The candidates are not the first to blame for this. The first to blame are the moderators of such
debates, the alleged journalists 8and their overlords) who do not ask questions that are relevant
for the life of the general votes and who do not intervene at all when the debaters run off course.
The second group to blame are the general horse-race media who each play up their (owner's) special-interest
hobbyhorses as if those will be the decisive issue for the next four years. The candidates fight
for the attention of these media and adopt to them.
I didn't watch yesterday's debate but every media I skimmed tells me that Clinton was gorgeous
and Trump very bad. That means she said what they wanted to hear and Trump didn't. It doesn't
say what other people who watched though of it. Especially in the rural parts of the country they
likely fear the consequences of climate change way more than Russia, ISIS and Iran together.
Another reason why both candidates avoided to bring up the issues low in the list above is
that both hold positions that are socially somewhat liberal and both are corporatists. None of
those low ranked issues is personally relevant to them. No realistic answer to these would better
their campaign finances or their personal standing in the circles they move in. Personally they
are both east coast elite and don't give a fu***** sh** what real people care about.
As far as I can discern it from the various reports no new political issues were touched. Clinton
ran her usual focus group tested lies while Trump refrained from attacking her hard. A huge mistake
in my view. He can beat her by attacking her really, really hard, not on issues but personality.
Her disliked rate (like Trump's) is over -40%. She is vulnerable on many, many things in her past.
Her foreign policy is way more aggressive than most voters like. Calling this back into mind again
and again could probably send her below -50%. Who told him to leave that stuff alone? Trump is
a major political disruption. He should have emphasized that but he barely hinted at it for whatever
reason.
The voters are served badly -if at all- by the TV debates in their current form. These do not
explain real choices. That is what this whole election circus should be about. But that is no
longer the case and maybe it never was.
Posted by b on October 20, 2016 at 09:11 AM | Permalink
Comments
I didn't watch too.
Posted by: Jack Smith | Oct 20, 2016 9:22:12 AM | 1
I don't follow US elections closely, but my take on this - Trump had made a deal. He pretends
to be fighting, but he is not. Dunno what was that - either he was intimidated, blackmailed, bought
off, or any combination of thereof, and it doesn't matter actually.
Hail to the first Lady President of the United States. Best luck to Middle East, Eastern Europe
and SE Asia - they all gonna need it. Oh, and dear US voters - don't blame yourself, you don't
have any influence on the election, so it's not your fault. You'll pay the price too, though.
Posted by: Wizzy | Oct 20, 2016 9:27:47 AM | 2
"But that is no longer the case and maybe it never was"
It was when the League of Women Voters ran the show but when they wouldn't agree to selling
out the citizens in Amerika is when we got this dog and phoney show.
I didn't watch and I'll be Voting Green.
rg the lg | Oct 20, 2016 10:19:53 AM | 10
Strictly speaking, if the voters aren't getting what they want from the politicians in a democracy,
and they're too chickenshit to demand reform or else - then they should blame themselves because
it IS their fault.
We're getting really, really sick of the bullshit that passes for politics in 2 Party Oz. We
sent them a subtle message in 2015 by voting for independents and splinter groups and the "Government"
governs with a majority of 1 seat. Next election there will either be a responsive non-traitorous
Government, or a revolution. Some of them are starting to wake up and others are pretending not
to notice. But the writing is on the wall...
I've had a good look at your "The Donald Trump dove myth" article and I must admit that its
quality far exceeds your own verbal rubbish.
It examines Trump through the prism as a likely "Jacksonian Conservative", who are not
dissimilar to traditional conservatives but are not non-interventionists as such, just far more
honest about their interventionism (as they are unburdened by the neocon bullshit about "killing
them to make them barbarians more civilised") and really only likely to want to apply aggression
where they feel that fundamental American interests are threatened.
To me, that's a big step up from the NEOCON/NEOLIB false pretense garbage. I'd far rather have
an honest RATIONAL and RISK ASSESSING thug than a two faced snake, which better describes your
C**tory and her Kissenger/Albright gang of perfectly murderable certified war criminals. You can
call him a "fascist" if you like. You obviously prefer the 1984 thuggery to more honest, above
the table varieties. To each one his own.
One last note. Those goons that the Dems kept sending to Trump's rallies to stir violence up,
there's now the fucking Himalayas of evidence that it's entirely real and beyond any doubt.
Guess who was the historical king of criminal spamming of shit stirring goons at political
adversaries' rallies? The Bolsheviks and your own fixated Fascists/Nazis. Looks like your Hillary
learned from the best, inspired by the best, via her fascist mentor Klitsinger et num al.
So, enjoy your Clintory, dear Pom, and good luck as you and yer Britannia're gonna need it
if that discard of a dementia stricken half-human wins the elections.
Getting Julian Assange's internet connection cut off just makes the Obama regime look even
more stupid and pathetic now. The document dumps keep on coming. Did they really think they would
stop that by shutting off the LAN in the Ecuadoran embassy?
The underlying problem seems to be that John Podesta bought into the marketing bullshit
about The Cloud. So he kept all his very sensitive correspondence at his Gmail account, apparently
using it as the archive of his correspondence.
I don't know if we'll ever know who hacked his account. It is not that hard to do, so it
doesn't really require a "state actor". Google only gives you a few tries at entering your password,
so Podesta's account couldn't have been hacked by randomly trying every possibility. Somehow,
the hacker got the actual password. Either it was exposed somewhere, or it was obtained by
spear
phishing . That involves sending your target an email that directs him to a Web page that
asks him to enter his password. All that's required to do that is being able to write a plausible
email, and setting up a Web site to mimic the Web site where the account you want to hack resides,
Gmail in this case.
Nearly all information technology security breaches are insider jobs, genuine crackers/hackers
are rare. Wikileaks is by far the most likely being fed from the inside of the DNC etc. and/or
from their suppliers or security detail by people that are disgusted, have personal vendettas,
and so on. It's the real Anonymous, anyone anywhere, not the inept CIA stooges or the faux organized
or ideological pretenders. In addition any analyst at the NSA with access to XKeyScore can supply
Wikileaks with all the Podesta emails on a whim in less than half an hour of "work" and the actual
data to be sent would be gotten with a single XKeyScore database query. That sort of query is
exactly what the XKeyScore backend part was built to do as documented by Snowden and affirmed
by Binney and others.
The powers that be can cheat but people can ignore their efforts, it's what happens in every
revolution and civil war. It's hard to see how a second Clinton presidency will have any shred
of legitimacy in the US or in the world.
Duterte may well be flawed but he has a keen nose for where things are heading, Filipinos
should be proud of him.
Don't believe anyone who says what you do or don't do doesn't matter.
CLINTON: Well, I am encouraged that there is an effort led by the Iraqi army, supported by
Kurdish forces, and also given the help and advice from the number of special forces and other
Americans on the ground. But I will not support putting American soldiers into Iraq as an occupying
force. I don't think that is in our interest, and I don't think that would be smart to do.
In fact, Chris, I think that would be a big red flag waving for ISIS to reconstitute itself.
The goal here is to take back Mosul. It's going to be a hard fight. I've got no illusions
about that. And then continue to press into Syria to begin to take back and move on Raqqa,
which is the ISIS headquarters.
I am hopeful that the hard work that American military advisers have done will pay off
and that we will see a real - a really successful military operation. But we know we've got
lots of work to do. Syria will remain a hotbed of terrorism as long as the civil war, aided
and abetted by the Iranians and the Russians, continue.
Considering Lynn Forester de Rothschild's apparent hand in potential President Hillary Clinton's
economic policy, such theories don't appear so far from the truth - and only further prove the
United States has strayed from its democratically-based roots to become a banking and corporate
plutocracy.
This is a bit misinformed conclusion. Some of you may know "Wizard of Oz". It is a famous novel
for children that was used for the screenplay of an adorable movie with the same title. Not everybody
knows that it was also a novel for the adults, with a key: a political satire against banking
and corporate plutocracy that controlled the government of USA around 1900. If I recall, the title
figure of the Wizard was Mark Hanna, and Wicked Witch of the East stood for eastern banks which
at that time included the largest banks that were behind Mark Hanna (who in turn was the puppeteer
of the President). Certain things change in the last 120 years, for example, the rich and famous
largely abandoned the mansions in Rhode Island, but New York remains the financial capital. I
somewhat doubt that Rothschild secretly have the sway over this crowd, if one would have to point
to the most powerful financial entity I would pick Goldman Sachs. Yes, it helped that Lady de
Rothschild was sociable, amiable and communicated well with Hillary and numerous gentlemen who
could drop 100,000 on a plate to please the hostess, but at the end of the day, things were quite
similar when Rothschild largely sticked to Europe.
The structural problem is not a conspiracy, but simply, capitalism. Any way you cut it, democracy
relies on convincing the citizens what is good and what is bad for them, and that still requires
money. Money can come from numerous small donors or few large ones, or some combination. Unfortunately,
large donors have disproportional influence, until a politician creates his/her brand, too few
small donors would know about him/her. Nice thing about Sanders was that he operates largely outside
the circle of large donors. That said, both Clintons and Obama entered the political scene as
"outsiders".
I met rich people only few times in my life, and I must admit, it is a pleasant experience.
Sleeping is comfortable, food is good, when you go to restaurant the owner greets your party very
politely and explains the best dishes of the day and so on. In politics, there are reactionary
fat cats and progressive fat cats, but needless to say, they tend to share certain perspective
and they skew the media, the academia and the policies in a certain direction.
If Hillary is elected, she will be haunted by her 'mistakes' and by the exposure of her double
face by Wikileaks. She is stigmatized as 'crooked Hillary' and as an unreliable decision maker.
From now on, all her decisions will be tainted with suspicion. I doubt that she'll be able to
lead the country properly during the 4 years she hopes to stay in power.
@ Piotr Berman who wrote: The structural problem is not a conspiracy, but simply, capitalism.
I heartily disagree. Capitalism is a myth created to cover for decisions made by those who
own private finance.....part of my undergraduate degree is in macro economics. Your assertion
that the Rothschild influence is restricted to Europe is laughable.
Joe6pac has it right......the United States has strayed from its democratically-based roots
to become a banking and corporate plutocracy.
I believe that it is Piotr Berman that is misinformed.
With single-bid ("plurality") voting you only have two candidates to choose from.
I have described the strategic hedge simple score election method all over the Internet. It
is simple in the sense that does not require easily hackable voting machines, and can easily work
with hand counted paper ballots at non-centralized voting places. It is not hampered by any requirement
to cater to so-called "sincere," "honest" (actually artless and foolish) voters. It easily thwarts
both the spoiler effect and the blind hurdle dilemma (the "Burr Dilemma"). It just works.
Strategic hedge simple score voting can be described in one simple sentence: Strategically
bid no vote at all for undesired candidates (ignore them as though they did not exist), or strategically
cast from five to ten votes for any number of candidates you prefer (up to some reasonable limit
of, say, twelve candidates), and then simply add all the votes up.
Both IRV-style and approval voting methods suffer from the blind hurdle dilemma, which can
be overcome with the hedge voting strategy. An example of usage of the hedge strategy, presuming
the case of a "leftist" voter, would be casting ten votes for Ralph Nader, and only eight or nine
for Al Gore. This way, the voter would only sacrifice 20 or 10 percent of their electoral influence
if Nader did not win.
Don't be fooled by fake "alternatives like "IRV" and "approval voting".
And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers".
Reagan delivered Stingers to the Northern Alliance and Taliban, why is Reagan not in prison?
Because of people like Ollie North and Dick Armitage. Because the Deep State is in control under
Continuance of Government, ever since the 2001 military coup.
Trump may have gone to Catholic prep school, but he's no choir boy either.
Hillary will win, it's in the bag, and she won't be haunted by anything at all, she doesn't
have an introspective bone in her hagsack. She will be our Nero for 21st C.
"We came, we saw, he died, haww, haww, haww."
Should have been bodybagged and tagged and disposed of at sea, her, not M.
"... Point being that not only would The Clintons have the Democratic Party machine to rely on for potential vote rigging in this stage of the process (distinguishing vs. primaries simply for rhetorical focus), ..."
"... but with the clear reality of the Republican Party elite also backing her, she can rely on at least some of the Republican Party machine also being available for potential vote rigging, and who have their experience in Florida, Ohio, etc to bring to the table. ..."
"... The longer term issue is the Imperial Oligarchy has now taken off the mask, they have abandoned the pretense of 2 party competition to unite behind the defender of status quo interests, with WikiLeaks detailing the gory bits of their corruption and malfeasance. And everybody in the system is tainted by that, both parties, media, etc. It has overtly collapsed to the reality of a single Party of Power (per the term Oligarch media like to use re: Russia for example). ..."
"... the Clinton faction is 100% "bi-partisan" and about confluence of both Oligarchic parties. ..."
"... I would say the Democratic primary was even a mirror of this, I would guess that Clinton had hoped to win more easily vs Sanders without rigging etc... essentially between Sanders and Trump turning anything but "radical status quo" into boogymen. ..."
"... That just reveals how close to the line the Imperial Oligarchy feels compelled to play... and, I suppose, how confident they are in the full spectrum of tools at their disposal to manipulate democracy. ..."
"... But that is also shown merely by the situation we are in, with the collapse of the two party system in order to maintain the strength of Imperial Oligarchy. ..."
Point being that not only would The Clintons have the Democratic Party machine to rely on
for potential vote rigging in this stage of the process (distinguishing vs. primaries simply for
rhetorical focus),
but with the clear reality of the Republican Party elite also backing her, she can rely
on at least some of the Republican Party machine also being available for potential vote rigging,
and who have their experience in Florida, Ohio, etc to bring to the table.
The longer term issue is the Imperial Oligarchy has now taken off the mask, they have abandoned
the pretense of 2 party competition to unite behind the defender of status quo interests, with
WikiLeaks detailing the gory bits of their corruption and malfeasance. And everybody in the system
is tainted by that, both parties, media, etc. It has overtly collapsed to the reality of a single
Party of Power (per the term Oligarch media like to use re: Russia for example).
And the craziest thing of course is not that this all happened by accident because some "scary
clown" appeared, but that this was nearly exactly planned BY The Clinton faction themselves (promoting
Trump in order to win vs. "scary clown"). Most notably, not simply as a seizure of power by Democratic
Party "against" Republicans... They are very clear the Clinton faction is 100% "bi-partisan"
and about confluence of both Oligarchic parties.
I would say the Democratic primary was even a mirror of this, I would guess that Clinton
had hoped to win more easily vs Sanders without rigging etc... essentially between Sanders and
Trump turning anything but "radical status quo" into boogymen. Only surprise was how well
Sanders did, necessitating fraud etc, with polls in fact showing Sanders was BETTER placed to
defeat Trump than Clinton.
That just reveals how close to the line the Imperial Oligarchy feels compelled to play...
and, I suppose, how confident they are in the full spectrum of tools at their disposal to manipulate
democracy.
But that is also shown merely by the situation we are in, with the collapse of the two
party system in order to maintain the strength of Imperial Oligarchy.
"... It is high time for the U.S. to return to paper-ballots and manual vote counting. The process is easier, comprehensible, less prone to manipulations and reproducible. Experience in other countries show that it is also nearly as fast, if not faster, than machine counting. There is simply no sensible reason why machines should be used at all. ..."
"... There is simply no sensible reason why machines should be used at all." Of course there is - to rig elections. What do you think they are used for. ..."
"... The price to pay is the ability to be alerted when vote rigging is going on. Bush won in 2000 because his people controlled the processes that mattered in Florida. ..."
"... There are the same allegations about 2004 in regards to Ohio. ..."
"... Here's the best statistical analysis of US vote count irregularities to date. Not a pretty picture. ..."
"... There is more needed than just paper ballots. A proportional system, a limit on donations and partisan/donor government posts, a stop to the corporate and lobbyist revolving doors. ..."
"... At present the US seem to be on their way to a one party system. Any democratic process will take place within this "private" club including a very small part of the population. ..."
"... for the 1 percent the system is not rigged, they have a preferred globalization candidate, and a police state fall back should the peasants rebell. ..."
"... US citizens are reduced to vote in a block to this power in the Senate and the House in continuous cycles. In the end that blocks any political progress there might be. ..."
"... There's lots of evidence that the 2004 election was stolen for Bush in Ohio. ..."
"... "smartmatic" is obviously the right choice. it's a name we know and trust. Like Deibold, Northrup, KBR, and Bellingcat. The integrity stands for itself. ..."
"... Just think of how many residents of graveyards will be voting their consciences (or lack thereof) this year. Remember Chicago advise - vote early, vote often. ..."
"... obomber has a friend in the vote rigging business. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-18/robert-creamer ..."
"... Concerted media campaign (scripted) against Trump portrays him as hysterical. Recall the trumped-up "(Howard) Dean Scream". ..."
"... Hillary is as nasty and hysterical as Trump or worse. She uses the F bomb regularly. Screams at her subordinates and she annihilated several countries worth of women and children. ..."
"... We should all be aware of what occurred in the two Baby Bush elections as far as voter machine tabulations and judicial fraud in his becoming president in both elections and the likely murder(s) to cover the fraud up. Small plane crashes being almost untraceable. ..."
"... paper vote or bust. Everything else hides an attempt at control and ultimately fraud. ..."
"... How does that help Trump? Most DNC *and* RNC Deep State insiders favor Hillary. ..."
"... Who is leaking all this stuff so well-timed together? Might just be the FBI, finding itself unable to prosecute officially, not only for fear of retribution, but also because the heap of shit that would get uncovered could be enough for the rest of the world to declare war on the US. ..."
"... In Vietnam, as in Iraq, the U.S. government pushed hard to get an election to sanctify its puppet regime. Ellsberg, who spent two years in Vietnam after his time in the Pentagon, aided some of the key U.S. officials in this effort who sought an honest vote. But when U.S. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge heard their pitch, he replied, "You've got a gentleman in the White House right now [Johnson] who has spent most of his life rigging elections. I've spent most of my life rigging elections. I spent nine whole months rigging a Republican convention to choose Ike as a candidate rather than Bob Taft." Lodge later ordered, "Get it across to the press that they shouldn't apply higher standards here in Vietnam than they do in the U.S." ..."
"... Why is policy discussion absent from this election cycle? Its all Trump bashing,wo one iota of his policies being broadcast? ..."
"... Obomba, the most un-criticised POTUS in American history, is a laughable pos concerned about his terrible corrupt legacy of death war and division which Trump will reveal, once in. ..."
"... Election Fraud within the Outlaw US Empire has a long history. One very intrepid investigator and expert on this is Brad Friedman who runs the Brad Blog, whose current lead item is about this very topic. ..."
"... The Vote 'No Confidence' movement is growing. It's being actively discussed on FB and ZH now ..."
"... Trump say the election is rigged ? Obama's setting up a straw mam by changing the story to election fraud. There may well be fraud in the voting process but we are unlikely to ever know how much. But as to the election being rigged , that's so plainly obvious it's painful. ..."
"... And Germany doesn't allow electronic voting machines. Gotta be a clue there somewhere. ..."
"... There is ample evidence of election fraud, vote fraud, and various types of 'rigging' or 'organising' in the US it is just too long to go into in a short post. ..."
"... Poll Pro-HRC results are not trustworthy. They aren't necessarily outright fabricated (is easy to do and very hard to detect / prosecute), nor even fraudulently carried out, but 'arranged' to give the desired result, which might even, in some cases, be perfectly unconscious, just following SOP. (I could outline 10 major problems / procedures that twist the results.) ..."
"... Then, the media take it up, and cherry-pick the results, pro HRC. That includes internet sites like real clear politics, which I noticed recently is biased (paid?) in favor of HRC. ..."
"... It is amazing to me, yet very few ppl actually dig into the available info about the polls. (Maybe 300 ppl in the world?) HRC needs these fakelorum poll results because they will 'rig' the election as best as they can, they need to point back to them: "see we were winning all the time Trump deplorables yelling insults who cares" - Pathetic. Also, of course, controlling the polls while not the same as 'riggin' the election is part of the same MO. (See Podesta e-mails from Wikileaks.) ..."
"... I think things could get pretty ugly on Nov 9 if Trump wins because i don't see Hillary going quietly into the night and the dems have seeded "putin is rigging" the election idea to contest the results. Plus the establishment that wants Hillary controls the media and the executive office. ..."
"... Trump's delegitimizing the election before it takes place is definitely color revolution stuff - the carrot revolution? ..."
"... "Hillary Clinton now says her "number one priority" in Syria is the removal of Bashar al-Assad, putting us on the path of war with Syria and Russia next year. ..."
"... no-fly zone" over Syria will certainly be followed by the shooting down of both Russian and U.S. jets, in an unpredictable escalation that could easily spread ..."
"... Note the sums are shards of chewed peanuts and their shells. MSM are bought, controlled and are put in a lowly position, and pamper to power, any.… They will go where the money is but it takes them a long time to figure out who what where why etc. and what they are supposed to do. They cannot be outed as completely controlled, so have to do some 'moves' to retain credibility, and their clients/controllers understand that. Encouraging a corrupt 4th Estate has its major downsides. ..."
"... Rigged. Right. Let me tell you about rigged. The US system is rigged in a far larger sense than any Americans realize. It's rigged to blow off the Constitution. ..."
"... the idea of the Electoral College was that every four years communities vote for a local person who could be trusted to go to Washington and become part of the committee that chooses a president and vice-president. ..."
"... The process is "supposed" to be more akin to the Holy See choosing a pope. The electors were to meet in Washington, debate the possibilities, come up with short list, go to the top person on the list and ask if they would be willing to be president (or vice-president, as the case may be), and if they agreed, the deal was done. If not, go to the second person. ..."
"... And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers". It's called simple score because it is almost the same as other well-known forms of score (and "range") voting, except it's optimized for hand counted paper ballots (i.e. no machines). ..."
"... Need to comb through the propositions carefully. Against big business and self serving liberals.. BTW, I'm a Californian from the Central Valley. Oh! How I wish there is a proposition. Should Hussein Obomo II charge for crimes against humanity? ..."
"... it is absolutely evident that Donald Trump is not only facing the mammoth Clinton political machine, but, also the combined forces of the viciously dishonest Mainstream Media." ..."
"... "When was the last time the media threw 100% of its support behind one party's presidential candidate? What does that say about the media?" ..."
"... Do you feel comfortable with the idea that a handful of TV and print-news executives are inserting themselves into the process and choosing our leaders for us?" ..."
"... It looks like ALL of the Neocon war criminals and architects of the mass slaughters in Iraq (Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc) are standing with Hillary Clinton: ..."
"... Here's a partial list of neocon war criminals supporting Miss Neocon: Paul Wolfowitz (aka, the Prince of Darkness), Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, Bill Kristol, Dov Zakheim, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, Marc Grossman, David Frum, Michael Chertoff, John Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, Alan Dershowitz, etc ..."
"... All neocons stand with the CrookedC*nt because there hasn't been nearly enough pointless war, slaughter, dismemberment, death or trauma, it needs to go on FOREVER. ..."
"... To be blunt. It is not only MSM who are prostitutes of oligarchic ruling elite but all or most even so called left-leaning or independent media are all under guise of phony "opposition" or diversity of opinion where there is none. ..."
"... MSM even lacks this basic foundation of a rational thought and must be dismissed entirely. ..."
"... The freedom of speech and press, democracy and just simple decency are simply not allowed in these US under penalty of social marginalizing or even death as Assange and Manning are facing. The entire message of MSM propaganda false flag soldiers is fear. ..."
"... The US Elections themselves are regularity defrauded (read Greg Palast) for decades in thousands of well-documented different and additional ways to polls such as: ..."
"... No independent verification of the vote or serious reporting by international observers about violations, or independent exit polls, and many, many more ways every election is stolen as anybody who opens eyes can see. ..."
"... "The individual loses his substance by voluntarily bowing to an overpowering and distant oligarchy, while simultaneously "participating" in sham democracy." ..."
"... Remember this is a person that actually publicly admits he took 6 months off (from what?) to campaign for Mr Changey Hopey, The drone Bombing Nobel Peace Prize winner, so it's not like he could ever 5have any political insights worth listening to, now is it? ..."
"... Oddly, I looked to Russia for inspiration. RF believes in international law so greatly that she strives mightily at every turn to make it the way nations interact. And what we can see if we choose, is that this effort is paying off. The world is changing because of what Russia believes in. ..."
"... Although Clinton Won Massachusetts by 2%, Hand Counted Precincts in Massachusetts Favored Bernie Sanders by 17% ..."
"... Massachusetts, one of the participating states for the Super Tuesday election results, may need further scrutiny to allay concerns over election fraud using electronic voting machines. 68 out of the state's 351 jurisdictions used hand counted ballots and showed a much larger preference of 17% for Bernie Sanders than the rest of the jurisdictions tabulated by electronic voting machine vendors ES&S, Diebold and Dominion. Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of Massachusetts by 1.42 %. ..."
"... In the Dominican Republic's last elections (May 2016) voters forced the Electoral Office to get rid of the electronic count in favor of paper ballots, which were counted both, by scanner and by hand, one by one, in front of delegates from each party. This action avoided a credibility crisis and everything went smooth. ..."
Obama was asked about Trump's voter fraud assertions on Tuesday [..] He responded with a blistering
attack on the Republican candidate, noting that U.S. elections are run and monitored by local
officials, who may well be appointed by Republican governors of states, and saying that cases
of significant voter fraud were not to be found in American elections.
Obama said there was "no serious" person who would suggest it was possible to rig American
elections , adding, "I'd invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes."
That is curious. There are a lot of "non serious" persons in the Democratic Party who tell us
that Russia is trying to manipulate the U.S. elections. How is it going to that when it's not possible?
Is rigging the election only impossible when it is in favor of Hillary Clinton? This while rigging
the elections in favor of Donald Trump, by Russia or someone else, is entirely possible and even
"evident"?
Curious.
That said - I do believe that the U.S. election can be decided through manipulation. We have evidently
seen that in 2000 when Bush was "elected" by a fake "recount" and a Supreme Court decision.
The outcome of a U.S. presidential election can depend on very few votes in very few localities.
The various machines and processes used in U.S. elections can be influenced. It is no longer comprehensible
for the voters how the votes are counted and how the results created. *
The intense manipulation attempts by the Clinton camp, via the DNC against Sanders or by
creating a Russian boogeyman to propagandize against Trump, lets me believe that her side is well
capable of considering and implementing some vote count shenanigan. Neither are Trump or the Republicans
in general strangers to dirty methods and manipulations.
It is high time for the U.S. to return to paper-ballots and manual vote counting. The process
is easier, comprehensible, less prone to manipulations and reproducible. Experience in other countries
show that it is also nearly as fast, if not faster, than machine counting. There is simply no sensible
reason why machines should be used at all.
* (The German Constitutional Court prohibited the use of all voting machines in German
elections because for the general voters they institute irreproducible vote counting which leads
to a general loss of trust in the democratic process. The price to pay for using voting machines
is legitimacy.)
Posted by b on October 19, 2016 at 01:54 AM |
Permalink
I just found out that many states in the US use electronic voting systems made by Smartmatic which
is part of the SGO Group. Lord Mark Malloch-Brown is the chairman of SGO. This man is heavily
entangled with Soros. Hillary is Soros' candidate. You simply can't make this sh*t up
No. The price to pay is the ability to be alerted when vote rigging is going on. Bush won
in 2000 because his people controlled the processes that mattered in Florida.
There are the same allegations about 2004 in regards to Ohio.
There is more needed than just paper ballots. A proportional system, a limit on donations
and partisan/donor government posts, a stop to the corporate and lobbyist revolving doors.
And diverse political parties that present voters with a choice. At present the US seem
to be on their way to a one party system. Any democratic process will take place within this "private"
club including a very small part of the population.
But democracy never meant the power of the poor. So, no, for the 1 percent the system is
not rigged, they have a preferred globalization candidate, and a police state fall back should
the peasants rebell.
And in the end, this is the way things are run in Russia and China, with a lot less media circus.
Add - a limit to presidential power for one person. US citizens are reduced to vote in
a block to this power in the Senate and the House in continuous cycles. In the end that blocks
any political progress there might be. The US are the oldest modern democracy. It is like
being stuck in the age of steam engines.
Good one, wj2! Here's some more info on Lord Malloch-Brown and George Soros, courtesy of WikiPedia:
Malloch Brown has been closely associated with billionaire speculator George Soros. Working
for Refugees International, he was part of the Soros Advisory Committee on Bosnia in 1993–94,
formed by George Soros. He has since kept cordial relations with Soros, and rented an apartment
owned by Soros while working in New York on UN assignments. In May 2007, Soros' Quantum Fund
announced the appointment of Sir Mark as vice-president. In September 2007, The Observer reported
that he had resigned this position on becoming a government minister in the UK. Also in May
2007, Malloch Brown was named vice-chairman of Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Institute,
two other important Soros organisations.
DOOOOOOOOOM! "smartmatic" is obviously the right choice. it's a name we know and trust. Like
Deibold, Northrup, KBR, and Bellingcat. The integrity stands for itself. With a population
so gleefully ignorant and self centered as D'uhmerica, you should be lowering your expectations
significantly.
Are honest elections even legal in Texas and Louisiana? How about Massachusetts and New York?
They may be legal there but it would be dangerous to try to enforce that.
Just think of how many residents of graveyards will be voting their consciences (or lack thereof)
this year. Remember Chicago advise - vote early, vote often.
PB 13 "Concerning attacks from both sides, Trump is definitely more hysterical."
Concerted media campaign (scripted) against Trump portrays him as hysterical. Recall the
trumped-up "(Howard) Dean Scream".
Trump's hysterical rants (and the smear campaign) are played up in a organized attempt to knock
him out. People are getting kneecapped (Billy Bush) to demonstrate to others the wrath that may
be visited upon them for supporting the wrong candidate.
Take Bill O'Reilly for example, He told a subordinate female employee (documented court record)
that he wanted to "get a few wines in her and soap up her tits in the shower with a loofah and
falafel. There was a settlement and the story was under-reported. Forgotten and forgiven. In fact
Bill O stands as an arbiter of moral virtue.
Hillary is as nasty and hysterical as Trump or worse. She uses the F bomb regularly. Screams
at her subordinates and she annihilated several countries worth of women and children.
It is simply "not in the script" to malign Hillary with her own words and obnoxious behavior.
By the way, she is also a drunk.
We should all be aware of what occurred in the two Baby Bush elections as far as voter machine
tabulations and judicial fraud in his becoming president in both elections and the likely murder(s)
to cover the fraud up. Small plane crashes being almost untraceable.
https://spectregroup.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/bushs-it-guy-killed-in-plane-crash/
Who is leaking all this stuff so well-timed together? Might just be the FBI, finding itself
unable to prosecute officially, not only for fear of retribution, but also because the heap of
shit that would get uncovered could be enough for the rest of the world to declare war on the
US.
Daniel Ellsberg, in his book Secrets , recounts what he had learned during his government
service about the honesty of U.S. elections. As reported in
Counterpunch :
In Vietnam, as in Iraq, the U.S. government pushed hard to get an election to sanctify
its puppet regime. Ellsberg, who spent two years in Vietnam after his time in the Pentagon,
aided some of the key U.S. officials in this effort who sought an honest vote. But when U.S.
Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge heard their pitch, he replied, "You've got a gentleman in the
White House right now [Johnson] who has spent most of his life rigging elections. I've spent
most of my life rigging elections. I spent nine whole months rigging a Republican convention
to choose Ike as a candidate rather than Bob Taft." Lodge later ordered, "Get it across to
the press that they shouldn't apply higher standards here in Vietnam than they do in the U.S."
But Lodge's comments were downright uplifting compared with a meeting that Ellsberg attended
with former Vice President Richard Nixon, who was visiting Vietnam on a "fact-finding mission"
to help bolster his presidential aspirations. Former CIA operative Edward Lansdale told Nixon
that he and his colleagues wanted to help "make this the most honest election that's ever been
held in Vietnam." Nixon replied, "Oh, sure, honest, yes, honest, that's right … so long as
you win!" With the last words he did three things in quick succession: winked, drove his elbow
hard into Lansdale's arm, and slapped his own knee.
12,13,will you clowns keep your zippers closed? Your propaganda is unseemly, and we'll see just
whose victory will be huge Nov.8,won't we? Why does anyone put any credence in serial liar polls?
Why is policy discussion absent from this election cycle? Its all Trump bashing,wo one iota
of his policies being broadcast?
That is his vote rigging angle, that the MSM is corrupt and is politically assassinating him
daily,not the polls themselves being a major factor in the rigging accusations.
Obomba, the most un-criticised POTUS in American history, is a laughable pos concerned
about his terrible corrupt legacy of death war and division which Trump will reveal, once in.
And only commie morons would oppose that.
Election Fraud within the Outlaw US Empire has a long history. One very intrepid investigator
and expert on this is Brad Friedman who runs the Brad Blog, whose current lead item is about this
very topic. I suggest those interested in learning more take the time to investigate his
site and its many years of accumulated evidence proving Election Fraud a very big problem,
http://bradblog.com/
The Vote 'No Confidence' movement is growing. It's being actively discussed on FB and ZH now.
A bloviating bunko artist vers a grifting crypto neocon is not a 'choice', it's a suicide squad
lootfest it's taking America down.
In Humboldt County California we still use paper ballots. Our polling place also has one electronic
voting machine sitting in a corner for voters who can't use the paper ballots. I have never seen
it being used. There was a transparency program that I think they still do where all ballots were
scanned and the images made available online for the public to double check results. I'm no wiz
with machine vision but I think I could knock together enough code to do my own recount.
I'm not paying much attention but doesn't Trump say the election is rigged ? Obama's setting
up a straw mam by changing the story to election fraud. There may well be fraud in the voting
process but we are unlikely to ever know how much. But as to the election being rigged , that's
so plainly obvious it's painful.
And Germany doesn't allow electronic voting machines. Gotta be a clue there somewhere.
There is ample evidence of election fraud, vote fraud, and various types of 'rigging' or 'organising'
in the US it is just too long to go into in a short post. (See for ex. Adjuvant @ 6, john
@ 18)
Ideally, one would have to divide it into different types. It is also traditional, which some
forget, I only know about that from 'realistic' novels, I recently read Dos Passos' Manhattan
Transfer, and was amazed how little things change (despite horse-drawn carriages, rouge, spitoons,
cigars, sauerkraut, etc.) - see karlof1 @ 25.
Poll Pro-HRC results are not trustworthy. They aren't necessarily outright fabricated (is
easy to do and very hard to detect / prosecute), nor even fraudulently carried out, but 'arranged'
to give the desired result, which might even, in some cases, be perfectly unconscious, just following
SOP. (I could outline 10 major problems / procedures that twist the results.)
Then, the media take it up, and cherry-pick the results, pro HRC. That includes internet
sites like real clear politics, which I noticed recently is biased (paid?) in favor of
HRC.
It is amazing to me, yet very few ppl actually dig into the available info about the polls.
(Maybe 300 ppl in the world?) HRC needs these fakelorum poll results because they will 'rig' the
election as best as they can, they need to point back to them: "see we were winning all the time
Trump deplorables yelling insults who cares" - Pathetic. Also, of course, controlling the polls
while not the same as 'riggin' the election is part of the same MO. (See Podesta e-mails from
Wikileaks.)
This is also the reason for the mad accusations of Putin interference in US elections - if
somebody is doing illegit moves it is Trump's supporter Putin and so the 'bad stuff' is 'foreign
take-over' and not 'us', and btw NOT the Republicans, or Trump circle, which is very telling.
I didn't see the O Keefe, Project Veritas, vids mentioned. Here the first one. There is a second
one up and more coming.
I think things could get pretty ugly on Nov 9 if Trump wins because i don't see Hillary going
quietly into the night and the dems have seeded "putin is rigging" the election idea to contest
the results. Plus the establishment that wants Hillary controls the media and the executive office.
Trump's delegitimizing the election before it takes place is definitely color revolution
stuff - the carrot revolution?
It is an interesting experiment if you can make people vote for a candidate they don't like
by it being the only way to prevent a candidate they dislike even more. You just showed you aren't
able to.
"Hillary Clinton now says her "number one priority" in Syria is the removal of Bashar al-Assad,
putting us on the path of war with Syria and Russia next year.
Any "no-fly zone" over Syria will certainly be followed by the shooting down of both Russian
and U.S. jets, in an unpredictable escalation that could easily spread
Russia will not back down if we start shooting down its aircraft. Is Hillary willing to risk
nuclear war with Russia in order to protect al-Qaeda in Syria?
96% of disclosed campaign contributions from journalists went to the Clinton campaign.
From the MSM: TIME.
Note the sums are shards of chewed peanuts and their shells. MSM are bought, controlled
and are put in a lowly position, and pamper to power, any.… They will go where the money is but
it takes them a long time to figure out who what where why etc. and what they are supposed to
do. They cannot be outed as completely controlled, so have to do some 'moves' to retain credibility,
and their clients/controllers understand that. Encouraging a corrupt 4th Estate has its major
downsides.
Rigged. Right. Let me tell you about rigged. The US system is rigged in a far larger sense
than any Americans realize. It's rigged to blow off the Constitution.
If you want to know how badly rigged, ask any voter when they leave the voting venue: "What
is the name of the elector you just voted for?" You'll get either: 1) a dumb stare; 2) a laugh,
or 3) a "WTF is an elector?"
Under the Constitution, Americans vote for electors. They do not vote for presidents, and there's
a reason for that. It's called "mass stupidity."
The Fondling Fathers were smart enough to know that the people are too stupid to choose their
own leader. So the idea of the Electoral College was that every four years communities vote
for a local person who could be trusted to go to Washington and become part of the committee that
chooses a president and vice-president.
There is not "supposed" to be any campaign, candidates, or polls. The process is "supposed"
to be more akin to the Holy See choosing a pope. The electors were to meet in Washington, debate
the possibilities, come up with short list, go to the top person on the list and ask if they would
be willing to be president (or vice-president, as the case may be), and if they agreed, the deal
was done. If not, go to the second person. Pretty much how the CEO of a large corporation
is chosen.
Having the people of a community vote for the local person who would be the most trustworthy
to deliberate on who should be president is a reasonable objective. I mean, essentially the question
for the voter would be reduced to: "What person in our community would be least likely to be bought
off?" But having a gang-bang of 60 million voting Americans who don't really know shit about the
morons they are voting into office . . . that, on its face, is a sign of mass self-deception and
insanity. It is mass stupidity perpetuating itself.
The circus that the US presidential election has turned into – including the grotesque primaries
– just goes to show how fucking stupid Americans are. The system is an embarrassment to the entire
country. And it is an act of flipping-off the Fondling Fathers and their better judgment every
four years. But worst of all, the present system is virtually certain to eventually produce the
most powerful person in the world who is a complete moron, and who will precipitate a global catastrophe
– economic, or military, or both.
And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers". It's
called simple score because it is almost the same as other well-known forms of score (and "range")
voting, except it's optimized for hand counted paper ballots (i.e. no machines).
Just got my mail-in ballots from the postman. Voting against all Democrats except, for POTUS.
Take a few days and vote either Jill Stein or Donald Trump.
Need to comb through the propositions carefully. Against big business and self serving
liberals.. BTW, I'm a Californian from the Central Valley. Oh! How I wish there is a proposition.
Should Hussein Obomo II charge for crimes against humanity?
"For any minimally conscious American citizen, it is absolutely evident that Donald Trump
is not only facing the mammoth Clinton political machine, but, also the combined forces of the
viciously dishonest Mainstream Media."
-Boyd D. Cathey, "The Tape, the Conspiracy, and the Death of the Old Politics", Unz Review
"When was the last time the media threw 100% of its support behind one party's presidential
candidate? What does that say about the media?"
Do you feel comfortable with the idea that a handful of TV and print-news executives are
inserting themselves into the process and choosing our leaders for us?"
If Jill Stein needs 5% of the vote in order to be considered a legitimate candidate (or to bring
the Green party up to legitimate third-party status for the 2020 election), then you can rest
assured that no matter how many votes she actually gets, her percentage will never be above 4.99%.
Just like when Obama swept into office in 2008, the powers-that-be made sure the Democrats never
had a filibuster-proof majority. Give 'em just enough to believe that the system works, but never
enough to create a situation where the lack of change can't be explained away by "gridlock". Brilliant
in its malevolence, really.
It looks like ALL of the Neocon war criminals and architects of the mass slaughters in Iraq
(Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc) are standing with Hillary Clinton:
Here's a partial list of neocon war criminals supporting Miss Neocon: Paul Wolfowitz (aka,
the Prince of Darkness), Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, Bill
Kristol, Dov Zakheim, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, Marc Grossman, David Frum, Michael Chertoff,
John Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, Alan Dershowitz, etc
All neocons stand with the CrookedC*nt because there hasn't been nearly enough pointless
war, slaughter, dismemberment, death or trauma, it needs to go on FOREVER.
To be blunt. It is not only MSM who are prostitutes of oligarchic ruling elite but all or
most even so called left-leaning or independent media are all under guise of phony "opposition"
or diversity of opinion where there is none.
Actually MOA is one of few, more or less independent, aligning itself with any sane ideology,
a welcome island of order in the ocean of media cacophony and I often disagreed with MOA but I
appreciate its logical consistency and integrity, hard facts based journalism,no matter from what
moral stand MOA writings are coming from. MSM even lacks this basic foundation of a rational
thought and must be dismissed entirely.
But there is much, much more rigging going on, on massive, even global scale. The fraud is
so massive and so visible that blinds people from the truth about it. From the truth of how massively
they are being controlled in their opinions and thoughts.
The freedom of speech and press, democracy and just simple decency are simply not allowed
in these US under penalty of social marginalizing or even death as Assange and Manning are facing.
The entire message of MSM propaganda false flag soldiers is fear.
It may seem shocking for people under spell of overwhelming propaganda, but this government
run by Global oligarchs is dangerous to our physical and mental health and must be eradicated
as a matter of sanitary emergency.
Let's sweep all those political excretions into the sewage pipes where they belong. But first
we have to recognize the scale of their influence and their horrifying daily routine subversion
of social order, gross malfeasance or even horrendous crimes also war crimes covered up by MSM.
Only after we get rid of this abhorrent, brutal regime, cut the chains of enslavement we can
have decent democracy or voting, not before.
John Stuart Mill - "Government shapes our character, values, and intellect. It can affect
us positively or negatively. When political institutions are ill constructed, "the effect is
felt in a thousand ways in lowering the morality and deadening the intelligence and activity
of the people"
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "I had come to see that everything was radically connected
with politics, and that however one proceeded, no people would be other than the nature of
its government.
And here we are, believing the shit those mofos and feeding us about freedom and democracy
citing bought and sold lies as "scientific research" concocted for one reason alone, to fuck us
up , exploit and discard when not needed.
Here is, in a small part, about how they do it, starting from phony polls that suppose to sway
you one way or another into following supposed projected winner anointed by the establishment.
Polls are routinely skewed, even MSM pundits say use polls they can trust i.e. which give them
results their bosses seek.
Now over hundred top newspapers and media outlets endorsed Hillary so you can safely remove
them from your list of polls you can rely on.
Anyway most polls are rigged even more than elections themselves, mostly by skewing the content
of a poling sample like in the above example. If you poll Dems about Reps that exactly you get
what you seek. But they are more insidious like doubling or tripling polling sample and then pick
an choose what answers they like, or focus sample on the area you know there is overall support
for your thesis or assertion of candidate regardless of official affiliation, and many more down
to raw rigging by fixing numbers or adjustments.
The US Elections themselves are regularity defrauded (read Greg Palast) for decades in
thousands of well-documented different and additional ways to polls such as:
By limiting selection of possible candidates and their access to statewide or national ballot
box via rigged undemocratic caucuses and primaries and other unreasonable requirements, goal-seeking
ad-hoc rules. by eliminating and/or confusing voters about voting at proper physical location
often changed in last moments, forcing into never counted provisional vote by purposely hiding
registered lists, purging made up "felons" from voter lists, requiring expensive or unavailable
or costly to obtain due to extensive travel, identifying documents, threatening citizen (of color)
with deportation, accusing them of voter fraud [baseless challenging that automatically pushes
voter into provisional vote], or strait offering meaningless provisional ballots instead of proper
ballot for people who can't read (English) well, eliminating students and military vote when needed
on phony registration issues, signature, pictures, purposefully misspelled names, mostly non-British
names etc., reducing number of polling places where majority votes for "rouge" candidate, forcing
people to stand in line for hours or preventing people from voting al together.
Selecting remote polling locations with obstructed public access by car or transit, paid parking,
exposed to weather elements, cold, wind and rain in November.
Hacking databases before and after vote, switching votes, adding votes for absent voters, and
switching party affiliations and vote at polling places as well up in the data collating chain,
county, state, filing in court last minute frivolous law suits aimed to block unwanted candidates
or challenging readiness of the polling places in certain neighborhoods deemed politically uncertain,
outrageous voting ON a WORKING DAY (everywhere else voting is on Sunday or a day free of work)
skewing that way votes toward older retired people.
Massive lying propaganda of whom we vote for, a fraudulent ballot supposedly voting for "candidates"
but in fact voting on unnamed electors, party apparatchiks instead, violating basic democratic
principle of transparency of candidates on the ballot and secrecy of a voter, outrageous electorate
college rules design to directly suppress democracy. Requirement of approval of the electoral
vote by congress is an outrageous thing illegal in quasi-democratic western countries due to division
of powers.
Outrageous, voting day propaganda to discourage voting by phony polling and predictions while
everywhere else there is campaigning ban, silence for two to three days before Election Day.
No independent verification of the vote or serious reporting by international observers
about violations, or independent exit polls, and many, many more ways every election is stolen
as anybody who opens eyes can see.
All the above fraud prepared by close group of election criminals on political party payroll,
months/years before election date often without any contribution from ordinary polling workers
who believe that nothing is rigged.
If somebody thinks that they would restrain themselves this time, think again. The regime,
in a form of mostly unsuspecting county registrars are tools of the establishment and will do
everything, everything they can and they can a lot, to defraud those elections and push an establishment
candidate down to our throats, without a thought crossing their comatose minds. "Just doing their
jobs like little Eichmanns of NAZI regime".
One way or another your vote will be stolen or manipulated up and down the ticket at will
and your participation would mean one thing legitimizing this abhorrent regime.
We must reject those rigged elections and demand that establishment must go, all of them GOP,
DNC and that including Hillary before any truly democratic electoral process worth participating
may commence.
"The individual loses his substance by voluntarily bowing to an overpowering and distant
oligarchy, while simultaneously "participating" in sham democracy."
C. Wright Mills,"The Power Elite" (1956)
Any sane person must thus conclude that an act of voting in the current helplessly tainted
and rigged political system is nothing but morally corrupting tool that divides us, conflicts
us, extorts from us an approval for the meaningless political puppets of the calcified, repugnant
oligarchic US regime, in a surrealistic act of utter futility aimed just to break us down,
to break our sense of human dignity, our individual will and self-determination since no true
choice is ever being offered to us and never will.
Idea of political/electoral boycott, unplugging from the system that corrupts us and ALTERNATIVE
POLITICAL PROCESS designed, developed and implemented for benefit of 99% of population is the
only viable idea to express our political views that are absent from official regime candidates'
agendas and from the rigged ballots. Let's not be afraid, it was already successfully done
in the past. It works." Without courage there is only slavery.
Remember this is a person that actually publicly admits he took 6 months off (from what?)
to campaign for Mr Changey Hopey, The drone Bombing Nobel Peace Prize winner, so it's not like
he could ever 5have any political insights worth listening to, now is it?
Grow up.
I took the time off (I'm a software engineer) after the primaries (having supported neither
BO or HRC) because that's who get got. We were coming off 8 years of BushCo which was, in summary...
a horror. The republicans were 100% unrepentant, and McCain was a far louder and steadfast supporter
of Iraq then Hillary... wasn't even close. McCain burried his Abramhoff investigation, sealed
their findings for 50 years. And his running mate was not just bereft of any policy expertise,
she was a loudmouth loon... even FOX canceled her post election show.
I was well aware of BO's questions/limitations. He didn't put his time in as a Senator and
sponsored no meaningful legislation. He played it safe. He had no real policy track record. And
as a Senator he quietly slipped away and hob-nobbed with Bush several times (no other Dem Senator
at the time did this that I was aware). So yeah, Obama was on open question.
I was going to pass on this election, but I've read a lot here about it and started to consider
what as a US voter I might do.
Oddly, I looked to Russia for inspiration. RF believes in international law so greatly
that she strives mightily at every turn to make it the way nations interact. And what we can see
if we choose, is that this effort is paying off. The world is changing because of what Russia
believes in.
I believe in voting. I believe in multiple parties. I believe the game is totally rigged but
sometimes you can win, except that you have to play for this to happen. I believe that you have
to be the thing you want.
I believe in a Green Party and I admire the sanity that comes from Dr. Jill Stein every time
I encounter her position. This is the world I believe in. This is the world I'll vote for and
support, with all tools that comes to hand, forever.
~~
I don't believe in the view that aspiring for betterment is foolish or naive, or the view that
current status cannot change or be changed. Such views fail to acknowledge the physical reality
of a new universe manifesting in each moment, always different in some way from that of the previous
moment. Such views are lost, bewildered, behind the curve, forever.
Term limits are useless. There could never be a Cynthia McKinney or a Dennis Kucinich -- Ever!
Term limited representatives would by definition be track record-free representatives. If you
really would like positive change, you simply need to get strategic hedge simple score voting:
SHSV
Although Clinton Won Massachusetts by 2%, Hand Counted Precincts in Massachusetts Favored
Bernie Sanders by 17%
Mar 06 2016
J.T. Waldron
Massachusetts, one of the participating states for the Super Tuesday election results,
may need further scrutiny to allay concerns over election fraud using electronic voting machines.
68 out of the state's 351 jurisdictions used hand counted ballots and showed a much larger preference
of 17% for Bernie Sanders than the rest of the jurisdictions tabulated by electronic voting machine
vendors ES&S, Diebold and Dominion. Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of Massachusetts by
1.42 %.
In the Dominican Republic's last elections (May 2016) voters forced the Electoral Office to
get rid of the electronic count in favor of paper ballots, which were counted both, by scanner
and by hand, one by one, in front of delegates from each party. This action avoided a credibility
crisis and everything went smooth.
"... 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.
"... The Official Monster Raving Loony Party is a registered political party established in the United Kingdom in 1983 by the musician David Sutch, better known as "Screaming Lord Sutch, 3rd Earl of Harrow" or simply "Screaming Lord Sutch". It is notable for its deliberately bizarre policies and it effectively exists to satirise British politics, and to offer itself as an poignant alternative for protest voters, especially in constituencies where the party holding the seat is unlikely to lose it and everyone else's vote would be quietly wasted. ..."
I watched that yesterday. Funny and a complete take down of Jill Stein. How come a British comedian
knows more about our issues than one of our candidates for the White House? Oh wait - even Jill
Stein knows more than Donald Trump. If it were not for that Constitutional matter, I'd say Oliver
for President.
Fred C. Dobbs -> pgl... , -1
All politics is 'wacky',
the third-party kind is
the wackiest of all.
Maybe the UK does it best.
The Official Monster Raving Loony Party is a registered political party established in
the United Kingdom in 1983 by the musician David Sutch, better known as "Screaming Lord Sutch,
3rd Earl of Harrow" or simply "Screaming Lord Sutch". It is notable for its deliberately bizarre
policies and it effectively exists to satirise British politics, and to offer itself as an poignant
alternative for protest voters, especially in constituencies where the party holding the seat
is unlikely to lose it and everyone else's vote would be quietly wasted.
(Wikipedia)
"... a simple fact (that escapes many participants of this forum, connected to TBTF) the that Hillary is an unrepentant neocon, a warmonger that might well bring another war, possibly even WWIII. ..."
"... One of the systemic dangers of psychopathic females in high political positions is that remaining as reckless as they are, they try to outdo men in hawkishness. ..."
"... Enthusiasm of people in this forum for Hillary is mainly enthusiasm for the ability of TBTF to rip people another four years. ..."
"... The level of passive social protest against neoliberal elite (aka "populism" in neoliberal media terms) scared the hell of Washington establishment. Look at neoliberal shills like Summers, who is now ready to abandon a large part of his Washington consensus dogma in order for neoliberalism to survive. ..."
"... And while open revolt in national security state has no chances, Trump with all his warts is a very dangerous development for "status quo" supporters, that might not go away after the elections. ..."
Trump is winning with people in their 50s and they have a higher chance of voting than millennials
do. That plus voter suppression may hand this to Trump yet. There was an LA Times poll this month
that showed a small Trump lead. An outlier, sure, but the same poll was right about Obama in 2012
when other polls were wrong. Just saying
likbez -> Adamski... , -1
> "Trump is winning with people in their 50s and they have a higher chance of voting than millennials
do."
Yes. Thank you for making this point.
Also people over 50 have more chances to understand and reject all the neoliberal bullshit
MSM are pouring on Americans.
As well as a simple fact (that escapes many participants of this forum, connected to TBTF)
the that Hillary is an unrepentant neocon, a warmonger that might well bring another war, possibly
even WWIII.
One of the systemic dangers of psychopathic females in high political positions is that
remaining as reckless as they are, they try to outdo men in hawkishness.
Enthusiasm of people in this forum for Hillary is mainly enthusiasm for the ability of
TBTF to rip people another four years.
Not that Trump is better, but on warmongering side he is the lesser evil, for sure.
The level of passive social protest against neoliberal elite (aka "populism" in neoliberal
media terms) scared the hell of Washington establishment. Look at neoliberal shills like Summers,
who is now ready to abandon a large part of his Washington consensus dogma in order for neoliberalism
to survive.
And while open revolt in national security state has no chances, Trump with all his warts
is a very dangerous development for "status quo" supporters, that might not go away after the
elections.
That's why they supposedly pump Hillary with drugs each debate :-).
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump added one more accusation against Democratic rival
Hillary Clinton: "inappropriately" getting the debate questions.
Trump's tweet with the latest allegation comes the day after the final presidential debate in
which he refused to commit to the outcome of the Nov. 8 election.
Why didn't Hillary Clinton announce that she was inappropriately given the debate questions -
she secretly used them! Crooked Hillary.
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 20, 2016
Less than two hours after sending the tweet, the real estate mogul told a rally in Ohio that he
would accept the results of the election - if he wins.
"I would like to promise and pledge . . . that I will totally accept the results of this great
and historic presidential election if I win."
Trump later said in the rally that he would accept a clear result but reserves the right to contest
a questionable outcome.
Trump's comments about the election results during the debate were blasted by politicians on both
sides of the aisle, including Governor Charlie Baker and Libertarian vice presidential candidate
Bill Weld, a former governor of Massachusetts. Weld called the debate remarks "the death knell for
[Trump's] candidacy."
Senator John McCain of Arizona, a top Republican who withdrew his support of Trump earlier this
month, said he conceded defeat "without reluctance" in 2008 when then-Senator Barack Obama won the
presidential election. McCain said the loser has always congratulated the winner, calling the person
"my president."
"That's not just the Republican way or the Democratic way. It's the American way. This election
must not be any different," McCain said in a statement.
Trump and his supporters have been making unsubstantiated claims that the election is rigged,
putting officials on the defense weeks before most voters head to the polls. Civil rights activists
have called some of the accusations a thinly veiled racist attack.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump added one more accusation against Democratic rival
Hillary Clinton: "inappropriately" getting the debate questions.
Trump's tweet with the latest allegation comes the day after the final presidential debate
in which he refused to commit to the outcome of the Nov. 8 election.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Why didn't Hillary Clinton announce that she was inappropriately given the debate questions
- she secretly used them! Crooked Hillary.
10:55 AM - 20 Oct 2016
Less than two hours after sending the tweet, the real estate mogul told a rally in Ohio that
he would accept the results of the election - if he wins.
"I would like to promise and pledge ... that I will totally accept the results of this great
and historic presidential election if I win."
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
(But he didn't want the job anyway.)
President? It would be a demotion, says
Donald Trump Jr http://dailym.ai/2eJLQ71
via @MailOnline - Oct 20
Donald Trump Jr said last night moving into the White House would be a 'step down' for his
father.
Trump Jr was being interviewed on Fox News after the third presidential debate in Las Vegas
and was asked how he thought the Republican candidate had performed during the final presidential
debate. ...
"... As I have tirelessly explained, the U.S. economy is not just neoliberal (the code word for
maximizing private gain by any means available, including theft, fraud, embezzlement, political fixing,
price-fixing, and so on)--it is neofeudal , meaning that it is structurally an updated version of Medieval
feudalism in which a top layer of financial-political nobility owns the engines of wealth and governs
the marginalized debt-serfs who toil to pay student loans, auto loans, credit cards, mortgages and taxes--all
of which benefit the financiers and political grifters. ..."
"... The media is in a self-referential frenzy to convince us the decision of the century is between
unrivaled political grifter Hillary Clinton and financier-cowboy Donald Trump. Both belong to the privileged
ruling Elite: both have access to cheap credit, insider information ( information asymmetry ) and political
influence. ..."
"... If you exit the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, etc. at a cushy managerial rank with a fat pension and
lifetime benefits and are hired at a fat salary the next day by a private "defense" contractor--the
famous revolving door between a bloated state and a bloated defense industry--the system works great.
..."
Brimming with hubris and self-importance, the ruling Elite and mainstream media cannot believe
they have lost the consent of the governed.
Every ruling Elite needs the consent of the governed: even autocracies, dictatorships and corporatocracies
ultimately rule with the consent, however grudging, of the governed.
The American ruling Elite has lost the consent of the governed. This reality is being masked by
the mainstream media, mouthpiece of the ruling class, which is ceaselessly promoting two false narratives:
The "great divide" in American politics is between left and right, Democrat/Republican
The ruling Elite has delivered "prosperity" not just to the privileged few but to the unprivileged
many they govern.
Both of these assertions are false. The Great Divide in America is between the ruling Elite and
the governed that the Elite has stripmined. The ruling Elite is privileged and protected, the governed
are unprivileged and unprotected. That's the divide that counts and the divide that is finally becoming
visible to the marginalized, unprivileged class of debt-serfs.
The "prosperity" of the 21st century has flowed solely to the ruling Elite and its army of technocrat
toadies, factotums, flunkies, apparatchiks and apologists. The Elite's army of technocrats and its
media apologists have engineered and promoted an endless spew of ginned-up phony statistics (the
super-low unemployment rate, etc.) to create the illusion of "growth" and "prosperity" that benefit
everyone rather than just the top 5%. The media is 100% committed to promoting these two false narratives
because the jig is up once the bottom 95% wake up to the reality that the ruling Elite has been stripmining
them for decades.
As I have tirelessly explained, the U.S. economy is not just neoliberal (the code word
for maximizing private gain by any means available, including theft, fraud, embezzlement, political
fixing, price-fixing, and so on)--it is neofeudal , meaning that it is structurally an updated
version of Medieval feudalism in which a top layer of financial-political nobility owns the engines
of wealth and governs the marginalized debt-serfs who toil to pay student loans, auto loans, credit
cards, mortgages and taxes--all of which benefit the financiers and political grifters.
The media is in a self-referential frenzy to convince us the decision of the century is between
unrivaled political grifter Hillary Clinton and financier-cowboy Donald Trump. Both belong to the
privileged ruling Elite: both have access to cheap credit, insider information ( information asymmetry
) and political influence.
The cold truth is the ruling Elite has shredded the social contract by skimming the income/wealth
of the unprivileged. The fake-"progressive" pandering apologists of the ruling Elite--Robert Reich,
Paul Krugman and the rest of the Keynesian Cargo Cultists--turn a blind eye to the suppression of
dissent and the looting the bottom 95% because they have cushy, protected positions as tenured faculty
(or equivalent). They cheerlead for more state-funded bread and circuses for the marginalized
rather than demand an end to exploitive privileges of the sort they themselves enjoy.
Consider just three of the unsustainably costly broken systems that enrich the privileged Elite
by stripmining the unprivileged:
healthcare (a.k.a. sickcare because sickness is profitable, prevention is unprofitable),
higher education
Imperial over-reach (the National Security State and its partner the privately owned Military-Industrial
Complex).
While the unprivileged and unprotected watch their healthcare premiums and co-pays soar year after
year, the CEOs of various sickcare cartels skim off tens of millions of dollars annually in pay and
stock options. The system works great if you get a $20 million paycheck. If you get a 30% increase
in monthly premiums for fewer actual healthcare services--the system is broken.
If you're skimming $250,000 as under-assistant dean to the provost for student services (or equivalent)
plus gold-plated benefits, higher education is working great. If you're a student burdened with tens
of thousands of dollars in student loan debt who is receiving a low-quality, essentially worthless
"education" from poorly paid graduate students ("adjuncts") and a handful of online courses that
you could get for free or for a low cost outside the university cartel--the system is broken.
If you exit the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, etc. at a cushy managerial rank with a fat pension and
lifetime benefits and are hired at a fat salary the next day by a private "defense" contractor--the
famous revolving door between a bloated state and a bloated defense industry--the system works great.
If you joined the Armed Forces to escape rural poverty and served at the point of the spear somewhere
in the Imperial Project--your perspective may well be considerably different.
Unfortunately for the ruling Elite and their army of engorged enablers and apologists, they have
already lost the consent of the governed.
They have bamboozled, conned and misled the bottom 95% for decades, but their phony facade of
political legitimacy and "the rising tide raises all boats" has cracked wide open, and the machinery
of oppression, looting and propaganda is now visible to everyone who isn't being paid to cover their
eyes. Brimming with hubris and self-importance, the ruling Elite and mainstream media cannot believe
they have lost the consent of the governed. The disillusioned governed have not fully absorbed this
epochal shift of the tides yet, either. They are aware of their own disillusionment and their own
declining financial security, but they have yet to grasp that they have, beneath the surface of everyday
life, already withdrawn their consent from a self-serving, predatory, parasitic, greedy and ultimately
self-destructive ruling Elite.
"... At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain
number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness in
the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on corrupt
establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect the plight
of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent indirect
threats to their personal safety. ..."
"... The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process
of centralization. ..."
"... People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political
will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant's power comes purely from the application
of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful,
and easily overthrown. ..."
"... They instill apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences
for standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every corner,
whether it's actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal that they
forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have been sufficiently
culled. ..."
"... The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from
connecting with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out
organized forms of activism. ..."
"... In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are enforced.
Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required. Checkpoints are
instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust each other or to disintegrate
entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent
ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support. People who work together and organize of their
own volition are unpredictable, and therefore, a potential risk to the state. ..."
"... Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime leads
to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance of anything
resembling a solution, even despotism. ..."
"... Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while demanding
liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain a proscribed level
of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation keeps the masses thoroughly
distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously chaining them to the idea that
their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end them. ..."
"... When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government
concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed. The guidelines
that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority emerges; an arrogant
exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of the public. Finally, police
no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards out to keep us subdued and docile.
..."
"... Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations
in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their ascent
to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed, and instigating
even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person or group that dares
to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the minds of the masses. ..."
"... Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an elusive
boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention, and their
anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the truth, such governments
are able to kill two birds with one stone. ..."
"... Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery. Citizen
spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons of their communities.
..."
"... Tyrannies are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think
..."
"... Lies become "necessary" in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for "peace".
Torture becomes an ugly but "useful" method for gleaning important information. Police brutality is
sold as a "natural reaction" to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those labeled
as "terrorists". Assassination is justified as a means for "saving lives". Genocide is done discretely,
but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don't discuss it. ..."
As we look back on the horrors of the dictatorships and autocracies of the past, one particular
question consistently arises; how was it possible for the common men of these eras to NOT notice
what was happening around them? How could they have stood as statues unaware or uncaring as their
cultures were overrun by fascism, communism, collectivism, and elitism? Of course, we have the advantage
of hindsight, and are able to research and examine the misdeeds of the past at our leisure. Unfortunately,
such hindsight does not necessarily shield us from the long cast shadow of tyranny in our own day.
For that, the increasingly uncommon gift of foresight is required…
At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain
number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness
in the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on
corrupt establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect
the plight of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent
indirect threats to their personal safety. They must abandon all responsibility for their destinies,
and lose all respect for their own humanity. They must, indeed, become domesticated and mindless
herd animals without regard for anything except their fleeting momentary desires for entertainment
and short term survival. For a lumbering bloodthirsty behemoth to actually sneak up on you, you have
to be pretty damnably oblivious.
The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process
of centralization. Once dishonest governments accomplish an atmosphere of inaction and condition
a sense of frailty within the citizenry, the sky is truly the limit. However, a murderous power-monger's
day is never quite done. In my recent article
'The
Essential Rules of Liberty' we explored the fundamentally unassailable actions and mental preparations
required to ensure the continuance of a free society. In this article, let's examine the frequently
wielded tools of tyrants in their invariably insane quests for total control…
People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political
will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant's power comes purely from the application
of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful,
and easily overthrown. Brute strength is calculable. It can be analyzed, and thus, eventually
confronted and defeated.
Thriving tyrants instead utilize not just harm, but the imminent THREAT of harm. They instill
apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences for
standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every
corner, whether it's actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal
that they forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have
been sufficiently culled.
In other cases, our fear is evoked and directed towards engineered enemies. Another race, another
religion, another political ideology, a "hidden" and ominous villain created out of thin air.
Autocrats assert that we "need them" in order to remain safe and secure from these illusory monsters
bent on our destruction. As always, this development is followed by the claim that all steps taken,
even those that dissolve our freedoms, are "for the greater good". Frightened people tend to shirk
their sense of independence and run towards the comfort of the collective, even if that collective
is built on immoral and unconscionable foundations. Once a society takes on a hive-mind mentality
almost any evil can be rationalized, and any injustice against the individual is simply overlooked
for the sake of the group.
In the past, elitist governments would often legislate and enforce severe penalties for public
gatherings, because defusing the ability of the citizenry to organize or to communicate was paramount
to control. In our technological era, such isolation is still used, but in far more advanced forms.
The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from connecting
with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out organized
forms of activism.
Through co-option, modern day tyrant's can direct and manipulate opposition movements. By creating
and administrating groups which oppose each other, elites can then micromanage all aspects of
a nation on the verge of revolution. These "false paradigms" give us the illusion of proactive
organization, and the false hope of changing the system, while at the same time preventing us
from seeking understanding in one another. All our energies are then muted and dispersed into
meaningless battles over "left and right", or "Democrat versus Republican", for example. Only
movements that cast aside such empty labels and concern themselves with the ultimate truth of
their country, regardless of what that truth might reveal, are able to enact real solutions to
the disasters wrought by tyranny.
In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are
enforced. Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required.
Checkpoints are instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust
each other or to disintegrate entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures
are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support.
People who work together and organize of their own volition are unpredictable, and therefore,
a potential risk to the state.
You'll find in nearly every instance of cultural descent into autocracy, the offending government
gained favor after the onset of economic collapse. Make the necessities of root survival an uncertainty,
and people without knowledge of self sustainability and without solid core principles will gladly
hand over their freedom, even for mere scraps from the tables of the same men who unleashed famine
upon them. Financial calamities are not dangerous because of the poverty they leave in their wake;
they are dangerous because of the doors to malevolence that they leave open.
Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime
leads to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance
of anything resembling a solution, even despotism.
Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while
demanding liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain
a proscribed level of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation
keeps the masses thoroughly distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously
chaining them to the idea that their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end
them.
This is the main symptom often associated with totalitarianism. So much so that our preconceived
notions of what a fascist government looks like prevent us from seeing other forms of tyranny
right under our noses. Some Americans believe that if the jackbooted thugs are not knocking on
every door, then we MUST still live in a free country. Obviously, this is a rather naïve position.
Admittedly, though, goon squads and secret police do eventually become prominent in every failed
nation, usually while the public is mesmerized by visions of war, depression, hyperinflation,
terrorism, etc.
When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government
concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed.
The guidelines that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority
emerges; an arrogant exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of
the public. Finally, police no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards
out to keep us subdued and docile.
As tyranny grows, this behavior is encouraged. Good men are filtered out of the system, and
small (minded and hearted) men are promoted.
At its pinnacle, a police state will hide the identities of most of its agents and officers,
behind masks or behind red tape, because their crimes in the name of the state become so numerous
and so sadistic that personal vengeance on the part of their victims will become a daily concern.
Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations
in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their
ascent to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed,
and instigating even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person
or group that dares to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the
minds of the masses.
All disasters, all violent crimes, all the ills of the world, are hoisted upon the shoulders
of activist groups and political rivals. They are falsely associated with fringe elements already
disliked by society (racists, terrorists, etc). A bogus consensus is created through puppet media
in an attempt to make the public believe that "everyone else" must have the same exact views,
and those who express contrary positions must be "crazy", or "extremist". Events are even engineered
by the corrupt system and pinned on those demanding transparency and liberty. The goal is to drive
anti-totalitarian organizations into self censorship. That is to say, instead of silencing them
directly, the state causes activists to silence themselves.
Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an
elusive boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention,
and their anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the
truth, such governments are able to kill two birds with one stone.
Ultimately, the life of a totalitarian government is not prolonged by the government itself,
but by the very people it subjugates. Citizen spies are the glue of any police state, and our
propensity for sticking our noses into other peoples business is highly valued by Big Brother
bureaucracies around the globe.
There are a number of reasons why people participate in this repulsive activity. Some are addicted
to the feeling of being a part of the collective, and "service" to this collective, sadly, is
the only way they are able to give their pathetic lives meaning. Some are vindictive, cold, and
soulless, and actually get enjoyment from ruining others. And still, like elites, some long for
power, even petty power, and are willing to do anything to fulfill their vile need to dictate
the destinies of perfect strangers.
Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery.
Citizen spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons
of their communities. People who lean towards citizen spying are often outwardly and inwardly
unimpressive; physically and mentally inept. For the average moral and emotional weakling with
persistent feelings of inadequacy, the allure of finally being given fifteen minutes of fame and
a hero's status (even if that status is based on a lie) is simply too much to resist. They begin
to see "extremists" and "terrorists" everywhere. Soon, people afraid of open ears everywhere start
to watch what they say at the supermarket, in their own backyards, or even to family members.
Free speech is effectively neutralized.
In the end, it is not enough for a government fueled by the putrid sludge of iniquity to lord
over us. At some point, it must also influence us to forsake our most valued principles. Tyrannies
are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think. If they
can mold our very morality, they can exist unopposed indefinitely. Of course, the elements of
conscience are inborn, and not subject to environmental duress as long as a man is self aware.
However, conscience can be manipulated if a person has no sense of identity, and has never put
in the effort to explore his own strengths and failings. There are many people like this in America
today.
Lies become "necessary" in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for "peace".
Torture becomes an ugly but "useful" method for gleaning important information. Police brutality
is sold as a "natural reaction" to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those
labeled as "terrorists". Assassination is justified as a means for "saving lives". Genocide is
done discretely, but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don't discuss it.
All tyrannical systems depend on the apathy and moral relativism of the inhabitants within
their borders. Without the cooperation of the public, these systems cannot function. The real
question is, how many of the above steps will be taken before we finally refuse to conform? At
what point will each man and woman decide to break free from the dark path blazed before us and
take measures to ensure their independence? Who will have the courage to develop their own communities,
their own alternative economies, their own organizations for mutual defense outside of establishment
constructs, and who will break under the pressure to bow like cowards? How many will hold the
line, and how many will flee?
For every American, for every human being across the planet who chooses to stand immovable
in the face of the very worst in mankind, we come that much closer to breathing life once again
into the very best in us all.
"... "Now we have the three [Goldman] transcripts. Everyone can read them, and everyone should. What they show is Clinton's extraordinary understanding of our world - its leaders and their politics, terrorist groups and their vulnerabilities, the interplay of global forces, and the economic well-being of Americans" ..."
"... I think this debate especially was "priced in" - any Trump supporter at this stage has lost the capacity for changing minds, especially as so much of it is anti-Hillary. ..."
"... It is astounding that with all her money and MSM support/collusion HRC is only a few digits ahead in the polls. I still see a slim chance that Trump will win, if his hidden and shy voters go out and some of Hillary's stay home (lazy and complacent). ..."
"... Having said that, the establishment is terrified of a Trump win, and so many of those voting machines don't leave an audit trail… ..."
I can tell what how the press stories will read from the headlines and the writers, so I won't
bother to link to them.
See the NC debate live blog for a rice bowl-free discussion.
"Trump had done well, delivering his best prepared and most substantive performance, but it
wasn't nearly good enough to reshape the race. He came into Las Vegas trailing big time, and surely
leaves the same way" [
New York Post ]. "Absent an unforeseeable black swan event that tips the table in his favor,
Hillary Clinton is headed to the White House." Although I'd bet the terrain is quite different
today from the terrain Clinton imagined back when she was influence peddling at Goldman in 2015.
... ... ..
And then there's this, which does seem to under cut the bizarre "our electoral system is perfection
itself" narrative that Democrat loyalists are pushing:
... ... ...
UPDATE "But the negativity in this campaign has been something else, and the debates have been
very heavy on character attacks. In terms of the overall impact on the health of American democracy,
I think there's one thing that's particularly concerning: These two candidates, whose personal
conduct and character have been impugned over and over, both went through competitive primaries.
There were other candidates. Clinton and Trump both won their nominations, fairly and decisively.
But for people who might tune in sporadically, the conclusion that this is the best we can do
might produce real dismay." [
FiveThirtyEight ]. Yes, it's called a legitimacy crisis.
"The stream posted on his Facebook wasn't anything different than what people saw on CNN or
Fox News or MSNBC, just a livestream of the debate, but more than 170,000 watched it at once.
By the time the broadcast ended, more than 8.7 million had tuned in at some point. Compare that
to the half a million views Time posted for its debate lifestream, or the nearly 900,000 who watched
BuzzFeed News'" [
Independent Journal Review ]. "Welcome to the first broadcast of Trump TV."
War Drums
"Anyone who believes the United States is not fighting enough wars in the Middle East can be
happy this week. We have just plunged into another one. Twice in recent days, cruise missiles
fired from an American destroyer have rained down on Yemen. The Pentagon, a practiced master of
Orwellian language, calls this bombing 'limited self-defense'" [
Boston Globe ]. "American forces were already involved in Yemen's civil war. Since 2002, our
drone attacks have reportedly killed more than 500 Yemenis, including at least 65 civilians. We
are also supplying weapons and intelligence to Saudi Arabia, which has killed thousands of Yemenis
in bombing raids over the last year and a half - including last week's attack on a funeral in
which more than 100 mourners were killed." But I'm sure none of the mourners were women or people
of color. So that's alright, then.
Wikileaks
"Now we have the three [Goldman] transcripts. Everyone can read them, and everyone should.
What they show is Clinton's extraordinary understanding of our world - its leaders and their politics,
terrorist groups and their vulnerabilities, the interplay of global forces, and the economic well-being
of Americans" [
RealClearPolitics ].
This is the line the Moustache of Understanding took. Which is all you need to know, really
Although this writer is a little vague on
just how they are "extraordinary."
"Walmart, Wendy Clark, Target and Apple: More WikiLeaked Clinton Campaign Messaging Secrets"
[
Advertising Age ].
The Trail
"Trump Holds On To 1-Point Lead As Debate Sparks Fly - IBD/TIPP Poll" [
Investors Business Daily ]. Incidentally, IBD sounds like the sort of publication Trump would
read.
There is one corner of Washington where Donald Trump's scorched-earth presidential campaign
is treated as a mere distraction and where bipartisanship reigns. In the rarefied world of
the Washington foreign policy establishment, President Obama's departure from the White House
- and the possible return of a more conventional and hawkish Hillary Clinton - is being met
with quiet relief.
The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork
for a more assertive American foreign policy via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who
are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House. …
This consensus is driven by broad-based backlash against a president who has repeatedly
stressed the dangers of overreach and the limits of American power, especially in the Middle
East. "There's a widespread perception that not being active enough or recognizing the limits
of American power has costs," said Philip Gordon, a senior foreign policy adviser to Obama
until 2015. "So the normal swing is to be more interventionist." …
Smart investors will go long producers of canned food and manufacturers of fallout shelter
materials.
George Saunders strives mightily to have us believe our economic situation has nothing to do
with the attractiveness of The Donald to certain constituencies. But even he has to acknowledge
what people are angry about (emphasis added):
"All along the fertile interstate-highway corridor, our corporations, those new and
powerful nation-states, had set up shop parasitically, so as to skim off the drive-past money
, and what those outposts had to offer was a blur of sugar, bright color, and crassness
that seemed causally related to more serious addictions. Standing in line at the pharmacy in an
Amarillo Walmart superstore, I imagined some kid who had moved only, or mostly, through such bland,
bright spaces, spaces constructed to suit the purposes of distant profit, and it occurred to me
how easy it would be, in that life, to feel powerless, to feel that the local was lame, the abstract
extraneous, to feel that the only valid words were those of materialism ("get" and "rise")-words
that are perfectly embodied by the candidate of the moment.
Something is wrong, the common person feels, correctly: she works too hard and gets too little;
a dulling disconnect exists between her actual day-to-day interests and (1) the way her leaders
act and speak, and (2) the way our mass media mistell or fail entirely to tell her story.
What does she want? Someone to notice her over here, having her troubles. "
Pavel, October 20, 2016 at 4:06 pm
I blissfully ignored the televised "debate" last night though I followed the comments here
at NC and on Twitter for a while. Not sure my blood pressure would survive 90 mins of Hillary's
voice and smug smile or anything about Trump.
It is amusing to note the OUTRAGE that Trump might dare question the election results. Jesus
H Christ the media are just taking us all for amnesiac idiots, aren't they?
I think this debate especially was "priced in" - any Trump supporter at this stage has
lost the capacity for changing minds, especially as so much of it is anti-Hillary.
It is astounding that with all her money and MSM support/collusion HRC is only a few digits
ahead in the polls. I still see a slim chance that Trump will win, if his hidden and shy voters
go out and some of Hillary's stay home (lazy and complacent).
Having said that, the establishment is terrified of a Trump win, and so many of those voting
machines don't leave an audit trail…
Yet another attempt to explain Trump success... and Democratic Party disintegration because Dems
lost working class voters and substantial part of middle class voters.
Notable quotes:
"... I have a great deal of empathy for the Donald Trump voters. ..."
"... The elites have failed the people so thoroughly that tens of millions of people, on any side of any issue, can legitimately say they don't think the system is working for them anymore, if it ever did. ..."
"... There are elements of racism, xenophobia and misogyny in the Trump movement, and there's also all kinds of legitimate of anxieties. ..."
"... The rise of Trump is a judgment on the progressive movement that has adopted a style that doesn't leave much room for a 55-year-old heterosexual white Republican living in a red state to feel that he has any place of honor or dignity in the world progressives are trying to create. We see the disrespect coming from them, but there's a subtle disrespect coming from us, the NPR crowd, that is intolerant of intolerance. Nobody wants to feel as though they don't count. ..."
I also believe that people are fundamentally good, but this election cycle has tried that
hypothesis for me.
I have a great deal of empathy for the Donald Trump voters. When you listen to them talk
about feeling hurt, scared and left behind, they sound like the Black Lives Matter activists.
How so? The elites have failed the people so thoroughly that tens
of millions of people, on any side of any issue, can legitimately say they don't think the system
is working for them anymore, if it ever did. ...
... ... ...
A lot of people are mocking the idea that you can explain the bigotry at a Trump rally
by writing it off as simply a response to economic anxiety.
There are elements of racism, xenophobia and misogyny in the Trump movement, and there's also
all kinds of legitimate of anxieties.
The rise of Trump is a judgment on the progressive movement that has adopted a style that
doesn't leave much room for a 55-year-old heterosexual white Republican living in a red state to
feel that he has any place of honor or dignity in the world progressives are trying to create. We
see the disrespect coming from them, but there's a subtle disrespect coming from us, the NPR crowd,
that is intolerant of intolerance. Nobody wants to feel as though they don't count.
"... Headed by Lenin, Marx's followers discussed finance capital mainly in reference to the drives of imperialism. ..."
"... It was left to Veblen to deal with the rentiers' increasingly dominant yet corrosive role, extracting their wealth by imposing overhead charges on the rest of society. ..."
"... Veblen described how the rentier classes were on the ascendant rather than being reformed, taxed out of existence or socialized. His Theory of Business Enterprise (1904) emphasized the divergence between productive capacity, the book value of business assets and their stock-market price (what today is called the Q ratio of market price to book value). He saw the rising financial overhead as leading toward corporate bankruptcy and liquidation. Industry was becoming financialized, putting financial gains ahead of production. Today's financial managers use profits not to invest but to buy up their company's stock (thus raising the value of their stock options) and pay out as dividends, and even borrow to pay themselves. Hedge funds have become notorious for stripping assets and loading companies down with debt, leaving bankrupt shells in their wake in what George Ackerlof and Paul Romer have characterized as looting. ..."
"... In emphasizing how financial "predation" was hijacking the economy's technological potential, Veblen's vision was as materialist and culturally broad as that of Marxists ..."
Edited excerpt from Michael Hudson and Ahmet Oncu, eds.,
Absentee Ownership and its Discontents: Critical Essays on the legacy of Thorstein Veblen ....................
From Marx to Veblen
Early (and most non-Marxist) socialism aimed to achieve greater equality mainly by taxing away
unearned rentier income and keeping natural resources and monopolies in the public domain. The Marxist
focus on class conflict between industrial employers and workers relegated criticism of rentiers
to a secondary position, leaving that fight to more bourgeois reformers. Financial savings were treated
as an accumulation of industrial profits, not as the autonomous phenomenon that Marx himself emphasized
in Volume 3 of Capital.
Headed by Lenin, Marx's followers discussed finance capital mainly in reference to the drives
of imperialism. The ruin of Persia and Egypt was notorious, and creditors installed collectors in
the customs houses in Europe's former Latin American colonies. The major problem anticipated was
war spurred by commercial rivalries as the world was being carved up. It was left to Veblen to deal
with the rentiers' increasingly dominant yet corrosive role, extracting their wealth by imposing
overhead charges on the rest of society. The campaign for land taxation and even financial reform
faded from popular discussion as socialists and other reformers became increasingly Marxist and focused
on the industrial exploitation of labor.
Veblen described how the rentier classes were on the ascendant rather than being reformed, taxed
out of existence or socialized. His Theory of Business Enterprise (1904) emphasized the divergence
between productive capacity, the book value of business assets and their stock-market price (what
today is called the Q ratio of market price to book value). He saw the rising financial overhead
as leading toward corporate bankruptcy and liquidation. Industry was becoming financialized, putting
financial gains ahead of production. Today's financial managers use profits not to invest but to
buy up their company's stock (thus raising the value of their stock options) and pay out as dividends,
and even borrow to pay themselves. Hedge funds have become notorious for stripping assets and loading
companies down with debt, leaving bankrupt shells in their wake in what George Ackerlof and Paul
Romer have characterized as looting.
In emphasizing how financial "predation" was hijacking the economy's technological potential,
Veblen's vision was as materialist and culturally broad as that of Marxists, and as rejecting of
the status quo. Technological innovation was reducing costs but breeding monopolies as the Finance,
Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sectors joined forces to create a financial symbiosis cemented by
political insider dealings – and a trivialization of economic theory as it seeks to avoid dealing
with society's failure to achieve its technological potential. The fruits of rising productivity
were used to finance robber barons who had no better use of their wealth than to reduce great artworks
to the status of ownership trophies and achieve leisure class status by funding business schools
and colleges to promote a self-congratulatory but deceptive portrayal of their wealth-grabbing behavior.
Absentee Ownership and its Discontents: Critical Essays on the legacy of Thorstein Veblen By
Michael Hudson and Ahmet Oncu
From Marx to Veblen
Early (and most non-Marxist) socialism aimed to achieve greater equality mainly by taxing away
unearned rentier income and keeping natural resources and monopolies in the public domain. The
Marxist focus on class conflict between industrial employers and workers relegated criticism of
rentiers to a secondary position, leaving that fight to more bourgeois reformers. Financial savings
were treated as an accumulation of industrial profits, not as the autonomous phenomenon that Marx
himself emphasized in Volume 3 of Capital.
Headed by Lenin, Marx's followers discussed finance capital mainly in reference to the
drives of imperialism. The ruin of Persia and Egypt was notorious, and creditors installed
collectors in the customs houses in Europe's former Latin American colonies. The major problem
anticipated was war spurred by commercial rivalries as the world was being carved up.
It was left to Veblen to deal with the rentiers' increasingly dominant yet corrosive role,
extracting their wealth by imposing overhead charges on the rest of society. The campaign
for land taxation and even financial reform faded from popular discussion as socialists and other
reformers became increasingly Marxist and focused on the industrial exploitation of labor.
Veblen described how the rentier classes were on the ascendant rather than being reformed,
taxed out of existence or socialized. His Theory of Business Enterprise (1904) emphasized the
divergence between productive capacity, the book value of business assets and their stock-market
price (what today is called the Q ratio of market price to book value). He saw the rising financial
overhead as leading toward corporate bankruptcy and liquidation. Industry was becoming financialized,
putting financial gains ahead of production. Today's financial managers use profits not to invest
but to buy up their company's stock (thus raising the value of their stock options) and pay out
as dividends, and even borrow to pay themselves. Hedge funds have become notorious for stripping
assets and loading companies down with debt, leaving bankrupt shells in their wake in what George
Ackerlof and Paul Romer have characterized as looting.
In emphasizing how financial "predation" was hijacking the economy's technological potential,
Veblen's vision was as materialist and culturally broad as that of Marxists , and as rejecting
of the status quo. Technological innovation was reducing costs but breeding monopolies as the
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sectors joined forces to create a financial symbiosis
cemented by political insider dealings – and a trivialization of economic theory as it seeks to
avoid dealing with society's failure to achieve its technological potential.
The fruits of rising productivity were used to finance robber barons who had no better use
of their wealth than to reduce great artworks to the status of ownership trophies and achieve
leisure class status by funding business schools and colleges to promote a self-congratulatory
but deceptive portrayal of their wealth-grabbing behavior.
Populism on the March Why the West Is in Trouble … Trump is part of a broad populist upsurge
running through the Western world. It can be seen in countries of widely varying circumstances,
from prosperous Sweden to crisis-ridden Greece. In most, populism remains an opposition movement,
although one that is growing in strength; in others, such as Hungary, it is now the reigning ideology.
But almost everywhere, populism has captured the public's attention. What is populism? It means
different things to different groups, but all versions share a suspicion of and hostility toward
elites, mainstream politics, and established institutions. -Foreign Affairs
The "populism versus globalism" meme is gradually yielding the predictable result: "Enlightened"
government needs to take an active role in alleviating the "frustration" felt by those attracted
to "populism."
The next phase of this meme can be seen, among other places, in this extensive article in Foreign
Affairs magazine entitled, "Populism on the March."
Foreign Affairs is the mouthpiece for the the Council on Foreign Relations that provides globalist
instructions and legislation for US industrial and political leadership.
Since DB's focus is on elite memes, we follow the larger one on a regular basis and have predicted
that "populism vs. globalism" constitutes serious propaganda. It may even rise to the level of "global
warming" aka "climate change."
Elite memes are not necessarily false in their entirety but they are at least partially fake.
Populism, for instance, in both Europe and America, has more to do with cultural self-protection
than the mindless "me first" approach the nomenclature suggests.
Populism is really an outgrowth of greater awareness of how elites have targeted middle classes
in order to destroy them as part of globalism's implantation.
Elite, mainstream media won't explain the reality of what's going on. Instead, the mainstream
takes the rightful anger created by elite targeting and characterizes it as a political movement.
Additionally, the explanation for this anger is that certain segments of Western populations are
being "left out" of rising world-wide prosperity.
More:
Immigration is the final frontier of globalization. It is the most intrusive and disruptive
because as a result of it, people are dealing not with objects or abstractions; instead, they
come face-to-face with other human beings, ones who look, sound, and feel different.
And this can give rise to fear, racism, and xenophobia. But not all the reaction is noxious.
It must be recognized that the pace of change can move too fast for society to digest.
The ideas of disruption and creative destruction have been celebrated so much that it is easy
to forget that they look very different to the people being disrupted.
Western societies will have to focus directly on the dangers of too rapid cultural change.
That might involve some limits on the rate of immigration and on the kinds of immigrants who are
permitted to enter.
It should involve much greater efforts and resources devoted to integration and assimilation,
as well as better safety nets. Most Western countries need much stronger retraining programs for
displaced workers, ones more on the scale of the GI Bill: easily available to all, with government,
the private sector, and educational institutions all participating.
We can see here a tired litany of government responses to the initial false premise. So-called
middle classes in the US reportedly have $1,000 in savings and perhaps $100,000 or more in debt.
The same forces that have virtually bankrupted Western middle classes are now somehow supposed to
rectify the ruin.
The article even states that in addition to government activism, an effort must be made to "highlight
realities of immigration so that the public is dealing with facts and not phobias."
How is this to be done? Via"enlightened leadership … that "appeals to their better angels. Eventually,
we will cross this frontier as well."
We've already called "populism versus globalism" a "textbook meme" and indicated that it provides
ample opportunity for the kind of directed history that we can see suggested in this article.
The next step will surely involve legislation to implement these suggestions. We are already seeing
this with "extremists" as reported by The Washington Post:
The White House announced a plan Wednesday to help prevent Americans from falling prey to violent
ideologies of the sort that drove mass killings in New York, San Bernardino, Calif., Chattanooga,
Tenn., and Orlando in the past year. The effort ... seeks to mobilize teams of teachers, mental
health professionals and community leaders to deal with a problem that offers few easy solutions.
Conclusion: The "populism versus globalism" meme has a long way to travel but
implemented fully it has a chance to broadly affect a variety of Western institutions and behaviors.
It provides justification for a signficant array of authoritarian intrusions and justifies this action
on numerous levels.
Globalism is mututally exclusive to popularism ... if anything globalism is growing the popularism.
By more globalist government you mean slavery, removal of voice and right to object to all
the shit you are forced to live because the globalist government forces you into that position
for itself.
The globalist government no longer serves the people it serves itself and all manner of horrors
it does to ensure you know you place but it you protest or worse turn to violence you are called
terrorists.
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter and the only terrorist here is government
as it enforces servitude and slavery.
It is the ranking of money and its unabated influence history is lingering to come clear with.
Globalism means make the dictatorial power of money perfect.
Populism then, no. Not that perfect, and here a is broad range of adoption to consider on how
much its influence should be lamp posted.
You can try it with nationalism, right-wing-ism, genderism should do it well too and the like.
All this efforts can be cast as directed toward the inegalité business the power of money is
generating.
There they are fighting. In nightgowns or in tanks without to lay hands on the master of the
ranks.
The money order.
The fights then only can turn about the question who is allowed to issue it.
The holy cow of the game. The ultimate power of money, finally in your hand.
If the ranking of money is not perceived as what it is, stays untouched of all the shit what
fans can disseminate about the matter, then those with the most money will always stay in power.
And what we can expect of the coming is a clearance up to this question.
What money is allowed to claim.
You'll see there are no border issues to negotiate in dealing with that difficulty nor any
folklore is begged for a stunt on the political theater.
Just common sense about the question why someone is pulling of his clothes because another
is paying for.
i'm not sure that globalists is the best name for what we've got here. i think it is far too kind.
the (foreign policy) wars are started (and intentionally lost) by the likud/mossad zionists
who did 9-11, that seems clear enough with general clark's seven countries in five years revelation.
the (domestic) "economic team" is headed by the too big to jail banksters (some overlap with
above) and crony capitalists generally who are globalists in gang territory only.
Who won or lost last night's debate doesn't really matter. What matters is that Trump wasn't able to score the knock-out
blows required to impact his declining polling numbers in a meaningful way. Meanwhile, of all the points made in last night's
debate, the only one that seems to matter to the mainstream media this morning is that Trump is somehow plotting to overthrow our
democracy by refusing to accept election results on November 8th.
Of course, facts do seem to support Trump's claim that the election is rigged and not just as a result of a biased mainstream
media that refuses to cover Hillary's various scandals. In fact, according to research conducted by the
Pew Research Center in 2012, the capacity for voter fraud in the U.S. is substantial with nearly 2mm dead people found to be
registered voters and nearly 3mm people registered in multiple states.
Approximately 24 million -one of every eight- voter registrations in the United States are
no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate
More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters
Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state
Add to that the recent Project Veritas videos showing democratic operatives paying people to incite violence at republican rallies
and actually bragging about "bussing" in out-of-state voters to commit massive voter fraud and Trump's claims of "election rigging"
seem hard to deny.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/5IuJGHuIkzY
https://www.youtube.com/embed/hDc8PVCvfKs
After watching those videos, does this tweet really seem all that inaccurate?
Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going
on? So naive!
Of course, according to
The
Hill , republicans this morning are jumping at the opportunity to bash their own party's nominee with Lindsey Graham saying that
"Trump is doing the party and our country a great disservice."
Many Republicans were tired of Trump's talk about a rigged election before his remarks on Wednesday night that he would not
commit to accepting the legitimacy of the vote count on Election Day.
Trump said there are "millions of people" who are registered to vote illegally, alleged that the media has "poisoned the minds
of the voters," and pledged to keep the nation in "suspense" over whether he'd concede the race to Clinton.
Trump's critics seized on his remarks after the debate, and Republicans down the ballot will be forced to weigh in
over the coming days.
Several jumped at the chance.
"Mr. Trump is doing the party and our country a great disservice by continuing to suggest the outcome of this election
is out of his hands and 'rigged' against him," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). "It will not be because the system
is 'rigged' but because he failed as a candidate."
. @realDonaldTrump saying that he might not accept election
results is beyond the pale
Of course, other topics were discussed during the debate with Trump seemingly scoring points during the abortion scuffle, the
supreme court discussion and Hillary's various FBI, email and foundation scandals. That said, we suspect none of it really matters
and is already forgotten.
The GOP nominee ably defended the conservative position against abortion and stayed on the attack against Clinton on her biggest
vulnerabilities, raising questions about the FBI's investigation into her private email server, donations from foreign governments
to the Clinton Foundation and revelations from the WikiLeaks email dumps.
Regardless, as we said in the beginning of this post, none it really matters as the key takeaway from last night was that
"Trump needed a campaign-altering moment, and it didn't happen."
He will enter the final three weeks before Election Day trailing badly and with his support teetering on the
edge of full collapse, stirring Republican fears that they could lose the House majority.
The days of Trump boasting about his polling numbers and his prospects in blue states are long gone.
Trump's attacks against Clinton and the message that turned him into a winner in the GOP primaries won't be enough to get him
back to that place.
So, outside of some new bombshell development from WikiLeaks or wherever, we suspect this one is in the bag.
Trump is right, the election is rigged. Not necessarily as in voting or vote counting fraud, but in more subtle
ways. The MSM is doing it's best to be completely one sided in "reporting" about the candidates. A billionaire supporter is welcome
to support Hillary, but if he is supporting Trump, he will be facing thinly veiled threats: The NYT for example went after Peter
Thiel by writing this:
"In Silicon Valley, technology executives are having to explain why they continue to do business with the billionaire investor
Peter Thiel, who donated $1.25 million to Mr. Trump's campaign.
Mr. Thiel will address the controversy in a speech in Washington this month. But executives with ties to him have had to explain
why they have not cut them.
And they have faced criticism.
"We agree that people shouldn't be fired for their political views, but this isn't a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating
hatred and violence," wrote Ellen Pao, the head of Project Include, an organization that aims to increase diversity in the tech
industry. Project Include has severed ties with Y Combinator, where Mr. Thiel is a part-time partner, because of his involvement."
The message is: If you support Trump, shut up or face negative consequences to your business and private life.
This guy is die hard neoliberal. That's why he is fond of Washington consensus. He does not understand
that the time is over for Washington consensus in 2008. this is just a delayed reaction :-)
Notable quotes:
"... after years of unusually sluggish and strikingly non-inclusive growth, the consensus is breaking down. Advanced-country citizens are frustrated with an "establishment" – including economic "experts," mainstream political leaders, and dominant multinational companies – which they increasingly blame for their economic travails. ..."
"... Anti-establishment movements and figures have been quick to seize on this frustration, using inflammatory and even combative rhetoric to win support. They do not even have to win elections to disrupt the transmission mechanism between economics and politics. ..."
"... They also included attacks on "international elites" and criticism of Bank of England policies that were instrumental in stabilizing the British economy in the referendum's immediate aftermath – thus giving May's new government time to formulate a coherent Brexit strategy. ..."
"... The risk is that, as bad politics crowds out good economics, popular anger and frustration will rise, making politics even more toxic. ..."
"... At one time, the people's government served as a check on the excesses of economic interests -- now, it is simply owned by them. ..."
"... The defects of the maximalist-globalist view were known for years before the "consensus began to break down". ..."
"... In at least some of these cases, the "transmission" of the consensus involved more than a little coercion and undermining local interests, sovereignty, and democracy. This is an central feature of the "consensus", and it is hard to see how it can by anything but irredeemable. ..."
"... However it is not bad politics crowding out out good economics, for the simple reason that the economic "consensus" itself, in embracing destructive and destabilizing economic policy crowded out the ostensibly centrist politics... ..."
"... The Inclusive Growth has remained only a Slogan and Politicians never ventured into the theme. In the changed version of the World.] essential equal opportunity and World of Social media, perspective and social Political scene is changed. Its more like reverting to mean. ..."
In the 1990s and 2000s, for example, the so-called Washington Consensus dominated policymaking
in much of the world...
... ... ...
But after years of unusually sluggish and strikingly non-inclusive growth, the consensus is
breaking down. Advanced-country citizens are frustrated with an "establishment" – including economic
"experts," mainstream political leaders, and dominant multinational companies – which they increasingly
blame for their economic travails.
Anti-establishment movements and figures have been quick to seize on this frustration, using
inflammatory and even combative rhetoric to win support. They do not even have to win elections to
disrupt the transmission mechanism between economics and politics. The United Kingdom proved
that in June, with its Brexit vote – a decision that directly defied the broad economic consensus
that remaining within the European Union was in Britain's best interest.
... ... ...
... speeches by Prime Minister Theresa May and members of her cabinet revealed an intention to
pursue a "hard Brexit," thereby dismantling trading arrangements that have served the economy well.
They also included attacks on "international elites" and criticism of Bank of England policies
that were instrumental in stabilizing the British economy in the referendum's immediate aftermath
– thus giving May's new government time to formulate a coherent Brexit strategy.
Several other advanced economies are experiencing analogous political developments. In Germany,
a surprisingly strong showing by the far-right Alternative für Deutschland in recent state
elections already appears to be affecting the government's behavior.
In the US, even if Donald Trump's presidential campaign fails to put a Republican back in the
White House (as appears increasingly likely, given that, in the latest twist of this highly unusual
campaign, many Republican leaders have now renounced their party's nominee), his candidacy will likely
leave a lasting impact on American politics. If not managed well, Italy's constitutional referendum
in December – a risky bid by Prime Minister Matteo Renzi to consolidate support – could backfire,
just like Cameron's referendum did, causing political disruption and undermining effective action
to address the country's economic challenges.
... ... ...
The risk is that, as bad politics crowds out good economics, popular anger and frustration
will rise, making politics even more toxic. ...
Mr El-Erian, I know you are a good man, but it seems as though everyone believes we can synthetically
engineer a way out of this never ending hole that financial engineering dug us into in the first
place.
Instead why don't we let this game collapse, you are a good man and you will play a role in
the rebuilding of better system, one that nurtures and guides instead of manipulate and lie.
The moral suasion you mention can only appear by allowing for the self annihilation of this
financial system. This way we can learn from the autopsies and leave speculative theories to third
rate economists
It is sadly true that "the relationship between politics and economics is changing," at least
in the U.S.. At one time, the people's government served as a check on the excesses of economic
interests -- now, it is simply owned by them.
It seems to me that the best we can hope for now is some sort of modest correction in the relationship
after 2020 -- and that the TBTF banks won't deliver another economic disaster in the meantime.
Petey Bee OCT 15, 2016
1. The defects of the maximalist-globalist view were known for years before the "consensus
began to break down".
2. In at least some of these cases, the "transmission" of the consensus involved more than
a little coercion and undermining local interests, sovereignty, and democracy. This is an central
feature of the "consensus", and it is hard to see how it can by anything but irredeemable.
In the concluding paragraph, the author states that the reaction is going to be slow. That's absolutely
correct, the evidence has been pushed higher and higher above the icy water line since 2008.
However it is not bad politics crowding out out good economics, for the simple reason that
the economic "consensus" itself, in embracing destructive and destabilizing economic policy crowded
out the ostensibly centrist politics...
Paul Daley OCT 15, 2016
The Washington consensus collapsed during the Great Recession but the latest "consensus" among
economists regarding "good economics" deserves respect.
atul baride OCT 15, 2016
The Inclusive Growth has remained only a Slogan and Politicians never ventured into the theme.
In the changed version of the World.] essential equal opportunity and World of Social media, perspective
and social Political scene is changed. Its more like reverting to mean.
In Ohio, for instance, Quinnipiac has a poll taken in the second week of October showing
Clinton and Trump in a tie in a four way race with the Libertarian and Green Party
candidates, the latter tow in at six and one percent respectively. With a margin of error 3.9
percent Ohio could swing either way for Quinnipiac.
For the same period in Ohio, the RealClearPolitics average has Trump up 0.7. Over the
same week, Emerson has Clinton up two, NBC/WSJ/Marist has Trump up one, and
CNN/ORC has Trump up four.
But where Clinton is leading she is often within the margin of error or close to it. In
Florida, Quinnipiac has Clinton up four with a margin of error (МОЕ) 3.9, making the race
a statistical tie. CNN/ORC has Nevada at Clinton plus two with an МОЕ of 3.5. And in
Colorado, Quinnipiac has Trump up eight with a 3.7 МОЕ.
As to the states Trump is leading in for the second week of October, CNN/ORC has Trump
up four in Ohio with a 3.9 МОЕ, JMC Analytics has Trump up seven in Louisiana with a
3.5 МОЕ, and Rasmussen has Trump up one in Utah with an МОЕ of four.
Clearly this race is a far tighter affair than many in the media want to let on.
"... I don't buy the left neoliberal hysteria over Trump as the scariest reactionary dude evah. I think that's just to prevent the dissatisfaction that Trump has tapped into blending with the dissatisfaction Sanders tapped into. ..."
"... And, I tend to think that strategy has been successful in keeping the left v right neoliberal monopoly of power intact. The Republicans may take a hit, but it will only result in a slight shuffling among the seats of power. The left neoliberals will keep the right neoliberal seats warm for them. ymmv ..."
"... This really is another post 9/11 moment for the chattering classes. All their claims of expertise, clear eyed analysis, logic above emotion, has come crashing down around their hysterical, emotion driven response to the current political situation. There is, at this stage, basically zero willingness among these groups to do their Job of explaining the world, all they want to achieve is a combination of political signalling and intense personal satisfaction. ..."
"... The best analyses I've read were a couple of essays from 2015 comparing Trump to Berlusconi. Those interested will need to insert 2015 into the search string to skip past the more breathless 2016 versions. The 2015 essays are largely free of tbe breathless need to stop Trump cold that mar 2016 comparisons. ..."
"... middle-class unhappy with the rapine corruption and self-serving nature of the elites. ..."
"... The problem is that Trump is an entertainer/marketer and his product is him. Van Jones remains the single best pundit on Trump because Jones understands that the elections are about stagecraft, more than politics. ..."
"... the college-educated white new middle class (professionals and managers), is approximately 30 percent of the population, but are overrepresented, at 40 percent, among Trump supporters. Not surprisingly, the median household income of Trump voters is around $70,000 annually. ..."
"... More importantly, the category "non-college educated whites" includes both wage workers and the self-employed - the traditional middle class. The Economist found that "better-paid and better-educated voters have always formed as big a part of Mr. Trump's base as those at the lower end of the scale for income and education." ..."
"... 'I don't know, so I assume' is kind of the defining characteristic of reactions to the Trump Candidacy. Maybe he will, continue with neoliberalism. Or maybe he will go full communism now, or perhaps at least anti-imperialism, as one prolific poster here repeatedly claims. It all depends on which 10% of his statements you believe are not lies, and what you project into the gap left by the rest. ..."
"... But it could equally plausibly lead to a stable regime that would have European political scientists in lively debate as to whether or not it is most accurately called fascist. ..."
"... Clearly, Trump's right-wing opposition to neoliberal trade and tax policies resonates with a minority of older, white workers, including a minority of union members." ..."
"... these sectors have experiencing declining living standards and are fearful about their children's prospects of remaining in the middle class." ..."
"... The developments of late capitalism have to do with the transition of these decisions from the elite capitalist class as such to a group of managers. These managers can not and do not go against the traditional interests of capital as such. But their decisions characteristically favor their class in ways that a traditional class analysis can not fathom, and their ideology appeals to a group variously called "professionals", "technocrats", "the 10%" etc. who more broadly control the levers of power in society. ..."
"... The managerial class operates a world system - the system of trade agreements, monetary agreements, etc. This system keeps the world economy going as it is going through the cooperation of American economists, Eurocrat bureaucratic appointees, Chinese Communist Party higher-ups, important people in the financial industry (whether bankers or at central banks), CEOs of multinationals, and even the leaders of important NGOs. These interactions are observable and not a matter of conspiracy theory. ..."
soru: "Precisely because it is not left neoliberalism versus right neoliberalism, but left
neoliberalism versus something that is:
a: worse b: a predictable consequence of neoliberalism.
I think there is something to the thesis that Trump ripped the scab off the place where Luttwak's
"perfect non-sequitur" had rubbed the skin off the connection between the tax-cut loving Republican
establishment leadership and the Republican electoral base of male reactionary ignoramuses.
But, I don't know what actual policy follows from Trump_vs_deep_state, if not Mike Pence brand right neoliberalism.
A little light flavoring of theocracy on the tax cuts in other words.
I don't buy the left neoliberal hysteria over Trump as the scariest reactionary dude evah.
I think that's just to prevent the dissatisfaction that Trump has tapped into blending with the
dissatisfaction Sanders tapped into.
And, I tend to think that strategy has been successful in keeping the left v right neoliberal
monopoly of power intact. The Republicans may take a hit, but it will only result in a slight
shuffling among the seats of power. The left neoliberals will keep the right neoliberal seats
warm for them. ymmv
" The national polls (though not so much the state polls) were off in 2012. During the closing
month of the campaign, they showed, on average, a 0.3 point Romney lead. The RAND poll [LA Times],
by contrast, showed a 3.8 point Obama lead – which was almost exactly correct."
Sean Trende throws a big bucket of salt on the LA Times poll, before getting to the accuracy
of the poll in 2012.
This really is another post 9/11 moment for the chattering classes. All their claims of expertise,
clear eyed analysis, logic above emotion, has come crashing down around their hysterical, emotion
driven response to the current political situation. There is, at this stage, basically zero willingness
among these groups to do their Job of explaining the world, all they want to achieve is a combination
of political signalling and intense personal satisfaction.
@208 I generally agree. Thanks for the link to the Nation piece. I earlier skimmed this Guardian
piece by JJ which features an extended essay from the reviewed text. John has been beating this
drum for more than a year trying to wear his two hats: partisan Dem and serious social critic.
The first serious undermines the second.
The best analyses I've read were a couple of essays from 2015 comparing Trump to Berlusconi.
Those interested will need to insert 2015 into the search string to skip past the more breathless
2016 versions. The 2015 essays are largely free of tbe breathless need to stop Trump cold that
mar 2016 comparisons.
The Judis essay marries Trump too closely to George Wallace, another populist, but critically
also a professional politician, a Democrat, and a New Dealer.
Judis has a good quote, or two, from Wallace that definitely fit the Tea Party/Silent Majority
profile – rule followers, middle-class unhappy with the rapine corruption and self-serving
nature of the elites.
The problem is that Trump is an entertainer/marketer and his product is him. Van Jones
remains the single best pundit on Trump because Jones understands that the elections are about
stagecraft, more than politics. Both the Nation and the Guardian piece function as much as
thinly disguised GOTV arguments as academic assessments of the Trump phenomena.
What both get right, along with many others, is that removing Trump from the equation removes
nothing from the masses of ordinary folks who a/will not apologize for who they are and in fact
celebrate themselves and their values b/aren't interested in the approval, or the explications
of elites c/are completely determined to burn down this mess irrespective of whether Trump is
elected, or not.
Thanks for the link kidneystones, I'll check.it out. I'm working through Judis' book at the moment
and find larger parts, of it convincing.
Who. Is van Jones? Is it this lad?
…while approximately 55 percent of Trump supporters do not have a bachelor's degree, this
demographic makes up approximately 70 percent of the US population - they are underrepresented
among Trump voters. However, the college-educated white new middle class (professionals
and managers), is approximately 30 percent of the population, but are overrepresented, at 40
percent, among Trump supporters. Not surprisingly, the median household income of Trump voters
is around $70,000 annually.
More importantly, the category "non-college educated whites" includes both wage workers
and the self-employed - the traditional middle class. The Economist found that "better-paid
and better-educated voters have always formed as big a part of Mr. Trump's base as those at
the lower end of the scale for income and education."
A systematic review of Gallup polling data demonstrates, again, that most Trump supporters
are part of the traditional middle class (self-employed) and those sectors of the new middle
class (supervisors) who do not require college degrees. They tend to live in "white enclaves"…
Kidney stones I'll check out the link above when by a laptop.
Personally I don't know how j feel about the managerial class argument (I still have to read
both Hayes and Frank ) but it's becoming quite clear that large parts of the left and right "establishment"
(which is just a shorthand way of saying those with high profile journalistic, political and cultural
positions) are going out of their way to not acknowledge what is right in from of their eyes,
that there are political and economic (as well as racial and cultural) reasons behind the rise
of right wing populism.
> But, I don't know what actual policy follows from Trump_vs_deep_state, if not Mike Pence brand right neoliberalism.
'I don't know, so I assume' is kind of the defining characteristic of reactions to the
Trump Candidacy. Maybe he will, continue with neoliberalism. Or maybe he will go full communism
now, or perhaps at least anti-imperialism, as one prolific poster here repeatedly claims. It all
depends on which 10% of his statements you believe are not lies, and what you project into the
gap left by the rest.
If he was elected, things would be different from what they are, or at least are understood
to be. And things being different, they would continue to be so, taking a different path from
the continuation of a status quo. My personal evidence-free assumption is that this would likely
take the nature of a decade-long crisis that would end with a return to a weakened version of
the pre-Trump regime. A pale echo of the rosy days of Obama, Bush and Clinton.
But it could equally plausibly lead to a stable regime that would have European political
scientists in lively debate as to whether or not it is most accurately called fascist.
For those not wager to read the link, here are the bits engels cut. From the beginning.
"Who are Trump's voters? Despite claims that he has won the "white working class," the vast
majority of Trump's supporters, like those of the Tea Party, are drawn from the traditional
and new middle classes, especially the older, white male and less well-off strata of these
classes. Clearly, Trump's right-wing opposition to neoliberal trade and tax policies resonates
with a minority of older, white workers, including a minority of union members."
And after enclave
"isolated from immigrants and other people of color, have worse health than the average
US resident, and are experiencing low rates of intergenerational mobility. While not directly
affected either by the decline of industry in the Midwest or by immigration, these sectors
have experiencing declining living standards and are fearful about their children's prospects
of remaining in the middle class."
Roman, I already said I broadly agreed with you (is it the case you literally zzzzzzzzzzz)- I'm
delighted that via Luttwak you're groping towards a class analysis of fascism that has been standard
on the left since at least Trotsky…
Ronan(rf): "Personally I don't know how j feel about the managerial class argument"
There are certain decision makers who make all of the important decisions, or who at least
get a tremendously inordinate amount of power over those decisions. If they aren't making a decision
in a positive sense, their power often controls decisions in a negative sense by restricting the
available choices to those that are all acceptable to them.
The developments of late capitalism have to do with the transition of these decisions from
the elite capitalist class as such to a group of managers. These managers can not and do not go
against the traditional interests of capital as such. But their decisions characteristically favor
their class in ways that a traditional class analysis can not fathom, and their ideology appeals
to a group variously called "professionals", "technocrats", "the 10%" etc. who more broadly control
the levers of power in society.
The managerial class operates a world system - the system of trade agreements, monetary
agreements, etc. This system keeps the world economy going as it is going through the cooperation
of American economists, Eurocrat bureaucratic appointees, Chinese Communist Party higher-ups,
important people in the financial industry (whether bankers or at central banks), CEOs of multinationals,
and even the leaders of important NGOs. These interactions are observable and not a matter of
conspiracy theory.
"One strength of Müller book is that he spends some time parrying bad arguments about populism,
which have flourished in a variety of intellectually useless and actively pernicious think pieces.
He is especially hard on the two tics of liberal commentary heard on America's coasts: psychologizing
populism as a symptom of resentment or the "authoritarian personality," and dismissing populists
as irresponsible rubes who don't understand the tenets of sound economic and social policy.
These criticisms, Müller points out, are really refusals to take political disagreement seriously-which,
after all, is precisely the political sin of antipluralists like Trump. A major problem with the
horrified response to Trump's campaign-however appropriate in other respects-has been its self-serving
imprecision. Whether by sweeping the very different Sanders campaign into the same all-inclusive
condemnation of "irresponsible" and "angry" movements, or by lumping Trump's views on trade policy
(a legitimate argument to make in a democratic contest) with his xenophobia (which should be considered
beyond the pale), the liberal response has often created cartoons out of both left and right populism.
It also misses, in Müller's view, what is so dangerous about populism's discontents."
"... It's coastal urban elites, many of whom went to the same schools, often Ivy league talking about all the others who didn't. It's far from surprising they're so profoundly out of touch and ignorant. ..."
"... Trump enjoys/has enjoyed substantially better support among African-Americans than most Republican candidates. His populism and calls for border controls is at least partially designed to appeal to minorities on economic terms. ..."
"... Clinton meets impartial press to discuss repackaging Hillary over cocktails hosted by Diane Sawyer: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2016/10/your-moral-and-380.html ..."
@226 It's coastal urban elites, many of whom went to the same schools, often Ivy league talking
about all the others who didn't. It's far from surprising they're so profoundly out of touch and
ignorant.
@227 If you're referring to me, and that's a big if, I can't remember using the term anti-imperialist
ever (not that I've never said it, I just can't imagine why I would). As I've tried to make clear,
I supported Sanders, can't support Hillary for reasons I've made quite clear and regard Trump
as a clue free buffoon. To suggest he's 'lying' suggests he's actually thought through his 'arguments'
when he's almost always riffing. I hope he wins.
@228 Yes. But Trump enjoys/has enjoyed substantially better support among African-Americans
than most Republican candidates. His populism and calls for border controls is at least partially
designed to appeal to minorities on economic terms.
That's what Jones pointed out a long time ago. There's a substantial subset of African-American
voters who feel they've been extremely badly served despite consistently supporting Democrats.
Jones claims that Trump wins if 3/20 succumb to the siren song of Trump's populist boasts.
"... "deep state" - the Washington-Wall-Street-Silicon-Valley Establishment - is a far greater threat to liberty than you think ..."
"... Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. ..."
"... Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." ..."
Steve Sailer links to this
unsettling
essay by former career Congressional staffer Mike Lofgren, who says the "deep state" - the
Washington-Wall-Street-Silicon-Valley Establishment - is a far greater threat to liberty than you
think. The partisan rancor and gridlock in Washington conceals a more fundamental and pervasive
agreement.
Excerpts:
These are not isolated instances of a contradiction; they have been so pervasive that they
tend to be disregarded as background noise. During the time in 2011 when political warfare over
the debt ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United
States government somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi's regime in Libya,
and, when the instability created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert
assistance to French intervention there. At a time when there was heated debate about continuing
meat inspections and civilian air traffic control because of the budget crisis, our government
was somehow able to commit $115 millionto keeping a civil war going in Syria and to pay
at least
£100m to the United Kingdom's Government Communications Headquarters to buy influence over
and access to that country's intelligence. Since 2007, two bridges carrying interstate highways
have collapsed due to inadequate maintenance of infrastructure, one killing 13 people. During
that same period of time, the government spent
$1.7 billion constructing a building in Utah that is the size of 17 football fields. This
mammoth structure is intended to allow the National Security Agency to store a
yottabyte of information, the largest numerical designator computer scientists have coined.
A yottabyte is equal to 500 quintillion pages of text. They need that much storage to archive
every single trace of your electronic life.
Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end
of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country
according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled
by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not
an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain
sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately
termed an "establishment." All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed
to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global
reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither
omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister
aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such
as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State's protectiveness
towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent
ineptitude.
More:
Washington is the most important node of the Deep State that has taken over America, but it
is not the only one. Invisible threads of money and ambition connect the town to other nodes.
One is Wall Street, which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating
as a diversionary marionette theater. Should the politicians forget their lines and threaten the
status quo, Wall Street floods the town with cash and lawyers to help the hired hands remember
their own best interests. The executives of the financial giants even have de facto criminal immunity.
On March 6, 2013, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Attorney General Eric Holder stated the following: "I am concerned that the size of some of
these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when
we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will
have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy." This, from the
chief law enforcement officer of a justice system that has practically
abolished the constitutional right to
trial for poorer defendants charged with certain crimes. It is not too much to say that Wall
Street may be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies, if for no other reason
than that it has the money to reward government operatives with a second career that is lucrative
beyond the dreams of avarice - certainly beyond the dreams of a salaried government employee.
[3]
The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities
we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert
Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others. Not all the traffic
involves persons connected with the purely financial operations of the government: In 2013, General
David Petraeus
joined KKR (formerly Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) of 9 West 57th Street, New York, a private equity
firm with $62.3 billion in assets. KKR specializes in management buyouts and leveraged finance.
General Petraeus' expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however,
is a known and valued commodity. Unlike Cincinnatus, the military commanders of the Deep State
do not take up the plow once they lay down the sword. Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident
senior fellow at theBelfer
Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course, the
preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy.
Lofgren goes on to say that Silicon Valley is a node of the Deep State too, and that despite the
protestations of its chieftains against NSA spying, it's a vital part of the Deep State's apparatus.
More:
The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war
on terrorism, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of
a plutocratic social structure and political dysfunction. Washington is the headquarters of the
Deep State, and its time in the sun as a rival to Rome, Constantinople or London may be term-limited
by its overweening sense of self-importance and its habit, as Winwood Reade said of Rome, to "live
upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face."
... I would love to see a study comparing the press coverage from 9/11 leading up to the Iraq War
with press coverage of the gay marriage issue from about 2006 till today. Specifically, I'd be curious
to know about how thoroughly the media covered the cases against the policies that the Deep State
and the Shallow State decided should prevail. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy here, not at all. I'm
only thinking back to how it seemed so obvious to me in 2002 that we should go to war with Iraq,
so perfectly clear that the only people who opposed it were fools or villains. The same consensus
has emerged around same-sex marriage. I know how overwhelmingly the news media have believed this
for some time, such that many American journalists simply cannot conceive that anyone against same-sex
marriage is anything other than a fool or a villain. Again, this isn't a conspiracy; it's in the
nature of the thing. Lofgren:
Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist
Irving L. Janis called
"groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers.
This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating
biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the
town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has
to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe
of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always
going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something
when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the ordinariness
of it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time. Government
life is typically not some vignette from an Allen Drury novel about intrigue under the
Capitol dome. Sitting and staring at the clock on the off-white office wall when it's 11:00 in
the evening and you are vowing never, ever to eat another piece of takeout pizza in your life
is not an experience that summons the higher literary instincts of a would-be memoirist. After
a while, a functionary of the state begins to hear things that, in another context, would be quite
remarkable, or at least noteworthy, and yet that simply bounce off one's consciousness like pebbles
off steel plate: "You mean the
number of terrorist groups we are fighting is classified?" No wonder so few people are whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious
retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes: Unless one is blessed with imagination and a fine
sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness of one's surroundings is easy. To paraphrase
the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn't know all that I knew, at least until I had had a couple
of years away from the government to reflect upon it.
When all you know is the people who surround you in your professional class bubble and your social
circles, you can think the whole world agrees with you, or should. It's probably not a coincidence
that the American media elite live, work, and socialize in New York and Washington, the two cities
that were attacked on 9/11, and whose elites - political, military, financial - were so genuinely
traumatized by the events.
Anyway, that's just a small part of it, about how the elite media manufacture consent. Here's
a final quote, one from
the Moyers interview with Lofgren:
BILL MOYERS: If, as you write, the ideology of the Deep State is not democrat
or republican, not left or right, what is it?
MIKE LOFGREN: It's an ideology. I just don't think we've named it. It's a
kind of corporatism. Now, the actors in this drama tend to steer clear of social issues. They
pretend to be merrily neutral servants of the state, giving the best advice possible on national
security or financial matters. But they hold a very deep ideology of the Washington consensus
at home, which is deregulation, outsourcing, de-industrialization and financialization. And they
believe in American exceptionalism abroad, which is boots on the ground everywhere, it's our right
to meddle everywhere in the world. And the result of that is perpetual war.
This can't last. We'd better hope it can't last. And we'd better hope it unwinds peacefully.
He missed the foreign policy aspect of Hillary vs Trump candidacy. A vote for Hillary is vote for
continuation of wars of expansion of neoliberal empire.
Notable quotes:
"... reforms that political leaders promised would ensure prosperity for all – such as trade and financial liberalization – have not delivered. Far from it. And those whose standard of living has stagnated or declined have reached a simple conclusion: America's political leaders either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying (or both). ..."
"... Thus, many Americans feel buffeted by forces outside their control, leading to outcomes that are distinctly unfair. Long-standing assumptions – that America is a land of opportunity and that each generation will be better off than the last – have been called into question. The global financial crisis may have represented a turning point for many voters: their government saved the rich bankers who had brought the US to the brink of ruin, while seemingly doing almost nothing for the millions of ordinary Americans who lost their jobs and homes. The system not only produced unfair results, but seemed rigged to do so. ..."
"... Support for Trump is based, at least partly, on the widespread anger stemming from that loss of trust in government. ..."
"... The simplistic neo-liberal market-fundamentalist theories that have shaped so much economic policy during the last four decades are badly misleading, with GDP growth coming at the price of soaring inequality. Trickle-down economics hasn't and won't work. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The Thatcher-Reagan "revolution," which rewrote the rules and restructured markets for the benefit of those at the top, succeeded all too well in increasing inequality, but utterly failed in its mission to increase growth. ..."
But several underlying factors also appear to have contributed to the closeness of the race. For
starters, many Americans are economically worse off than they were a quarter-century ago. The median
income of full-time male employees is lower than it was 42 years ago, and it is increasingly difficult
for those with limited education to get a full-time job that pays decent wages.
Indeed, real (inflation-adjusted) wages at the bottom of the income distribution are roughly where
they were 60 years ago. So it is no surprise that Trump finds a large, receptive audience when he
says the state of the economy is rotten. But Trump is wrong both about the diagnosis and the prescription.
The US economy as a whole has done well for the last six decades: GDP has increased nearly six-fold.
But the fruits of that growth have gone to a relatively few at the top – people like Trump, owing
partly to massive tax cuts that he would extend and deepen.
At the same time, reforms that political leaders promised would ensure prosperity for all – such
as trade and financial liberalization – have not delivered. Far from it. And those whose standard
of living has stagnated or declined have reached a simple conclusion: America's political leaders
either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying (or both).
Trump wants to blame all of America's problems on trade and immigration. He's wrong. The US would
have faced deindustrialization even without freer trade: global employment in manufacturing has been
declining, with productivity gains exceeding demand growth.
Where the trade agreements failed, it was not because the US was outsmarted by its trading partners;
it was because the US trade agenda was shaped by corporate interests. America's companies have done
well, and it is the Republicans who have blocked efforts to ensure that Americans made worse off
by trade agreements would share the benefits.
Thus, many Americans feel buffeted by forces outside their control, leading to outcomes that are
distinctly unfair. Long-standing assumptions – that America is a land of opportunity and that each
generation will be better off than the last – have been called into question. The global financial
crisis may have represented a turning point for many voters: their government saved the rich bankers
who had brought the US to the brink of ruin, while seemingly doing almost nothing for the millions
of ordinary Americans who lost their jobs and homes. The system not only produced unfair results,
but seemed rigged to do so.
Support for Trump is based, at least partly, on the widespread anger stemming from that loss of
trust in government. But Trump's proposed policies would make a bad situation much worse. Surely,
another dose of trickle-down economics of the kind he promises, with tax cuts aimed almost entirely
at rich Americans and corporations, would produce results no better than the last time they were
tried.
In fact, launching a trade war with China, Mexico, and other US trading partners, as Trump promises,
would make all Americans poorer and create new impediments to the global cooperation needed to address
critical global problems like the Islamic State, global terrorism, and climate change. Using money
that could be invested in technology, education, or infrastructure to build a wall between the US
and Mexico is a twofer in terms of wasting resources.
There are two messages US political elites should be hearing. The simplistic neo-liberal market-fundamentalist
theories that have shaped so much economic policy during the last four decades are badly misleading,
with GDP growth coming at the price of soaring inequality. Trickle-down economics hasn't and won't
work. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The Thatcher-Reagan "revolution," which rewrote the rules
and restructured markets for the benefit of those at the top, succeeded all too well in increasing
inequality, but utterly failed in its mission to increase growth.
This leads to the second message: we need to rewrite the rules of the economy once again, this
time to ensure that ordinary citizens benefit. Politicians in the US and elsewhere who ignore this
lesson will be held accountable. Change entails risk. But the Trump phenomenon – and more than a
few similar political developments in Europe – has revealed the far greater risks entailed by failing
to heed this message: societies divided, democracies undermined, and economies weakened.
SharkBit
Oct 14, 2016 9:20 AM
To all Sanders supporters. Your hero sold out to the devil. Your party is
corrupt to the core. If you care about America, voting Trump is the only way out
of this Shit Show. Otherwise, we all die as that corrupt bitch of your party is
crazy enough to take the USA into WWIII. You may not like Trump but he is nothing
compared to the Clinton Crime Family and all its globalist tenacles.
"... the "Ephemeral Zone" concentrated on the coasts, runs largely on digits and images, the movement of software, media and financial transactions. It produces increasingly little in the way of food, fiber, energy and fewer and fewer manufactured goods. The Ephemeral sectors dominate ultra-blue states such as New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Connecticut. ..."
"... Extending from the Appalachians to the Rockies, this heartland economy relies on tangible goods production. It now encompasses both the traditional Midwest manufacturing regions, and the new industrial areas of Texas, the Southeast and the Intermountain West. ..."
"... In generally purple states like Missouri, Ohio and Iowa, where manufacturing is key, Trump still leads ..."
"... Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow at Chapman University and the executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His latest book is "The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us." ..."
The current elections reflects an increasingly stark conflict between two very different American
economies: the "Ephemeral Zone" in coastal states vs New Heartland which still produces tabgible
goods
"In this disgusting election, dominated by the personal and the petty, the importance of the
nation's economic geography has been widely ignored. Yet if you look at the Electoral College
map, the correlation between politics and economics is quite stark, with one economy tilting decisively
toward Trump and more generally to Republicans, the other toward Hillary Clinton and her Democratic
allies"
This reflects an increasingly stark conflict between two very different American economies.
One, the "Ephemeral Zone" concentrated on the coasts, runs largely on digits and images, the
movement of software, media and financial transactions. It produces increasingly little in the
way of food, fiber, energy and fewer and fewer manufactured goods. The Ephemeral sectors dominate
ultra-blue states such as New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, and
Connecticut.
The other America constitutes, as economic historian Michael Lind notes in a forthcoming paper
for the Center for Opportunity Urbanism, the "New Heartland." Extending from the Appalachians
to the Rockies, this heartland economy relies on tangible goods production. It now encompasses
both the traditional Midwest manufacturing regions, and the new industrial areas of Texas, the
Southeast and the Intermountain West.
Contrary to the notions of the Ephemerals, the New Heartland is not populated by Neanderthals.
This region employs much of the nation's engineering talent, but does so in conjunction with the
creation of real goods rather than clicks. Its industries have achieved generally more rapid productivity
gains than their rivals in the services sector. To some extent, energy and food producers may
have outdone themselves and, since they operate in a globally competitive market, their prices
and profits are suffering.
Despite deep misgivings about the character of Donald Trump, these economic interests have
led most Heartland voters somewhat toward the New York poseur, and they are aligning themselves
even more to down-ticket GOP candidates. In generally purple states like Missouri, Ohio and
Iowa, where manufacturing is key, Trump still leads -at least he was before the latest spate
of Trump crudeness was revealed, this time regarding women.
... ... ....
The biggest national crisis in our history underscored this clash of competing economic interests.
Although the galvanizing issue on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line was slavery, the Civil War
was also a war, as Karl Marx suggested, of competing economic visions: the agrarian, slave-fueled
economy of the South vs. the rapidly industrializing Northeast and Midwest.
... ... ....
In the past, Democrats competed in the Heartland and backed its key industries. Lyndon Johnson
was a proud promoter of oil interests;
Robert Byrd
never saw a coal mine he didn't like for all but the end of his career. Powerful industrial
unions tied the Democrats to the production economy. Now those
voters feel abandoned by their own party, and even are dismissed as "
deplorables "
Increasingly few Heartland Democrats, outside of some Great Lakes states, win local elections.
In the vast territory between Northeast and the West Coast,
Democrats control just one state legislature, the financial basket case known as Illinois.
For their part, Republicans are becoming extinct in the Ephemeral states, a process hastened
by the growing concentration of
media on the true-blue coasts.
Wall Street , Silicon Valley and Hollywood have been drifting leftward for a generation, and
Trump has accelerated this movement. Joined by the largely minority urban working and dependent
classes, progressives now have a lock on the Northeast and the West Coast.
... ... ...
In the process, the GOP, to the horror of many of its grandees and most entrenched interests,
is becoming transformed. It is becoming something of a de facto populist party, based
in the New Heartland, while the Democrats remain the voice of the
coastal oligarchies who almost without exception back Hillary.
... ... ...
But don't count the New Heartland, or the GOP, out. Once Trump is gone, there will be enough political
will and money to mount a counter-offensive against the Ephemerals. The new War Between the States
will not end in November. It will have hardly just begun. Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow
at Chapman University and the executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His latest
book is "The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us."
"... I have never before seen the press take sides like they did this year, openly and even gleefully bad-mouthing candidates who did not meet with their approval. ..."
"... This shocked me when I first noticed it. It felt like the news stories went out of their way to mock Sanders or to twist his words, while the op-ed pages, which of course don't pretend to be balanced, seemed to be of one voice in denouncing my candidate. ..."
"... I propose that we look into this matter methodically, and that we do so by examining Sanders-related opinion columns in a single publication: the Washington Post, ..."
"... its practitioners have never aimed to be nonpartisan. They do not, therefore, show media bias in the traditional sense. But maybe the traditional definition needs to be updated. We live in an era of reflexive opinionating and quasi opinionating, and we derive much of our information about the world from websites that have themselves blurred the distinction between reporting and commentary, or obliterated it completely. ..."
Neoliberal press serves its neoliberal paymasters. As simple of that. There is no even hint of
Us press being press. In certain aspects US jounalists are more "solgers of the Party" then their
colleagues in the Brezhnev time Pravda and Izvesia.
For once, a politician like Sanders seemed to have a chance with the public. He won a
stunning victory over Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary, and despite his
advanced age and avuncular finger-wagging, he was wildly popular among young voters.
Eventually he was flattened by the Clinton juggernaut, of course, but Sanders managed
to stay competitive almost all the way to the California primary in June.
His
chances with the prestige press were considerably more limited. Before we go into
details here, let me confess: I was a Sanders voter, and even interviewed him back in
2014, so perhaps I am naturally inclined to find fault in others' reporting on his
candidacy. Perhaps it was the very particular media diet I was on in early 2016,
which consisted of daily megadoses of the New York Times and the Washington Post and
almost nothing else. Even so,
I have never before seen the press take sides like
they did this year, openly and even gleefully bad-mouthing candidates who did not
meet with their approval.
This shocked me when I first noticed it. It felt like the news stories went
out of their way to mock Sanders or to twist his words, while the op-ed pages, which
of course don't pretend to be balanced, seemed to be of one voice in denouncing my
candidate.
A
New York Times
article greeted the Sanders campaign in
December by announcing that the public had moved away from his signature issue of the
crumbling middle class. "Americans are more anxious about terrorism than income
inequality," the paper declared-nice try, liberal, and thanks for playing. In March,
the
Times
was caught making a number of post-publication tweaks to a news
story about the senator, changing what had been a sunny tale of his legislative
victories into a darker account of his outrageous proposals. When Sanders was finally
defeated in June, the same paper waved him goodbye with a bedtime-for-Grandpa
headline,
hillary
clinton made history, but bernie sanders stubbornly ignored it.
I propose that we look into this matter methodically, and that we do so by
examining Sanders-related opinion columns in a single publication: the
Washington
Post,
the conscience of the nation's political class and one of America's few
remaining first-rate news organizations.
I admire the
Post
's
investigative and beat reporting. What I will focus on here, however, are pieces
published between January and May 2016 on the paper's editorial and op-ed pages, as
well as on its many blogs. Now, editorials and blog posts are obviously not the same
thing as news stories: punditry is my subject here, and
its practitioners have
never aimed to be nonpartisan. They do not, therefore, show media bias in the
traditional sense. But maybe the traditional definition needs to be updated. We live
in an era of reflexive opinionating and quasi opinionating, and we derive much of our
information about the world from websites that have themselves blurred the
distinction between reporting and commentary, or obliterated it completely.
For
many of us, this ungainly hybrid
is
the news. What matters, in any case, is
that all the pieces I review here, whether they appeared in pixels or in print, bear
the imprimatur of the
Washington Post,
the publication that defines the
limits of the permissible in the capital city.
... ... ...
On January 27, with the Iowa caucuses just days away, Dana Milbank nailed it with a
headline:
nominating sanders would be insane
. After promising that he adored the Vermont
senator, he cautioned his readers that "socialists don't win national elections in
the United States." The next day, the paper's editorial board chimed in with
a campaign full of
fiction
, in which they branded Sanders as a kind of flimflam artist: "Mr.
Sanders is not a brave truth-teller. He is a politician selling his own brand of
fiction to a slice of the country that eagerly wants to buy it."
Stung by the
Post
's trolling, Bernie Sanders fired back-which in turn allowed no fewer than
three of the paper's writers to report on the conflict between the candidate and
their employer as a bona fide news item. Sensing weakness, the editorial board came
back the next morning with yet another kidney punch, this one headlined
the real problem
with mr. sanders
. By now, you can guess what that problem was: his ideas
weren't practical, and besides, he still had "no plausible plan for plugging looming
deficits as the population ages."
... ... ...
After the previous week's lesson about Glass
–
Steagall, the editorial board
now instructed politicians to
stop reviling tarp
-i.e.,
the Wall Street bailouts with which the Bush and Obama Administrations tried to halt
the financial crisis. The bailouts had been controversial, the paper acknowledged,
but they were also bipartisan, and opposing or questioning them in the Sanders manner
was hereby declared anathema. After all, the editorial board intoned:
Contrary to much rhetoric, Wall Street banks and bankers still took losses and
suffered upheaval, despite the bailout-but TARP helped limit the collateral damage
that Main Street suffered from all of that. If not for the ingenuity of the
executive branch officials who designed and carried out the program, and the
responsibility of the legislators who approved it, the United States would be in
much worse shape economically.
As a brief history of the financial crisis and the bailout, this is absurd. It is
true that bailing out Wall Street was probably better than doing absolutely nothing,
but saying this ignores the many other options that were available to public
officials had they shown any real ingenuity in holding institutions accountable. All
the Wall Street banks that existed at the time of TARP are flourishing to this day,
since the government moved heaven and earth to spare them the consequences of the
toxic securities they had issued and the lousy mortgage bets they made. The big banks
were "made whole," as the saying goes. Main Street banks, meanwhile, died off by the
hundreds in 2009 and 2010. And average home owners, of course, got no comparable
bailout. Instead, Main Street America saw trillions in household wealth disappear; it
entered into a prolonged recession, with towering unemployment, increasing
inequality, and other effects that linger to this day. There has never been a TARP
for the rest of us.
... ... ...
Charles Krauthammer went into action on January 29, too, cautioning the Democrats that they
"would be risking a November electoral disaster of historic dimensions" should they nominate
Sanders-cynical advice that seems even more poisonous today, as scandal after scandal engulfs the
Democratic candidate that so many Post pundits favored.
... ... ...
The Iowa caucuses came the next day, and Stephen Stromberg was at the keyboard to identify the
"three delusions" that supposedly animated the campaigns of Sanders and the Republican Ted Cruz
alike. Namely: they had abandoned the "center," they believed that things were bad in the United
States, and they perceived an epidemic of corruption-in Sanders's case, corruption via
billionaires and campaign contributions. Delusions all.
... ... ...
On and on it went, for month after month, a steady drumbeat of denunciation. The paper hit
every possible anti-Sanders note, from the driest kind of math-based policy reproach to the
lowest sort of nerd-shaming-from his inexcusable failure to embrace taxes on soda pop to his
awkward gesticulating during a debate with Hillary Clinton ("an unrelenting hand jive," wrote
Post dance critic Sarah L. Kaufman, "that was missing only an upright bass and a plunky piano").
The paper's piling-up of the senator's faults grew increasingly long and complicated. Soon after
Sanders won the New Hampshire primary, the editorial board denounced him and Trump both as
"unacceptable leaders" who proposed "simple-sounding" solutions. Sanders used the plutocracy as a
"convenient scapegoat." He was hostile to nuclear power. He didn't have a specific recipe for
breaking up the big banks. He attacked trade deals with "bogus numbers that defy the overwhelming
consensus among economists." This last charge was a particular favorite of Post pundits: David
Ignatius and Charles Lane both scolded the candidate for putting prosperity at risk by
threatening our trade deals. Meanwhile, Charles Krauthammer grew so despondent over the meager
2016 options that he actually pined for the lost days of the Bill Clinton presidency, when
America was tough on crime, when welfare was being reformed, and when free trade was accorded its
proper respect.
... ... ...
The danger of Trump became an overwhelming fear as primary season drew to a close, and it
redoubled the resentment toward Sanders. By complaining about mistreatment from the Democratic
apparatus, the senator was supposedly weakening the party before its coming showdown with the
billionaire blowhard. This matter, like so many others, found columnists and bloggers and op-ed
panjandrums in solemn agreement. Even Eugene Robinson, who had stayed fairly neutral through most
of the primary season, piled on in a May 20 piece, blaming Sanders and his noisy horde for
"deliberately stoking anger and a sense of grievance-less against Clinton than the party itself,"
actions that "could put Trump in the White House." By then, the paper had buttressed its usual
cast of pundits with heavy hitters from outside its own peculiar ecosystem. In something of a
journalistic coup, the Post opened its blog pages in April to Jeffrey R. Immelt, the CEO of
General Electric, so that he, too, could join in the chorus of denunciation aimed at the senator
from Vermont. Comfort the comfortable, I suppose-and while you're at it, be sure to afflict the
afflicted.
... ... ...
It should be noted that there were some important exceptions to what I have
described. The paper's blogs, for instance, published regular pieces by Sanders
sympathizers like Katrina vanden Heuvel and the cartoonist Tom Toles. (The blogs also
featured the efforts of a few really persistent Clinton haters.) The Sunday Outlook
section once featured a pro-Sanders essay by none other than Ralph Nader, a kind of
demon figure and clay pigeon for many of the paper's commentators. But readers of the
editorial pages had to wait until May 26 to see a really full-throated essay
supporting Sanders's legislative proposals. Penned by Jeffrey Sachs, the eminent
economist and professor at Columbia University, it insisted that virtually all the
previous debate on the subject had been irrelevant, because standard economic models
did not take into account the sort of large-scale reforms that Sanders was
advocating:
It's been decades since the United States had a progressive economic strategy,
and mainstream economists have forgotten what one can deliver. In fact, Sanders's
recipes are supported by overwhelming evidence-notably from countries that already
follow the policies he advocates. On health care, growth and income inequality,
Sanders wins the policy debate hands down.
It was a striking departure from what nearly every opinionator had been saying for
the preceding six months. Too bad it came just eleven days before the
Post,
following the lead of the Associated Press, declared Hillary Clinton to be the
preemptive winner of the Democratic nomination.
What can we learn from reviewing one newspaper's lopsided editorial treatment of a left-wing
presidential candidate?
For one thing, we learn that the Washington Post, that gallant defender of a free press, that
bold bringer-down of presidents, has a real problem with some types of political advocacy.
Certain ideas, when voiced by certain people, are not merely debatable or incorrect or misguided,
in the paper's view: they are inadmissible. The ideas themselves might seem healthy, they might
have a long and distinguished history, they might be commonplace in other lands. Nevertheless,
when voiced by the people in question, they become damaging.
... ... ...
Clinging to this so-called pragmatism is also professionally self-serving. If "realism" is
recognized as the ultimate trump card in American politics, it automatically prioritizes the
thoughts and observations of the realism experts-also known as the Washington Post and its
brother institutions of insider knowledge and professional policy practicality. Realism is what
these organizations deal in; if you want it, you must come to them. Legitimacy is quite literally
their property. They dole it out as they see fit.
There is the admiration for consensus, the worship of pragmatism and bipartisanship, the
contempt for populist outcry, the repeated equating of dissent with partisan disloyalty. And
think of the specific policy pratfalls: the cheers for TARP, the jeers aimed at bank regulation,
the dismissal of single-payer health care as a preposterous dream.
This stuff is not mysterious. We can easily identify the political orientation behind it from one
of the very first pages of the Roger Tory Peterson Field Guide to the Ideologies. This is common
Seaboard Centrism, its markings of complacency and smugness as distinctive as ever, its habitat
the familiar Beltway precincts of comfort and exclusivity. Whether you encounter it during a
recession or a bull market, its call is the same: it reassures us that the experts who head up
our system of government have everything well under control.
It is, of course, an ideology of the professional class, of sound-minded East Coast strivers,
fresh out of Princeton or Harvard, eagerly quoting as "authorities" their peers in the other
professions, whether economists at MIT or analysts at Credit Suisse or political scientists at
Brookings. Above all, this is an insider's ideology; a way of thinking that comes from a place of
economic security and takes a view of the common people that is distinctly patrician.
Clinton were to
take some damage from newly released emails. If news shifted back to a
prolonged focus on Clinton's emails
and
she had another health issue
and
polls underestimated Trump's support, then he might win the
election. In that way, he has to run an "and" campaign."
UPDATE "Trump's path to the presidency now hinges on these four states" [
McClatchy
].
"Trump is essentially focused on four states: North Carolina, Florida, Ohio
and Pennsylvania. Based of RealClearPolitics' electoral map, that means
Trump will almost certainly need to win all four in order to reach 270
electoral votes. According to the latest polls, he trails Clinton in all
four of those states, though often within the margin of error."
UPDATE "Over 500,000 Votes Have Already Been Cast in 2016 Presidential
Election" [
NBC
].
"In the seven battleground states below [four of which are listed
above]–where campaigns are especially focused on mobilizing voters– 330,980
early votes have now been cast." Hmm. The Democrats were encouraging early
voting, IIRC.
Wisconsin: "Trump needs more Republican voters, particularly in Waukesha
County, a heavily Republican suburb just west of Milwaukee. Waukesha
delivered 161,567 votes to Mitt Romney in 2012, a 35-point margin of victory
over Obama. Trump isn't anywhere near that right now" [
RealClearPolitics
].
Recall we awarded WI to Trump in last week's path to victory exercise, based
on institutional factors. Meanwhile: "'Clinton is getting about 55 percent
in Dane County,' said [Charles Franklin, professor of law and public policy
and director of the Marquette Law School Poll], 'and she should be getting
65 to 70 percent. So that's the effect of young people who are not attracted
to her, or who are pining away for Sanders or gravitating to [Gary] Johnson
and, to a lesser extent, [Jill] Stein."
Ohio: "How Republican Rob Portman May Derail the Trump Train in Ohio" [
Bloomberg
].
"Portman had long ago quietly placed a bet against his party's presidential
prospects. Over the past year and a half, he has assiduously assembled an
organization that would keep him from being reliant on the Ohio Republican
Party, the Republican National Committee, or its presidential nominee to
identify and mobilize his supporters. As a result he finds himself today
with a broader coalition, often motivated by local issues, and much less
dependent on Trump's supporters-and on the RNC's largesse-than other
Republican senators on the ballot this season. Portman had quietly grown so
self-sufficient that, in an inversion of the natural order, by the time he
rescinded his support, he already controlled Trump's fate." Sounds to me
like the left could learn from this.
"Technocratic for the people: What Hillary Clinton gets wrong about
Bernie Sanders' political revolution" [Conor Lynch,
Salon
]. "But what exactly has modern technocratic liberalism achieved?
Some of the Democratic [sic] Party's most important achievements - most
notably the Affordable Care Act - are also some of the most jumbled,
bureaucratic and corporate-friendly pieces of legislation in modern history…
A fine example of the technocratic liberal is MIT professor and Obamacare
architect Jonathan Gruber, who said in 2014 that 'Lack of transparency is a
huge political advantage,' and that 'the stupidity of the American voter'
was critical for ACA to pass."
"... the "Ephemeral Zone" concentrated on the coasts, runs largely on digits and images, the movement of software, media and financial transactions. It produces increasingly little in the way of food, fiber, energy and fewer and fewer manufactured goods. The Ephemeral sectors dominate ultra-blue states such as New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Connecticut. ..."
"... Extending from the Appalachians to the Rockies, this heartland economy relies on tangible goods production. It now encompasses both the traditional Midwest manufacturing regions, and the new industrial areas of Texas, the Southeast and the Intermountain West. ..."
"... In generally purple states like Missouri, Ohio and Iowa, where manufacturing is key, Trump still leads ..."
"... Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow at Chapman University and the executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His latest book is "The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us." ..."
The current elections reflects an increasingly stark conflict between two very different American
economies: the "Ephemeral Zone" in coastal states vs New Heartland which still produces tabgible
goods
"In this disgusting election, dominated by the personal and the petty, the importance of the
nation's economic geography has been widely ignored. Yet if you look at the Electoral College
map, the correlation between politics and economics is quite stark, with one economy tilting decisively
toward Trump and more generally to Republicans, the other toward Hillary Clinton and her Democratic
allies"
This reflects an increasingly stark conflict between two very different American economies.
One, the "Ephemeral Zone" concentrated on the coasts, runs largely on digits and images, the
movement of software, media and financial transactions. It produces increasingly little in the
way of food, fiber, energy and fewer and fewer manufactured goods. The Ephemeral sectors dominate
ultra-blue states such as New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, and
Connecticut.
The other America constitutes, as economic historian Michael Lind notes in a forthcoming paper
for the Center for Opportunity Urbanism, the "New Heartland." Extending from the Appalachians
to the Rockies, this heartland economy relies on tangible goods production. It now encompasses
both the traditional Midwest manufacturing regions, and the new industrial areas of Texas, the
Southeast and the Intermountain West.
Contrary to the notions of the Ephemerals, the New Heartland is not populated by Neanderthals.
This region employs much of the nation's engineering talent, but does so in conjunction with the
creation of real goods rather than clicks. Its industries have achieved generally more rapid productivity
gains than their rivals in the services sector. To some extent, energy and food producers may
have outdone themselves and, since they operate in a globally competitive market, their prices
and profits are suffering.
Despite deep misgivings about the character of Donald Trump, these economic interests have
led most Heartland voters somewhat toward the New York poseur, and they are aligning themselves
even more to down-ticket GOP candidates. In generally purple states like Missouri, Ohio and
Iowa, where manufacturing is key, Trump still leads -at least he was before the latest spate
of Trump crudeness was revealed, this time regarding women.
... ... ....
The biggest national crisis in our history underscored this clash of competing economic interests.
Although the galvanizing issue on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line was slavery, the Civil War
was also a war, as Karl Marx suggested, of competing economic visions: the agrarian, slave-fueled
economy of the South vs. the rapidly industrializing Northeast and Midwest.
... ... ....
In the past, Democrats competed in the Heartland and backed its key industries. Lyndon Johnson
was a proud promoter of oil interests;
Robert Byrd
never saw a coal mine he didn't like for all but the end of his career. Powerful industrial
unions tied the Democrats to the production economy. Now those
voters feel abandoned by their own party, and even are dismissed as "
deplorables "
Increasingly few Heartland Democrats, outside of some Great Lakes states, win local elections.
In the vast territory between Northeast and the West Coast,
Democrats control just one state legislature, the financial basket case known as Illinois.
For their part, Republicans are becoming extinct in the Ephemeral states, a process hastened
by the growing concentration of
media on the true-blue coasts.
Wall Street , Silicon Valley and Hollywood have been drifting leftward for a generation, and
Trump has accelerated this movement. Joined by the largely minority urban working and dependent
classes, progressives now have a lock on the Northeast and the West Coast.
... ... ...
In the process, the GOP, to the horror of many of its grandees and most entrenched interests,
is becoming transformed. It is becoming something of a de facto populist party, based
in the New Heartland, while the Democrats remain the voice of the
coastal oligarchies who almost without exception back Hillary.
... ... ...
But don't count the New Heartland, or the GOP, out. Once Trump is gone, there will be enough political
will and money to mount a counter-offensive against the Ephemerals. The new War Between the States
will not end in November. It will have hardly just begun. Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow
at Chapman University and the executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His latest
book is "The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us."
"... Stated Binney: "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails." ..."
"... "Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there." ..."
"... And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails. ..."
"... GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was). ..."
Binney also proclaimed that the NSA has all of Clinton's deleted emails, and the FBI could gain access to them if they so wished.
No need for Trump to ask the Russians for those emails, he can just call on the FBI or NSA to hand them over.
Binney referenced
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke
of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists."
Stated Binney: "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown
of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA
Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those
emails."
"So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now," he stated of Clinton's
emails as well as DNC emails.
Asked point blank if he believed the NSA has copies of "all" of Clinton's emails, including the deleted correspondence, Binney
replied in the affirmative.
"Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there."
Binney surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community angry
over Clinton's compromise of national security data with her email use.
And the other point is that Hillary, according to an
article published by the Observer in March
of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And
so there were a number of NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She
lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive
material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the
past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails.
The Observer defined the GAMMA classification:
GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance,
decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was).
Over a year before Edward Snowden shocked the world in the summer of 2013 with revelations that have since changed everything
from domestic to foreign US policy but most of all, provided everyone a glimpse into just what the NSA truly does on a daily basis,
a former NSA staffer, and now famous whistleblower, William Binney, gave excruciating detail to Wired magazine about all that
Snowden would substantiate the following summer.
We covered it in a 2012 post titled "
We Are This Far From A Turnkey Totalitarian State" – Big Brother Goes Live September 2013." Not surprisingly, Binney received
little attention in 2012 – his suggestions at the time were seen as preposterous and ridiculously conspiratorial. Only after the
fact, did it become obvious that he was right. More importantly, in the aftermath of the Snowden revelations, what Binney
has to say has become gospel.
Binney was an architect of the NSA's surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when he resigned on October 31,
2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency. He referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March
2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases
"to track down known and suspected terrorists."
"... Moreover since the DNC hack is a criminal offence, it is a statement of opinion made about a matter which is presumably being investigated by the police. ..."
"... If the statement is merely a statement of opinion based on inference of which guesses about Russian "motivations" apparently form a major part, and one which moreover concerns a matter which is or ought to be the subject of investigation by the police and not therefore the subject of this sort of comment, why was it published at all? ..."
"... The short answer is in order to help Hillary Clinton win the US Presidential election. ..."
"... To that end the statement fulfils two purposes: firstly, it discredits the content of any leaks that might otherwise damage Hillary Clinton's campaign by lending credence to her claim that they are part of a Russian 'dirty tricks' campaign against her; and secondly, it lends credence to the claim popularised by Hillary Clinton's campaign and by Hillary Clinton's supporters in the media that Donald Trump is Putin's candidate and that Putin is trying to help him win the election. ..."
"... That the second is one of the purposes of statement is proved by its reference to US intelligence's "belief" that the leak was authorised by "Russia's senior-most officials ". This is clearly intended to refer to Putin, and is intended to give the impression that Putin himself personally authorised the DNC leak in order to damage Hillary Clinton and to help Trump win the election and become President. ..."
"... US intelligence has meddled in elections in other countries on numerous occasions starting with the Italian parliamentary elections of 1948 ..."
"... To my knowledge this is however the first occasion that US intelligence has directly and publicly meddled in a US national election, acting to help one candidate defeat another. ..."
"... It matters not whether this was done by US intelligence on its own initiative, or whether it was pressured to do so by officials of the Obama administration or of Hillary Clinton's campaign. ..."
"... Either way the disturbing truth must now be faced: the practice of US intelligence meddling in and trying to influence national elections has now been imported home to the US. ..."
The single most important event of the US Presidential election took place last week and to my
knowledge it has gone completely unreported.
This was not the video tape of Donald Trump's grotesque and deeply offensive sexual banter from
2005.
It was the public confirmation that an intelligence agency is directly interfering in an ongoing
US Presidential election.
The intelligence agency in question is not however that of Russia as is being reported. It is
that of the United States itself.
To understand why this is so, consider the statement US intelligence published last week on the
subject of alleged Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee and of other US agencies
involved in the election. It
reads as follows :
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian
Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including
from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like
DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the
methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are
intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians
have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example
, to influence public opinion there . We believe , based on
the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."
(bold italics added)
The statement is an implicit admission that US intelligence has no evidence to back its allegations
of Russian hacking.
It is merely "confident" – not "sure" – that it is the Russians who are behind the hacking, and
it is clear from the statement that it arrived at this conclusion purely through inference: because
the hacks supposedly were "consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed
efforts".
US intelligence assumes the Russians were behind the hack not because it knows this to be so but
in part because of what it believes Russian motives to be.
The statement backs its claim with a textual trick. It says "the Russians have used similar tactics
and techniques across Europe and Eurasia". It then immediately follows these words with the words
"for example".
These lead to the expectation that an actual example of such Russian "tactics and techniques"
is about to follow. Instead what is provided are the fact free words "to influence public opinion
there".
The words "for example" lend nothing to the meaning of the statement, which would be exactly the
same without them. These two words as used in the statement are actually meaningless. That is a sure
sign that their presence in the statement is intended to confuse the casual reader, and that this
is true of the statement as a whole.
The words are designed to create a subliminal impression to a casual reader that the Russians
have been caught doing this sort of thing before, without however providing a single actual example
when this was the case.
Demonstrating how thin the case of Russian government actually is, the statement then goes on
to say
"Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems,
which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are
not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government ."
(bold italics added)
In other words US intelligence admits the mere fact servers operated by a Russian company may
have been used for "scanning and probing" – and presumably also for hacking – is not in itself
proof of the involvement of the Russian government.
This is consistent with what I have heard, which is that skilled and well-resourced hackers can
use compromised machines to carry out hacks by remote access, and that the mere discovery that a
particular machine has been used in a hack does not in and of itself implicate the owner. (I should
stress I am not an expert in this field and I may have misunderstood this. However it appears to
be what US intelligence is saying).
This part of the statement seems to me intended to prevent challenges to the eventual outcome
of the election based on US intelligence's claims of Russian hacking. US intelligence does not want
to be drawn into post-election arguments about the validity of the election outcome, which might
lead to demands that it make public its "evidence" of Russian hacking. In the process US intelligence
however casts doubt on what is almost certainly the only actual evidence it has of Russian state
involvement in the hacking.
In summary, the statement is a mere statement of opinion, it is not a statement of fact, and the
evidence upon which it is based is threadbare.
Moreover since the DNC hack is a criminal offence, it is a statement of opinion made about
a matter which is presumably being investigated by the police.
The relevant police agency is presumably the FBI, which significantly is not a co-author
of the statement.
That in turn begs a host of questions: has the FBI been shown the "evidence" upon which US intelligence
expresses its opinion and has made the statement? Has it asked to see this "evidence"? Was it invited
to co-author the statement? What does the FBI think of the public involvement of US intelligence
in a domestic criminal matter which falls within the FBI's exclusive competence?
If the statement is merely a statement of opinion based on inference of which guesses about
Russian "motivations" apparently form a major part, and one which moreover concerns a matter which
is or ought to be the subject of investigation by the police and not therefore the subject of this
sort of comment, why was it published at all?
The short answer is in order to help Hillary Clinton win the US Presidential election.
To that end the statement fulfils two purposes: firstly, it discredits the content of any
leaks that might otherwise damage Hillary Clinton's campaign by lending credence to her claim that
they are part of a Russian 'dirty tricks' campaign against her; and secondly, it lends credence to
the claim popularised by Hillary Clinton's campaign and by Hillary Clinton's supporters in the media
that Donald Trump is Putin's candidate and that Putin is trying to help him win the election.
That the second is one of the purposes of statement is proved by its reference to US intelligence's
"belief" that the leak was authorised by "Russia's senior-most officials ". This is clearly intended to refer to Putin, and is intended to give the impression that Putin
himself personally authorised the DNC leak in order to damage Hillary Clinton and to help Trump win
the election and become President.
To my knowledge this is however the first occasion that US intelligence has directly and publicly
meddled in a US national election, acting to help one candidate defeat another.
It matters not whether this was done by US intelligence on its own initiative, or whether
it was pressured to do so by officials of the Obama administration or of Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Either way the disturbing truth must now be faced: the practice of US intelligence meddling
in and trying to influence national elections has now been imported home to the US.
"... This election also can be seen in a more general, global context of how forces have been accommodating to the end of the cold war. Perhaps a detour into the history of some 3rd world banana republics, those that many Americans deem as deplorable as a Trump supporter, can shed some light. ..."
"... It's amazing to see how all the left wing loonies here are rooting for a collapse of the United States, just like it happened in the USSR. I guess they are too stupid to understand how really great this was for the elite ownership class in Russia as it would be here for the US ownership class. ..."
"... The point is that thinking that a global collapse will somehow bring justice and happiness into the world because the unwashed masses will rise up and overthrow their oppressors is a little crazy. ..."
"... That is what successive US governments have done: destroy democratic republics around the world. So who are the sane, those who support the continuation of Pax Americana or the anti-imperialists? ..."
"... Have you ever lived through a CIA-sponsored coup, a military invasion, or IMF-sponsored austerity to be certain that living through all that is preferable to the demise of American hegemony? ..."
"... Have you ever lived through a CIA-sponsored coup, a military invasion, or IMF-sponsored austerity to be certain that living through all that is preferable to the demise of American hegemony? ..."
"... No sane person should hope to see the rule of law and the democratic republic be destroyed and that's the very real threat Trump poses ..."
This election also can be seen in a more general, global context of how forces have been accommodating
to the end of the cold war. Perhaps a detour into the history of some 3rd world banana republics,
those that many Americans deem as deplorable as a Trump supporter, can shed some light.
Starting in the 50's, and with the expressed goal of modernizing their countries (meaning an
accelerated capitalist development with the US as its model and as the only possible model) military
and terror regimes took over South America (Paraguay: 1954-1991, Chile: 1973-1990, Argentina:
1976-1982, Uruguay: 1966- 1985). For the most part, before being forced out of power, these military
regimes declared amnesty for themselves. Enter truth commissions, whose purpose is to investigate
the causes of violence and human rights violations and to establish judicial responsibility.
Back in the US, those responsible for human rights violations around the world, such as torture,
extra-judicial assassinations, and renditions, have never been brought to justice and the mere
mention of Clinton (a politician!) facing jail for a very minor infraction is considered in undemocratic
bad taste.
Conclusion: perhaps more than a special prosecutor, a commission of truth is in order, but
not at the moment, after the US crumbles as the USSR did. Only then can 3rd worlders hope to see
Kissinger, Bush, Blair, Aznar, Obama, and all their enablers brought to justice. For the moment,
we have to put up with the spectacle of some Americans, in an intent at preemptive amnesty, outraged
at the mere thought that their presumptive tin-pot, global Caesar is not above suspicion and that
they themselves are better than 3rd worlders.
It's amazing to see how all the left wing loonies here are rooting for a collapse of the United
States, just like it happened in the USSR. I guess they are too stupid to understand how really
great this was for the elite ownership class in Russia as it would be here for the US ownership
class.
Leftist could give two shits about about the human suffering of working class people,
extremism is extremism whether they worship Karl Marx or Ayn Rand
Great job, Bob Zannelli. Just call those you disagree with stupid, loony idiots. Have you ever
considered a career in US politics or the media? Your ilk is currently in great demand in those
circles.
Great job, Bob Zannelli. Just call those you disagree with stupid, loony idiots. Have
you ever considered a career in US politics or the media? Your ilk is currently in great demand
in those circles
Not any worst than calling Bernie Sanders a reactionary. Do you really think anyone calling
Sanders a reactionary has a real grasp on reality. Also you might think that many here want to
see Trump win so we can have a nice economic and social implosion which I guess they think will
give us the Union of Soviet Socialist States of America.Has anyone here who is no doubt living
in a relatively pampered and safe western society actually lived through a such an event? I rather
doubt it. It NEVER turns out well. Sorry but the left can be as stupid and evil as the right,
it's a sad truth. So I don't apologize
Bob Zannelli 10.11.16 at 9:54 pm
Maybe the moderate GOP will try to bring in the libertarian party, to get their numbers back up?
A possibility Problem there is, Ryan's next strategy appears to be to make a new coalition with
a lot more gov't aid (a big libertarian no-no) to displaced labor, in return for those mega-rich
tax cuts.
There is nothing moderate about the libertarian party. And the GOP needs their religious nuts
to win elections. BTW the Libertarians I know are more than willing to sign on to the religious
right's agenda. Don't kid yourself. This "Freedom" party was originally established by powerful
corporate elites to get rid of the New Deal and Great Society programs, they could care less about
anything else. The Koch Brothers fund all kinds of religious right organizations because it promotes
their agenda
Has anyone here who is no doubt living in a relatively pampered and safe western society
actually lived through a such an event?
I have. And you are right, it never turns out well. Still, I am a socialist and an anti-imperialist.
Have you ever lived through a CIA-sponsored coup, a military invasion, or IMF-sponsored austerity
to be certain that living through all that is preferable to the demise of American hegemony? In
the post you responded to, by calling me stupid, I mentioned the Dirty War in Argentina and Pinochet's
regime, both supported by the US. Do you think living through those is preferable to a multi-polar
global arrangement?
I have. And you are right, it never turns out well. Still, I am a socialist and an anti-imperialist.
Have you ever lived through a CIA-sponsored coup, a military invasion, or IMF-sponsored austerity
to be certain that living through all that is preferable to the demise of American hegemony?
In the post you responded to, by calling me stupid, I mentioned the Dirty War in Argentina
and Pinochet's regime, both supported by the US. Do you think living through those is preferable
to a multi-polar global arrangement?
I don't have any illusions about what the United States has done in the third world or the
failure and murderous and enslaving tyranny of communism. The point is that thinking that
a global collapse will somehow bring justice and happiness into the world because the unwashed
masses will rise up and overthrow their oppressors is a little crazy. If you think this,
you haven't spent any quality time with the unwashed masses. Most of them don't want to bring
justice to the world, they want the job of being oppressors.
Given that we are only a thin sliver of DNA from other less thoughtful apes, we haven't done
too badly. But we do have a great potential to do a lot worst as our sorry history reveals. The
only way progress happens is one election at a time. And I know how the system is rigged , but
frankly it's mostly ignorance and stupidity that makes the elite so powerful.
Because of this democracy has only been marginally successful at creating a more just society.
But throughout history, it's the only thing that has been shown to work. No sane person should
hope to see the rule of law and the democratic republic be destroyed and that's the very real
threat Trump poses
The point is that thinking that a global collapse will somehow bring justice and happiness
into the world because the unwashed masses will rise up and overthrow their oppressors is a little
crazy.
I never stated that. I wrote that "after the collapse" there could be a truth commission to
investigate the human rights violations committed during the period of Western hegemony. I say
this because the actual truth commissions formed have been after the terror regimes fall, not
during.
No sane person should hope to see the rule of law and the democratic republic be destroyed
and that's the very real threat Trump poses
That is what successive US governments have done: destroy democratic republics around the
world. So who are the sane, those who support the continuation of Pax Americana or the anti-imperialists?
After reading this amazing observation " Cheer up maybe Putin will nuke the US if the Donald
doesn't win " from Bob Zannelli I realized that something was deeply wrong with my post @110.
Unfortunately I misattributed the quote
Have you ever lived through a CIA-sponsored coup, a military invasion, or IMF-sponsored
austerity to be certain that living through all that is preferable to the demise of American
hegemony?
This is the quote from Lupita post @95. Sorry about this.
As for Bob Zanelli with his primitive Russophobia I would like to remind him that in many people
with similar views Russophobia is just displaced Anti-Semitism.
After reading this amazing observation "Cheer up maybe Putin will nuke the US if the Donald
doesn't win" from Bob Zannelli I realized that something was deeply wrong with my post @110.
Unfortunately I misattributed the quote
Have you ever lived through a CIA-sponsored coup, a military invasion, or IMF-sponsored
austerity to be certain that living through all that is preferable to the demise of American
hegemony?
This is the quote from Lupita post @95. Sorry about this.
As for Bob Zanelli with his primitive Russophobia I would like to remind him that in many people
with similar views Russophobia is just displaced Anti-Semitism.
WikiLeaks hack reveals DNC's favoritism as Clinton staff in damage control over Hillary's support
for DOMA
On October 10,
Wikileaks released part two of their emails from
Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.
Friday,
Wikileaks released their first batch of Podesta's emails, which included excerpts from
Clinton's Wall Street transcripts that reaffirmed why
Clinton refused to release them in full. During the second presidential debate,
Clinton confirmed their authenticity by attempting to defend one statement she made in the speech
about having a public and private stance on political issues. She
cited Abraham Lincoln, a defense comparable to her ridiculous
invocation of 9/11 when pressed on her ties to Wall Street during a
Democratic primary debate.
The latest release reveals current DNC chair Donna Brazile, when working as a
DNC vice chair, forwarded to the Clinton campaign a January 2016
email obtained from
the Bernie Sanders campaign, released by Sarah Ford, Sanders' deputy national press secretary, announcing
a Twitter storm from Sanders' African-American outreach team. "FYI" Brazile wrote to the Clinton
staff. "Thank you for the heads up on this Donna," replied Clinton campaign spokesperson Adrienne
Elrod.
One
email
, received by prolific
Clinton donor Haim Saban, was forwarded to
Clinton staff, praising the friendly moderators in the early March 2016 Democratic primary
debate co-hosted by Univision in Florida. "Haim, I just wanted to tell you that I thought the
moderators for last nights Debate were excellent. They were thoughtful, tough and incisive. I thought
it made
Hilary appear direct and strong in her resolve. I felt it advanced our candidate. Thanks for
Univision," wrote Rob Friedman, former co-chair of the Motion Picture Group.
Another email discusses planting a favorable Clinton story in The New York Times in March
2015. "NYT heroine. Should she call her today?" Podesta wrote to other Clinton campaign staffers
with the subject line 'Laura Donohoe.' "I do think it's a great idea! We can make it happen," replied
Huma Abedin. The story they referred to is likely "
In New Hampshire, Clinton Backers Buckle Up," published in The New York Times on March
12, 2015 about Laura Donohoe, a retired nurse and Clinton supporter in New Hampshire.
John Harwood, New York Times contributor and CNBC correspondent, regularly exchanged
emails with Podesta-communicating more as a
Clinton surrogate than a journalist.
In an October 2015
email thread, Clinton staff were in damage control over Hillary's support for the 1996 Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
Hillary Clinton would not disavow her support for it. "I'm not saying double down or ever say
it again. I'm just saying that she's not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she
and her husband believe it and have repeated it many times. Better to reiterate evolution, opposition
to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking stance."
Former
Clinton Foundation director, Darnell Strom of the Creative Artist Agency,
wrote
a condescending email
to Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard after she resigned from the
DNC
to endorse
Bernie Sanders , which he then forwarded to Clinton campaign staff. "For you to endorse a man
who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments, doesn't fall in line
with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party's nominee and you standing
on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton," wrote
Strom.
A memo sent from Clinton's general counsel, Marc Elias of the law firm Perkins Coie, outlined
legal tricks to circumvent campaign finance laws to raise money in tandem with Super Pacs.
In a March 2015 email
,
Clinton Campaign manager
Robby Mook expressed frustration DNC Chair
Debbie Wasserman Schultz hired a Convention CEO without consulting the Clinton campaign, which
suggests the
DNC and Clinton campaign regularly coordinated together from the early stages of the Democratic
primaries.
Researchers and political analysts frequent CTH because we bring you hard, factual,
and fully cited research enabling you to make up your own mind about the headlines.
What you are about to read (and see) below is a fully cited example of something we
have discussed frequently, but withheld until today, so the oppositional forces cannot
change strategies in their attempts to manipulate your mind.
It is now time to lay all media polling naked for you to grasp. Everything below is
fully cited so you can fact-check it for yourself. However, we present this with a
disclaimer: the entities exposed will industriously work to change their approach from
this day forth.
You have probably seen the latest example of the media claiming a released
presidential poll from NBC and The Wall Street Journal as an example of Hillary Clinton
expanding to an 11 point lead in the weekend following the "controversial" leaked tape
of Donald Trump.
The claim is complete and utter nonsense. Here's the proof.
Transparently the poll is manipulated with: a) a small sample (500); and b) the
following ideological make-up:
Republican and Republican leaners 36%
Democrat and Democrat leaners 43%
Independents 12%
By itself that ideological snapshot is silly. Nationally the party registration is
roughly 27% (R), 32% (D), and 40% (I) –
SEE HERE
–
However, the polling sample is the least of the issues for this deconstruction.
Arguing about the construct or methodology of the poll is typically what most people
do when they are refuting a media poll.
That aspect alone is not the big story.
Look at the polling organization:
Do you see:
Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies?
Hart Research Associates is headed up by Peter D Hart (founder), and Geoff Garin
(President) –
SEE HERE
Now look at what role Geoff Garin, Heart Research Associate President, is
currently occupying
(
link
here
):
OK, so Mr. Geoff Garin, the President of Hart Research and Associates", is currently
working as "
a strategic adviser for Priorities USA in support of Hillary
Clinton's election
". Gee, I wonder why the media never tells us that part?
See the issue?
Wait, we're not even close to finished. It gets better.
Let's take a look at the recent financial connection between, Geoff Garin, Hart
Research Associates and Hillary Clinton's Priorities USA Super-PAC.
$220,500.00 in the month of September alone
paid by Hillary
Clinton's Priorities USA Super-PAC to Hart Research Associates.
The President of Hart Research Associates, Geoff Garin, is working for Hillary
Clinton's campaign.
NBC (S Burke) and The WSJ (Murdoch) contact Geoff Garin (Hart Research
Associates) for the post-debate poll data they will use on the day following the
debate.
Hart Research Associates provides a small national poll sample (500) result, with
skewed party internals, showing Hillary Clinton +11 points.
Do you see now how "media polling" works, and why we advise to ignore it?
Unless they think Hillary up by 11 is going to cause
Republicans to give up and not vote?
That is fucking stupid to believe; Republican voters
are fired up to STOP HILLARY...that is why Trump is
correct that he could shoot someone and still win.
Hillary (falsely) up by 11 creates MORE apathy among
already apathetic Hillary voters.
It's a huge mistake to falsely put her "way out front".
FireBrander
FireBrander
Oct 11, 2016 12:29
PM
Of all entities, the LA Times appears to want to put
the truth out there and currently they say Trump up by
2 points...I believe that.
"... If nothing else, the I'm-with-her whole hog approach of the media to this election should put the lie to the notion that we have anything resembling a functioning press. ..."
"... Additionally, the blind adherence by the press to Hillary's spin that Trump would put her in jail amounts to a dictatorship ignores the fact that previous to that statement Trump had said he would push for a special prosecutor. IOW, a completely legalized, judicially approved criminal investigation. ..."
"... I agree about the press becoming so bought over by Hillary. Watched some speech Trump was giving a month or so ago and he talked about Iraq as I recall and the press totally spun it into some different meaning altogether. Funny thing was the next day Trump was giving another speech which I also happened to see and made mention of what he said the day before and what the press turned his comment into – from that point on I became very leery of believing anything they tell me. I too was amazed that almost immediately last night the press began reporting that Trump was talking to a dictatorship by saying he wanted her in jail when in fact that was completely taken out of context as well (as you mentioned above). ..."
"... I think the press has become very scary with all the power it has to twist the truth or what has been said as easily and quickly as they do. They must be very frightened by Trump. ..."
Why is the electorate seemingly more concerned with someone who is antagonistic towards certain
women than someone whose policies are antagonistic to whole nations and regions. Why aren't the
Wikileaks email revelations getting more traction or generating more outrage?
True. BigMedia is barely covering the Wikileaks story. My summary is that HClinton has a fake
"public position" & a genuine private position, that is pro-Grand Ripoff SS & MC cuts, & pro-TPP.
It should be a huge story, in that it calls as questionable any of HClinton's stated policies,
& given that Sanders repeatedly made the Wall $treet transcripts a major issue in the Primaries.
It takes a USian with intellectual curiosity, some free time, & enough critical thinking to
go to one of the few internet sources like nakedcapitalism or SecularTalk that actually will cover
the Wikileaks story honestly. IMHO sadly this is a small minority of the US eligible voter population.
BTW for Sanders to maintain my respect, he needs to "make news" in BigMedia by saying something
like "my support of HClinton is contingent on her 'public position' the approves the 2016 D party
platform, which is anti-TPP & anti-SS & MC cuts. If HClinton is elected & signs the TPP or SS/MC
cuts, she will be strongly primary challenged in 2020, & I will not support her if the Rs ever
impeach her"
If nothing else, the I'm-with-her whole hog approach of the media to this election should
put the lie to the notion that we have anything resembling a functioning press.
Just one example–I listened to some Clinton operative on msnbc radio today who was giving his
weaselly spin on Hillary's private position v. public position statement and who said that it
was only a few sentences out of an entire speech and needed to be viewed in context. Chuck Todd,
I think it was, never made note of the fact that there is no context to those statements since
the speeches have not and will not be released. There is no available context and Chuck just muttered
uh huh and let it pass.
Additionally, the blind adherence by the press to Hillary's spin that Trump would put her
in jail amounts to a dictatorship ignores the fact that previous to that statement Trump had said
he would push for a special prosecutor. IOW, a completely legalized, judicially approved criminal
investigation.
I agree about the press becoming so bought over by Hillary. Watched some speech Trump was
giving a month or so ago and he talked about Iraq as I recall and the press totally spun it into
some different meaning altogether. Funny thing was the next day Trump was giving another speech
which I also happened to see and made mention of what he said the day before and what the press
turned his comment into – from that point on I became very leery of believing anything they tell
me. I too was amazed that almost immediately last night the press began reporting that Trump was
talking to a dictatorship by saying he wanted her in jail when in fact that was completely taken
out of context as well (as you mentioned above).
I think the press has become very scary with all the power it has to twist the truth or
what has been said as easily and quickly as they do. They must be very frightened by Trump.
Thanks for the link. Interesting and depressing. A snippet:
" Oligarchy is rule by the few. Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy.
Corporatocracy is a society governed or controlled by corporations. We have
all three."
"... Saw less than a dozen Trump Signs. Not a single Hillary. And this one that I meant to steal, but we came back a different route: 2016 EVERYONE SUCKS ..."
"... Zach Bee Of all the words you could chant, in the entire english language, they pick the ONE that rhymes with liar? What does Hillary! Fire! Even mean? I thought that was a joke at first. Wow. ..."
"... Moh Moony Spot on mate. No one ever accused Hillbots of being very bright. beidoll I kept thinking it should have been "Fire Hillary". I'd fire her before I'd hire her. ..."
For those who want a few laughs in these grim times, check out the excellent Jimmy Dore's video (6
minutes) comparing Bernie's rallies with Hillary's. There is a truly cringeworthy episode of HRC cheerleading
in the clip.
Heh. I liked this little exchange in the comments:
Zach Bee
Of all the words you could chant, in the entire english language, they pick the ONE that rhymes with
liar? What does Hillary! Fire! Even mean? I thought that was a joke at first. Wow.
Moh Moony
Spot on mate. No one ever accused Hillbots of being very bright.
beidoll
I kept thinking it should have been "Fire Hillary". I'd fire her before I'd hire her.
So even after Hillary says she's going to renounce every campaign promise
she made two hours after the polls close, Bernie can't wait to get out on the
campaign trail urge us to vote for our own extinction?
Donald may be "The Apprentice" but Bernie has got to be "The Biggest Loser"
Bernie is the Biggest Frigging Sellout, if you ask me. He spends 6 months
railing against HRC's policies and now is out promoting her. He is dead to
me now.
I can see the expediency of a reluctant endorsement at the convention,
but he's lost his credibility with this behaviour. They must've threatened
him with loss of his Senate committee positions or something.
…or offered to fund his foundation and invite hi to expensive
lectures. Carrot or stick, carrot or stick; so hard to tell. I imagine
the stick is avoided when possible; no point in bringing needless
ugliness into what could be a nice relationship.
With the media exclusively attuned to every new, or 11-year-old as the case may be, twist in the
Trump "sex tape" saga, it appeared that everyone forgot that a little over 24 hours ago, Wikileaks
exposed the real reason why Hillary was keeping her Wall Street speech transcripts - which we now
know had always been within easy reach for her campaign - secret.
In her own words : "if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the
deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and
a private position." In other words, you have to lie to the general public while promising those
who just paid you $250,000 for an hour of your speaking time something entirely different, which
is precisely what those accusing Hillary of hiding her WS transcripts had done; and as yesterday's
hacked documents revealed, they were right.
The Clinton campaign
refused to disavow the hacked excerpts, although it quickly tired to pin the blame again on Russia:
"We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange, who
has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton," spokesman Glen Caplin said in a prepared
statement. Previous releases have "Guccifer 2.0 has already proven the warnings of top national security
officials that documents can be faked as part of a sophisticated Russian misinformation campaign."
Ironically, it was literally minutes before the Wikileaks release of the "Podesta Files" that
the US formally accused Russia of waging a hacking cyber attack on the US political establishment,
almost as if it knew Wikileaks was about to make the major disclosure, and sought to minimize its
impact by scapegoating Vladimir Putin.
And while the Trump campaign tried to slam the leak, with spokesman saying "now we finally get
confirmation of Clinton's catastrophic plans for completely open borders and diminishing America's
influence in the world. There is a reason Clinton gave these high-paid speeches in secret behind
closed doors - her real intentions will destroy American sovereignty as we know it, further illustrating
why Hillary Clinton is simply unfit to be president", Trump's campaign had its own raging inferno
to deal with.
So, courtesy of what Trump said about some woman 11 years ago, in all the din over the oddly coincident
Trump Tape leak, most of the noise created by the Hillary speeches was lost.
But not all.
According to
Reuters , supporters of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Saturday "
seethed ", and "expressed anger and vindication over leaked comments made by Hillary Clinton
to banks and big business that appeared to confirm their fears about her support for global trade
and tendency to cozy up to Wall Street. "
Clinton,
who last it emerged had slammed Bernie supporters as "basement dwellers" in a February fundraiser,
with virtually no media coverage, needs Sanders' coalition of young and left-leaning voters to propel
her to the presidency, pushes for open trade and open borders in one of the speeches, and
takes a conciliatory approach to Wall Street , both positions she later backed away from
in an effort to capture the popular appeal of Sanders' attacks on trade deals and powerful banks.
Needless to say, there was no actualy "backing away", and instead Hillary did what he truly excels
in better than most: she told the public what they wanted to hear, and will promptly reneg on once
she becomes president.
Only now, this is increasingly obvious to America's jilted youth: " this is a very clear
illustration of why there is a fundamental lack of trust from progressives for Hillary Clinton,"
said Tobita Chow, chair of the People's Lobby in Chicago, which endorsed Sanders in the
primary election.
" The progressive movement needs to make a call to Secretary Clinton to clarify where
she stands really on these issues and that's got to involve very clear renunciations of the positions
that are revealed in these transcripts," Chow said.
Good luck that, or even getting a response, even though Hillary was largely spared from providing
one: as Reuters correctly observes, the revelations were immediately overshadowed by the release
of an 11-year-old recording of Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, making lewd comments
about women. In fact, the revelations were almost entirely ignored by the same prime time TV that
has been glued to the Trump slow-motion trainwreck over the past 24 hours.
Still, the hacked speeches could lead to further erosion in support from the so very critical
to her successful candidacy, young American voter.
Clinton has worked hard to build trust with so-called progressives, adopting several of Sanders'
positions after she bested him in the primary race. The U.S. senator from Vermont now supports
his former rival in the Nov. 8 general election against Trump. Still, Clinton has struggled to
win support from young "millennials" who were crucial to Sanders' success, and some Democrats
expressed concern that the leaks would discourage those supporters from showing up to vote.
"That is a big concern and this certainly doesn't help," said Larry Cohen, chair
of the board of Our Revolution, a progressive organization formed in the wake of Sanders' bid for
the presidency, which aims to keep pushing the former candidate's ideas at a grassroots level. "It
matters in terms of turnout, energy, volunteering, all those things."
Still, despite the Trump media onslaught, the message appeared to filter through to those who
would be most impacted by Hillary selling out her voters if she were to win the presidency.
"Bernie was right about Hillary," wrote Facebook user Grace Tilly cited by Rueters, "she's a tool
for Wall Street."
"Clinton is the politicians' politician - exactly the Wall Street insider Bernie described," wrote
Facebook user Brian Leach.
Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf said progressive voters would still choose the former first
lady, even with misgivings. "I'd like to meet the Bernie Sanders supporter who is going to say, 'Well
I'm a little worried about her on international trade, so I'm going to vote for Donald Trump'," he
said.
He just may meet a few, especially if Bernie's supporters ask themselves why Bernie's support
for Hillary remained so unwavering despite a leak confirming that Hillary was indeed all he had previously
railed against.
In a statement earlier, Sanders responded to the leak by saying that despite Hillary's paid speeches
to Wall Street in which she expressed an agenda diametrically opposite to that espoused by the Vermont
socialist, he reiterated his his support for the Democratic Party platform.
"Whatever Secretary Clinton may or may not have said behind closed doors on Wall Street, I am
determined to implement the agenda of the Democratic Party platform which was agreed upon by her
campaign," he said in a statement.
"Among other things, that agenda calls for breaking up the largest financial institutions
in this country, re-establishing Glass-Steagall and prosecuting those many Wall Street CEOs who engaged
in illegal behavior. "
In retrospect we find it fascinating that in the aftermath of October's two big surprises served
up on Friday, Sanders actually believes any of that having read through Hillary's
Wall Street speeches, certainly far more fascinating than the staged disgust with Trump who, the
media is suddenly stunned to find, was no more politically correct 11 year ago than he is today.
"... Then, Mook reveals that the campaign is working with Epstein on a piece bashing Sanders staff for underhanded tactics. ..."
"... "We are also working with Jen Epstein for a story about this (not necessarily the 11pm knocks, which we are working to confirm) regarding Sanders staff coming to office openings, tracking us, lying about endorsements, other shady field activity, etc.," Mook says in the email. ..."
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign collaborated with Bloomberg reporter Jennifer Epstein to
create an anti-Bernie Sanders story prior to the Nevada caucus.
In the vast trove of Clinton emails leaked Thursday by the organization DCLeaks, there is an email
exchange between Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and Emily Ruiz, head of the campaign's Nevada
operation. In the exchange, Ruiz and Mook discuss rumors that Sanders volunteers were posing as Clinton
operatives and engaging in irritating behavior like knocking on voters' doors at 11 pm.
Then, Mook reveals that the campaign is working with Epstein on a piece bashing Sanders staff
for underhanded tactics.
"We are also working with Jen Epstein for a story about this (not necessarily the 11pm knocks,
which we are working to confirm) regarding Sanders staff coming to office openings, tracking us,
lying about endorsements, other shady field activity, etc.," Mook says in the email.
"Let's start with the caveats: A lot can happen in the 34 days before the election. The polls
are not as reliable as they used to be. People act in unpredictable ways in the polling booth.
All that said, this race has fallen into a fairly predictable pattern. When Donald Trump veers
off message and Hillary Clinton performs well, her lead swells to 6, 7, or 8 points. When Trump
sticks to his script and Clinton goes through a bumpy patch as she did with her bout of pneumonia,
her edge drops down to 1 or 2 points, and sometimes she winds up dead even. Most of the time, Clinton
is up by 3 to 5 points" [
Cook
Report
].
I just saw a big Hillary pin on a young woman I know, and I do see her
bumper stickers. Very liberal town, though, in a blue state. I see huge
Trump/Pence signs out in the country – but that's a lot fewer people.
That said, I also consider the polls dubious. For one thing, Hillary's
campaign is acting like they see bad news.
How about 'The State of Blue' as an affective disorder? I remember
reading that bi-partianship was classed as one such. (Lithium can
help. Don't forget to suppliment with copper; lithium eats it for
lunch.)
Then there is this little bit of info:
https://youtu.be/OXD3BCEWDAU
Yes, its Info-wars. If these guys told me we the Earth was round, I
would have to dubble check. And covering one campaign office is hardly
evidence for anything.
And these kinds of offices tend to be lightly attended any way. In
reality, they serve more to give infrastructure space for local
organizers (A place to receive phone calls, bills for venders, a
conference space, ecetra) thus the front office tend to be just for
show.
That said, It did raise an eyebrow that a scheduled rally wasn't
attended by any one. Roomers still persist that Clinton rallies are
mostly attended by bused in actors.
I'm in one of the bluest places in the country. I have seen a very
small number of Hillary bumper stickers. Haven't noticed any yard signs.
A couple of days ago, I saw a car with an Obama Biden sticker, and
nothing else. Shouldn't that person have their Hillary sticker, too?
I know there are real people who will vote for her, because I have
several friends who are refusing to speak to me because I won't. They are
all middle-aged women who are either professionals themselves, or the
non-working spouse of a professional, all in protected industries:
corporate attorneys for health care companies, engineers who work the
defense industry, etc. In other words, despite all the attempts to turn
this election into a choice between a Good Girl and a Bad Man, what I'm
seeing on the ground most strongly is that people who are benefiting from
the status quo are voting for the status quo, as expected.
What is a pollster? They are people who seek to turn unpredictable
situations into easily explainable numbers which can't protest, write
letters, or ultimately surprise. Naturally pollsters would be a
conservative (small c) lot. African Americans love Team Blue. Everyone
knows this. Even when Democratic Mayors have police departments
brutalizing black neighborhoods, blacks still love the Democrats. Given
current trends 105% blacks should vote for Hillary since the post Voting
Rights Act low of 1964.
After the two mid terms and Obama's poor performance with whites in
2012, Democrats should have been in a panic, but what happened? They
doubled down on a candidate with huge negatives because of a child like
belief in a 2002 book called "The Emerging Democratic Majority." Shrub,
McCain, and Mittens are just monsters. Trump isn't special except he uses
crasser language than Mittens. McCain and Shrub are fairly gross. Is
comparing Trump to Hitler really going to work? After several months of
Republicans saying Trump wasn't a real conservative who would put
Democrats on the bench and was a Clinton plant. What a weird election.
The troubling aspect of most polls is the high rate of identified
Democrats in an Era of declining Democratic and in general partisan
activity and identity. The elephant in the Democratic cloak room, ACA,
cannot be overlooked.
"Nobody could have known" and "it works until it doesn't" spring to
mind. One shouldn't overlook pollsters' mentalities when they approach
their work. It is 2018. The census where pollsters go for certain
baselines is becoming out of date.
On the road checking out my peeps in the heartland. No special insights
but did spot a man by the road in Taos holding up a hand lettered "Trump is
a fascist" sign– nothing if not unoriginal. Nobody was honking. The people I
know just want tne whole thing to be over.
Due to the recent death of a parent, I had to go back there for three weeks.
In the midst of organizing memorial events, starting the estate probate
process, and tending to the needs of my surviving parent, I noticed something
very interesting. And that was an almost complete lack of pre-election
displays.
I think I saw one Trump sign the entire time I was there. Hillary signs? I
don't remember seeing any. Hillary bumper stickers? One or two.
It is really interesting to read those comments from march 2016 in October ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... I'm tempted to think that the Liberal Establishment hasn't had the same problem to the same degree because the liberals recognize that Democrats want to do more, but they've been stymied by the Republican refusal to give Obama any wins. ..."
"... Trump is a backlash against the GOP elite, in all its various and sundry forms. Whether Kasich, Jeb, Rubio, Christie, or anyone else -- none of these are acceptable to the disillusioned party base. ..."
"... Much of the angst on the Democratic side isn't against the Democratic establishment per se ..."
"... To Republican supporters of Donald Trump: I understand your anger and rage at the Republican Party's failure to pay sufficient attention to your economic concerns – specifically the consequences of exports of jobs and illegal "imports" of workers. but also issues like wage stagnation. I understand, therefore, when the GOP finally has a candidate who does mention these concerns front and centre, he has an appeal for you lacking in the other candidates. ..."
"... America's wounds are entirely self-inflicted. They include the massively destructive drug war; imperialist adventures that have drained the national wealth, made life less safe, and savaged civil liberties; and an increase of government spending as a percentage of GDP from 7 percent in 1900 to 37 percent today. Almost any economist, left or right, would agree that trade and immigration (legal or not) are net benefits. ..."
"... Conservatives, Republican or not, have failed to defend, much less extend, economic freedom; have supported the growth of government; and have persistently supported militaristic empire. ..."
"... He is the upshot of an ideology whose prominent voices have included Coulter, Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly. In politics, you get what you pander to. ..."
"... What you're trying to do is make the "What's the matter with Kansas?" argument a matter of the candidate's approach not the voters' response. But in the final analysis, it amounts to the same thing. ..."
"... James Fallows quotes a data analysis of the vote in Michigan that finds to the analyst's surprise that districts that suffered the greatest loss of manufacturing were NOT the districts that voted predominately for Trump meaning "economic anxiety" does not explain the Trump voting pattern. ..."
"... The number of immigrants and their young children grew six times faster than the nation's total population from 1970 to 2015 - 353 percent vs. 59 percent. ..."
"... This is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third World majority is proceeding right on schedule. ..."
"... Joe Biden has run for president a couple of times, and he always stayed in single digits for the simple reason that he always puts his foot in his mouth, way in. ..."
"... "his is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third World majority is proceeding right on schedule. ..."
"... And will America be the same with different people in it? If the answer is yes, we should ask for evidence that making it different makes it better. If the answer is no, then we should ask why we are doing this. ..."
"... Obama and most Democrats understood very well the anger of poor whites and they tried desperately to win their votes. And, as is now made plain by so many poor, white Trump supporters, they didn't vote for Obama and other Democratic politicians because they believe those politicians hold them in low esteem or have called them racists. ..."
"... But the pivot to a Mr. trump has far more to do with foreign policy than domestic policy aside from immigration. It was his less than aggressive use of the military. ..."
"... It's obvious to many commentators that working-class Republican voters are voting against their own interests by allowing themselves to be fooled by cultural cues and dog whistles. But the big unreported story is that the same thing is happening in the Democratic primaries as well. Poor Southern Blacks are voting by colossal margins for the Wall Street version of the Democratic Party over the socialist version of the Democratic Party. Why? Because the Wall Street candidate is married to a guy who has all his Southern fried cultural cues and dog whistles working right and the socialist has spent too much of his time among up-tight Yankees in Vermont. ..."
"... Anyone who thinks Conservatives, all three of them in proportion to the rest of the electorate will stay home and let Hillary be elected is in need of oxygen. When it comes to the general election Trump will probably bury Hillary. ..."
"... But let us understand one important thing. Trump is in no way destroying the Republican Party. They will still hold the House, may hang onto the Senate, and will still hold the majority of state governments. That is hardly a party that is being destroyed. In the long run, the Democrats are in far worse shape as that Republican majority in every other branch of government not only means that the Democrats do not have much a farm team for future presidential nominees, (look what they got stuck with this year.) but also it means enough barriers being thrown up in the way of the Democrats voting blocks to keep from even voting at all. ..."
"... "but rich people with poor impulse control are pretty much the last people you want in positions of power." That makes a great tweet, but it's helpful to get beyond abstract generalities. Trump has poor impulse control on his mouth, to be sure, but there's every indication that his impulses will not lead to new wars or "kinetic" military actions in places like North Africa, the Middle East or Ukraine. His impulsiveness has also led him to reveal that he wants to be "neutral" on the Palestinian question. To me, his non-interventionist "impulses," if you will, are extremely important on a purely pragmatic level. ..."
"... Union-busting has done more to undercut and immiserate the working class than mass immigration and "free trade," and union leaders spending millions of dollars on electing Democrats and Republicans (at the state level) have betrayed their membership and the working class. ..."
"... Immigration and trade policies do need to be addressed but rebuilding the unions is the vital step for doing so. ..."
"... "There is not one scrap of statistical evidence – no crime stats, no violent crime stats, NOTHING – that supports Featherstone's outrageous statement that Trump white supporters are "prone to brutality and violence "" ..."
"... The WWC started abandoning the Democratic Party starting with the 1966 mid-term elections. The last Democratic candidate for President to get a majority of the white male vote was LBJ in 1964. ..."
"... The Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Acts were used as wedge issues by the 1968 Nixon campaign. Read all about it in Kevin Phillips' book The Emerging Republican Majority. Phillips helped design the Southern Strategy. Also see Atwater, Lee. ..."
"... The rich have always had a lot of influence in the Republican Party, but under George W. Bush, the wealthy totally took over the party, and the party establishment began to worship at the altars of globalism and tax cuts for the rich. The party could care less about its' Base. The party totally lost the concept of the Common Good, such as we had under Eisenhower and even Nixon. ..."
"... The Base has been faithfully voting Republican in spite of getting very little out of the arrangement, but they are now starting to wake up. The GOP Establishment is going to have to make some changes; they can be for free enterprise, but with some concern for American workers. ..."
"... "Jackson believed that the president's authority was derived from the people and the presidential office was above party politics. Instead of choosing party favorites, Jackson chose 'plain, businessmen' whom he intended to control." ..."
"... This is why Jackson was hated, smeared and maligned, and the same is true of Trump. ..."
"... "In regard to the Petticoat affair, Jackson later remarked, 'I [would] rather have live vermin on my back than the tongue of one of these Washington women on my reputation.'" ..."
"... "If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's appeal (as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big, big mistake." ..."
"... "That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence, frequently not very compassionate or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that their religion is simplistic and mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with them. (I find it hard.)" ..."
"... "They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And they're voting now for Donald Trump." Yeah. No doubt. But they are voting for the same clowns for Congress and the Senate. Kentucky might like Trump, but they will keep McConnell. They hate the establishment that they maintain. It's Obama's fault. He's clouded their minds. That's gotta be it. ..."
"... Rod – do you realize how many of Featherstone's words and sentiments could have been applied to Black Lives Matter? In all seriousness, as I was reading him, I kept thinking, "Working Class White Lives Matter." ..."
"... I'm one of those doing quite well, and supporting Mr. Trump's bid for the Presidency. I'm a degreed mathematician doing research and development in cybersecurity, with a growing portfolio of professional publications, and patents pending. I'm a Marine veteran of the Iraq war whose 'eggs aren't too scrambled'. I married woman who went to one of the best schools in the UK and graduated with honors from one of the best universities in the US. I truly believe that my wife, my child, and I will be fine no matter who wins this election. ..."
"... GOP policy wrt to its impact on many working and middle class Americans seems to me to be a classic case of emperors new clothes. ..."
"... This blog has replaced Scott Adams as the go to place for understanding Trump. Adams deservedly got a lot of credit for correctly predicting that Trump would not collapse, but his own repeated assertions that truth doesn't matter in a 3d world are flatly inconsistent with his pretense to just be reporting the facts about Trump. Once one suspects that he's pretending to report the facts while really drumming up support for Trump it becomes clear how one sided is his analysis. Adams' own sophistic views about the primacy of rhetoric and human beings as meat machines don't license any other interpretation. ..."
"... If the news is to be believed, Trump is certainly no friend of the unions, at least in his own business dealings. ..."
"... Trump speaks for a group that has been abandoned and marginalized by the political classes. He is bringing them back into the system and perhaps bringing a little more balance back to domestic politics. I don't think elites change unless they feel threatened, and I hope Trump is threatening enough to the elites, without actually posing the threat a real revolutionary would pose. ..."
"... My knee-jerk position is to support the working people against the rich. But, given the voting patterns of the white working class going back to 1980, and even to 1968, I find myself vacillating between feeling for them and believing that they got what they wanted (and deserved) good and hard. ..."
I'm tempted to think that the Liberal Establishment hasn't had the same problem to the same
degree because the liberals recognize that Democrats want to do more, but they've been stymied
by the Republican refusal to give Obama any wins.
One other interesting thought:
Trump is a backlash against the GOP elite, in all its various and sundry forms. Whether
Kasich, Jeb, Rubio, Christie, or anyone else -- none of these are acceptable to the disillusioned
party base. Nor would Mitt Romney be were he to waltz into the convention and wrest the nomination
away from Crump–his main selling point in 2012 was that he wasn't Barack Obama, and that's not
relevant this time around.
Much of the angst on the Democratic side isn't against the Democratic establishment
per se , but against the specific person of Hillary Rodham Clinton (and a few other specific
Democrats whom the left intensely dislikes, no others of which are running), who has, for reasons
both good and bad, a lot of enemies. Were the 22nd Amendment to not around to prevent
it and Obama to seek a third term, he'd waltz to the nomination. Were Joe Biden to run in her
stead, he'd receive widespread support across the board. Likewise with many other party fixtures
who are highly popular among Democrats (even if reviled outside the party).
I'm just going to repost what I posted on my FB page yesterday:
To Republican supporters of Donald Trump: I understand your anger and rage at the Republican
Party's failure to pay sufficient attention to your economic concerns – specifically the consequences
of exports of jobs and illegal "imports" of workers. but also issues like wage stagnation. I understand,
therefore, when the GOP finally has a candidate who does mention these concerns front and centre,
he has an appeal for you lacking in the other candidates.
America's wounds are entirely self-inflicted. They include the massively destructive drug
war; imperialist adventures that have drained the national wealth, made life less safe, and savaged
civil liberties; and an increase of government spending as a percentage of GDP from 7 percent
in 1900 to 37 percent today. Almost any economist, left or right, would agree that trade and immigration
(legal or not) are net benefits.
Conservatives, Republican or not, have failed to defend, much less extend, economic freedom;
have supported the growth of government; and have persistently supported militaristic empire.
Trump is the predictable result of the nasty and dunderheaded populism toward which conservatives
have been moving for the past 25 years or so. He is the upshot of an ideology whose prominent
voices have included Coulter, Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly. In politics, you get what
you pander to.
Trump is winning by scapegoating those who bear no responsibility for America's social and
economic ills. Still even conservatives who consider themselves proximate descendants of the old
right twiddle their thumbs and blow kisses to the ignoramuses who embrace Trumpian populism, rather
than challenging his malignant and foolish prescriptions. If Trump is elected and gets his way,
perhaps the ensuing international economic disaster and war with China will help to clarify conservative
thinking. I doubt it, though, since conservatism's singular distinction is its failure to accomplish
anything that its adherents desire. The failure has been patent for a long time, and succinctly
described by Hayek in 1960.
OK, responding to about a half-dozen different comments:
First, regarding the "information bubble" that some are in, we have this:
Aside from government employment the Clinton admin was a hostile force to their interests.
Actually, the opposite was true. Fed Government employment went down 8 straight years during
Clinton's Admin, and started going up again under Bush. Stereotypes don't equal facts.
There is not one scrap of statistical evidence – no crime stats, no violent crime stats,
NOTHING – that supports Featherstone's outrageous statement that Trump white supporters are
"prone to brutality and violence "
OK, now that's pretty ironic, coming on a day when a 78-yo Trump supporter just got arrested
for sucker-punching a black guy who was getting thrown out of a Trump rally, as others were yelling
f*****g n*****s. (See it at http://bcove.me/w5m1iftz
- where the perpetrator goes on to say he enjoyed doing it and would kill him next time) (And
the day after Trump's own campaign manager Corey Lewandowski accosted a Breitbart reporter). Violence
at Trump rallies is nothing new in 2016. Google it.
One commenter said that entire reason the WWC votes for the GOP is: "Race. That's it. Pure
and simple."
The response from another: "What a load of crap."
I'm going to take a middle ground. I think that the Dems had far better economic policies towards
the WWC than the GOP, but that because of the Dems leaning so far liberal on social issues
, that partially alienated the WWC.
But race was most definitely a part of it. Southern Strategy? Welfare Queen? Lee Atwater? Those
things really happened and we can't wish them away.
Look - being against immigration for economic reasons has some logic. But being harsh about
it also attracts xeonophobes and racists. I don't think Trump is racist, but when he was a bit
slow to respond to the KKK's endorsement of him, I think Trump was trying to figure out a way
not to damage his support among the white nationalistic crowd.
William F. Buckley, we could sure use you now!
The evidence is thick is that despite his election, certain elements in the Republican
Party persisted in presenting Obama as the Other, the treasonous Other.
Indeed. He was a black-Commie-Kenyan who was illegible to be Prez. And note who was a prominent
leader of the so-called "birther movement"? None other than The Donald himself. And the GOP, with
a nod and a wink, didn't protest too much, because they thought it'd be useful in the 2012 elections.
(McCain of all people, bless him, was one of the few prominent GOPers in 2008 who pushed back
on this Otherization.)
"The problem with BLM and the 'racism' narrative is that there is a real demonstrable
problem in that young Black men commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes (for whatever
reason), and you can't come up with good public policy unless you get honest about that fact."
True. But the problem with the pushback against BLM is that there is a real demonstrable problem
that there are a number of racist police who target blacks and abuse their authority - and lie
on official reports about it. (The Ferguson Report was absolutely devastating!) Conservatives
who favor limited government ought to be all over that, no? The main thing that's changed now
is the ubiquity of cell-phone cameras and increasing use of dash-cams, so we all can see, with
our own eyes, what the black community has been complaining about for 150 years.
Dancer Girl, What you're trying to do is make the "What's the matter with Kansas?" argument a matter of
the candidate's approach not the voters' response. But in the final analysis, it amounts to the
same thing.
Assuming (for the sake of argument) that Bernie will get blacks the single-payer health insurance
and free college tuition they've longed for. You're saying that because he didn't approach their
barbershop the right way, they voted against that–not just for themselves, but for their families,
their children, the whole country. That's not any different from saying that W won the election
because white people thought he was the kind of the guy you could have a beer with.
Your response shows that no, there's no way you can spin the "They vote against their best
interest and good policy because of culture" argument in a way that doesn't make them look like
bad voters. You understood that fact, which is why you felt that you had to reply and say, no,
that's not really the case. You felt the need to rebut it. Well, so do white working class voters
when the argument's used against them. Which illustrates why using that argument is not a good
way to win over voters.
And by the way, reality check: winning 30% of the vote of a given demographic in a two way
contest is not promising, not hopeful, not a turning point–not any of the things the Sanders campaign
says it is. It's getting CRUSHED, SHELLACKED, DEFEATED IN A LANDSLIDE–what ever headline phrase
you want to use. The fact that it's being spun as somehow a great new emerging reality of a "Feel
the Bern" moment among African-Americans is testimony to the enduring hold of the myth that the
"What's the matter with Kansas" argument is only relevant for the voting behavior of down-market
whites.
James Fallows quotes a data analysis of the vote in Michigan that finds to the analyst's surprise
that districts that suffered the greatest loss of manufacturing were NOT the districts that voted
predominately for Trump meaning "economic anxiety" does not explain the Trump voting pattern.
"But it always struck me there was some other agenda to the immigration."
The number of immigrants and their young children grew six times faster than the nation's
total population from 1970 to 2015 - 353 percent vs. 59 percent.
This is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government
parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third
World majority is proceeding right on schedule.
And will America be the same with different people in it? If the answer is yes, we should ask
for evidence that making it different makes it better. If the answer is no, then we should ask
why we are doing this.
We are, in short, being told to commit suicide. For our children's sake, is both our right
and our duty to refuse.
Were Joe Biden to run in her stead, he'd receive widespread support across the board.
Joe Biden has run for president a couple of times, and he always stayed in single digits
for the simple reason that he always puts his foot in his mouth, way in. I have difficulty
believing he wouldn't do so again. I mean, he did it on the afternoon after the inauguration.
Then there is his propensity to pontificate on what Catholic doctrine really means - just like
dominic1955 does. A political leader in a constitutional republican should simply say "I was elected
to represent the people of Delaware, not my church."
"his is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government
parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third
World majority is proceeding right on schedule.
And will America be the same with different people in it? If the answer is yes, we should
ask for evidence that making it different makes it better. If the answer is no, then we should
ask why we are doing this.
We are, in short, being told to commit suicide. For our children's sake, is both our right
and our duty to refuse."
Let's be honest here: there is pretty much 1:1 correlation between people who are concerned
about "replacement " of American people, and people who think Black Americans, here since the
1500s, and some other smaller groups, here since the 1800s, don't belong to the nation you are
trying to "protect." Which is why your tears seem so hollow to outsiders..
The majority of blue collar Trump supporters would have been the direct beneficiaries of Obama's
American Jobs Act. The only reason Boehner and McConnell wouldn't allow that to pass is they knew
that a good economy benefits Obama.
But ironically in allowing these economic inequalities to
fester they made it conducive for Trump's rise. The GOP deserves Trump. He is their reward for
years of crony capitalism, irresponsible government, petty obstruction, and outright nihilism.
And as scared as I am of Trump I look at the electoral map and don't see any possible route for
his victory. Are we really to believe that his vulgar, racist nationalism will move Ohio, Florida,
and Virginia back to the GOP column? Are we really to believe that millions of good conservatives
stayed home in 2012, but that Trump will be the ticket to bring them to the polls in 2016? No.
Trump as GOP nominee all but guarantees President Hillary Clinton. And where will conservatism
go from there? Republican leaders have no one left to lie to. Meep, Meep.
But Ross Perot was that rich guy back in 1992, and he choked. But that was near the beginning
of globalization.
1) Globalization was already here in 1992 and ushered in by the Reagan Revolution and the battle
of the Carter years. Wasn't the boom box in college dorm (or apartment) manufactured in Japan?
Michael Moore first big movie "Roger and Me " was released in 1989. (And centered around Flint,
MI)
2) How did Perot choke? He got 19% against a (now respected) incumbent and the 'Elvis' of politicians.
Yes he made some errors but that was one heck of run for a third party.
RD: If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's
appeal (as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big,
big mistake.
I suspect most mainstream Democrats already understand Trump's appeal. Obama explained this
very plainly eight years ago in a speech in which he referenced these voters' bitterness and their
clinging to guns and religion. He took a lot of heat from Republicans for that speech, but it's
very hard to read that speech and disagree with it.
Obama and most Democrats understood very well the anger of poor whites and they tried desperately
to win their votes. And, as is now made plain by so many poor, white Trump supporters, they didn't
vote for Obama and other Democratic politicians because they believe those politicians hold them
in low esteem or have called them racists. That is the running theme in all of these sympathetic
posts about Trump supporters. It's a lazy cheap shot because it is never corroborated by
any example of a Democratic politician ever actually doing this or anything remotely like it.
It's just an ineffectual way to avoid responsibility for the consequences of one's actions.
These people don't vote for Democratic politicians because they don't like the other people
who vote for Democratic politicians. They do not use their votes to pursue policies that improve
their own conditions. Instead, they use their votes as a weapon against people with whom they
have a grievance.
As Charles Featherstone said: Trump is poking all of the right people in the eyes for all
the right reasons. Over and over we hear commenters on this very blog express some desire
to stick it to SJWs, elites, coastal elites and others who they dislike. Well, there is a cost
for using your vote as an expression of resentment instead of a tool for implementing good policy.
The obvious cost is that you will be harmed by the policies of the Republican politicians you
vote for.
Another, less obvious cost is that other people will think you are backward or less intelligent,
for why else would you pursue policies that clearly harm you just so you can express dislike for
someone else? That's really not anyone else's fault. More importantly, it's not at all clear how
Democrats could change this and still help their current supporters.
First the Republican party is not in a state of free fall. Just because the people shut out since
Pres. Reagan took office as the party shifted toward an interested and wealthier class doesn't
mean those people have not been around. Yesterday I got my voter notice. It said I was unaffiliated.
A battle I go through ever election cycle. And I was prepared to go through it again until I read
this morning that Mr. trump is back peddling on immigration.
We aren't even in the general and he is already tiptoeing through the tulips. I hope it's not
true. Not only is the Republican Party not in disarray, it is in a position to flex some conservative
muscle if they stand to course. That is unless Mr. trump turns out to be a liberal in disguise
all along and that may be.
I don't get my dignity veracity, faith integrity from the political party. I am associated
with the Republican party because they reflect a healthy dose of what I believe. Perhaps a lot
less. Upon examination, it's hard to think of anything the party represents that I consider vital
conservative thought.
I guess if you want to call my loyalty to country bigotry that's your call. I know Mr. trump
will not be calling for a national day of celibacy, prayer, etc. I don't expect him to. I expect
him to govern and I expect him to govern with some sense of understanding one cannot raise taxes
and without a good dose of history that whatever they are being raised for is most likely unnecessary
for anything aside from pandering to some emotional call.
He still as to deal with a connected establishment Congress.
But the pivot to a Mr. trump has far more to do with foreign policy than domestic policy
aside from immigration. It was his less than aggressive use of the military.
Mr. Trump is not going to turn the country into a Hugo Chavez haven of halting corruption.
These kinds of hyperbolic refections of Republican party eulogies are not unknown in history and
thus far they have proved wrong. The Party may shift hopefully more rightward than left. Hopefully
it will shift more country orientation. But make no mistake, Mr Trump will not have been the cause
of any decay. He will be the benefactor of a decay the levin of which has gone unchecked for quite
a long time.
Another thought provoked by Dancer Girl's comments:
"I just wish [Trump voters]'d leave him behind and rally around Bernie Sanders."
Well it would be nice if poor Southern Blacks would do the same.
It's obvious to many commentators that working-class Republican voters are voting against
their own interests by allowing themselves to be fooled by cultural cues and dog whistles. But
the big unreported story is that the same thing is happening in the Democratic primaries as well.
Poor Southern Blacks are voting by colossal margins for the Wall Street version of the Democratic
Party over the socialist version of the Democratic Party. Why? Because the Wall Street candidate
is married to a guy who has all his Southern fried cultural cues and dog whistles working right
and the socialist has spent too much of his time among up-tight Yankees in Vermont.
Just one more way in which salt of the earth Blacks and Whites aren't all that different and
are, in everything except tribal allegiance, getting more similar all the time. Both put racial
honor and dignity over economic self-interest, and for a technocratic, policy-oriented politics
aiming to just make lives better, that's a real problem.
To the liberals and progressives who still dismiss the travails of the white working class,
you only reinforce their alienation and disdain for you.
I have, throughout my adult life, supported economic policies that directly or indirectly benefitted
the working class (white or otherwise) to my own economic detriment. You name the policy – unionization,
higher minimum wages, public health insurance, strong and well-funded public education at all
levels, better public transport, mixed-income housing, consumer protection for financial services,
etc. etc. – I have either advocated or in fact implemented it. I have done so in most instances
in direct contradiction to my own economic interests, because I thought it was the right thing
to do. I have even argued against affirmative action, in recognition of the resentments it creates,
even as I see "hockey/baseball/football/church choir-club affirmative action" all around me. Grin
and bear it; old habits take long to die.
Now, the same people I have been trying to help, called me a "parasite" because I was in the
public sector, "blood-sucker" because I was a lawyer, and a couple of unmentionables because I'm
gay and slightly tanned.
So, please, spare me the "dismiss and be disdained" business: I never dismissed but more often
than not got disdain just because. I wish I had in me to say they deserve their lot, and they
will deserve the eventual betrayal by Trump, but I don't. I'm still a good little liberal, disturbed
by all of this to be sure, but nevertheless hopeful that I can make a difference – for them (I
don't need any help).
Andrew Jackson:
They were "America is still racist." And they set out to prove it. Now we feel more bitterly
divided then ever. I could go into more detail, about the issues involved, but it's just frustrating
to me, and the stuff I quoted above is ready made excuse that is not true to my experience.
When Obama became president, Republican leaders set out to make him a one-term president, not
by offering better solutions, but by making sure he would achieve nothing. The first black president.
And when the birther nonsense continued, Republican leaders did nothing to stop it – as late as
2012, Romney was making light of his birthplace. The first black president. Even as they attack
him for following Wright, a protestant pastor, he was accused of being a secret Muslim. And Republican
leaders did little to combat this calumny.
The evidence is thick is that despite his election, certain elements in the Republican Party
persisted in presenting Obama as the Other, the treasonous Other. Some of it was because he was
a Democrat. But if you are suggesting that racism has had nothing to with what Obama has gone
through, well, we just have to disagree.
Anyone who thinks Conservatives, all three of them in proportion to the rest of the electorate
will stay home and let Hillary be elected is in need of oxygen. When it comes to the general election
Trump will probably bury Hillary.
I want to see how he will work with Congress. We know Congress won't have anything to do with
Hillary and the House will vote to impeach her the first chance it gets, possibly the day after
the inauguration. A vote for Hillary is, at the very least, a vote for four years of absolute
gridlock and virtual civil war in DC. Bernie might actually get some of his less radical ideas
through simply because everyone likes him and for all of his nuttiness does seem to actually care
about the American people before he cares about the sacred policy.
But let us understand one important thing. Trump is in no way destroying the Republican
Party. They will still hold the House, may hang onto the Senate, and will still hold the majority
of state governments. That is hardly a party that is being destroyed. In the long run, the Democrats
are in far worse shape as that Republican majority in every other branch of government not only
means that the Democrats do not have much a farm team for future presidential nominees, (look
what they got stuck with this year.) but also it means enough barriers being thrown up in the
way of the Democrats voting blocks to keep from even voting at all.
"but rich people with poor impulse control are pretty much the last people you want in positions
of power." That makes a great tweet, but it's helpful to get beyond abstract generalities. Trump
has poor impulse control on his mouth, to be sure, but there's every indication that his impulses
will not lead to new wars or "kinetic" military actions in places like North Africa, the Middle
East or Ukraine. His impulsiveness has also led him to reveal that he wants to be "neutral" on
the Palestinian question. To me, his non-interventionist "impulses," if you will, are extremely
important on a purely pragmatic level.
An earlier comment I thought I had posted seems to have vanished (maybe I failed to hit "send"
before leaving for the office )
But +1 to those who compare the plight of working-class whites to African-Americans. Both groups
have subcultures who engage in self-destructive behaviors and take perverse pride in doing so.
Yet, it seems, around here–one of these groups are yeoman folk suffering at the hands of working-class
elites who look down at them, but the other are simply thugs and layabouts. Around here, one culture
is met with sympathy, and the other with scorn. One are the victims of circumstances, the other
are the architects of their own misery.
But of course, this goes way beyond racial politics. Many conservatives lionize the late Margaret
Thatcher, who is often held to have "saved Britain". Saved it from what exactly–the Russians or
the Germans or the French or the Spanish or the Normans or the Vikings or the Romans? No–she is
held to have saved Britain from its own people–specifically unionized miners who had, according
to the retelling, captured an excessive share of the country's wealth. Perhaps they had–truly
answering that question requires either getting into nasty questions of comparable worth, or abandoning
the whole question to the market–but in doing so, she smashed many of Britain's institutions and
communities to bits.
And around here–many of the people who seem outraged at the decline of factory work in rural
communities; were openly cheering the demise of Detroit (and often still are). Many people who
lament the outsourcing of good-paying American jobs, and the devastation of many communities that
result–hate and resent their local schoolteachers or bus drivers who still do have good
jobs with good pay. Granted, public employees have their paychecks financed by the taxpayer, so
the general public is in the position of "management"–but still, the point stands: Some people
expect aid and sympathy when they hit hard times, but have responded to the please of others in
similar circumstances with shame and judgment.
Given that we bailed out Detroit, of course we should help struggling small towns. But we should
help all struggling communities best we can, not only those with particular demographics,
leaving the rest to fester. No demographic in the United States is uniquely noble and uniquely
deserving of public support. To the extent that WCWs believe that they are more noble, more industrious,
more patriotic, and more virtuous than the rest of us–sorry, you're not. (But nor, on the whole,
are you any worse).
Union-busting has done more to undercut and immiserate the working class than mass immigration
and "free trade," and union leaders spending millions of dollars on electing Democrats and Republicans
(at the state level) have betrayed their membership and the working class.
Immigration and trade policies do need to be addressed but rebuilding the unions is the
vital step for doing so. Unfortunately, I don't see the latter happening absent the development
of a tough, theoretically vibrant revolutionary socialist movement, which is my only concession
to the pessimism (or cynicism?) of Walter F.
Jim the First:
"if you're talking about parochial schools in the Catholic sense – they integrated before Brown
v. Board for the most part. If you're talking about parochial schools in the non-Catholic sense,
there just aren't enough of them to matter very much."
Now that all depends on exactly where you are. In the flatter South, protestant or non-denominational
Christian Academies are more important. I can't speak to other northern areas, but around here,
the Catholic Schools are why the city is 50/50 black and white, and the public schools are 80%
black.
"There is not one scrap of statistical evidence – no crime stats, no violent crime stats,
NOTHING – that supports Featherstone's outrageous statement that Trump white supporters are "prone
to brutality and violence ""
I think he's saying white trashy people he's had experience with are like that, not Trump supporters
by and large.
He's right to some degree. I don't see my fellow white collar folks getting drunk of Steel
Reserve and having to have the cops come in an break up a "domestic dispute".
Jim the First- The WWC started abandoning the Democratic Party starting with the 1966 mid-term elections.
The last Democratic candidate for President to get a majority of the white male vote was LBJ in
1964.
The Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Acts were used as wedge issues by the 1968 Nixon
campaign. Read all about it in Kevin Phillips' book The Emerging Republican Majority. Phillips
helped design the Southern Strategy. Also see Atwater, Lee.
True, it wasn't all race. Hippies and peaceniks were associated with the Democrats. Acid, amnesty,
and abortion had a lot to do with it too.
But race was the first big crack in the edifice of the New Deal coalition.
"The point is that Charles has been beat up pretty bad by life. It's still happening. He's
a middle-aged white guy struggling for work, struggling to find solid ground."
"They lost their influence, their dignity and their shot at the American Dream, and now they're
angry. They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And
they're voting now for Donald Trump."
"But I get why people less secure economically than I am don't care, and are for him anyway."
Plus this:
"Point is, Trump is drawing from all demographic groups."
The point is, this last observation invalidates your entire post. If Trump is drawing from
all demographic groups, then his success isn't explained by anecdotes about poor, economically
dispossessed people.
The rich have always had a lot of influence in the Republican Party, but under George W. Bush,
the wealthy totally took over the party, and the party establishment began to worship at the altars
of globalism and tax cuts for the rich. The party could care less about its' Base. The party totally
lost the concept of the Common Good, such as we had under Eisenhower and even Nixon.
The Base has been faithfully voting Republican in spite of getting very little out of the
arrangement, but they are now starting to wake up. The GOP Establishment is going to have to make
some changes; they can be for free enterprise, but with some concern for American workers.
On top of it all, the demographics of the US are changing and whites are shrinking as a percentage
of the electorate. The GOP cannot be a whites only party. Having written off African-Americans,
they are now writing off Hispanics. Unless the GOP makes some fundamental changes, they will not
win another national election.
" But the people he motivated, and who voted for him, they aren't going away - and neither
are their problems and concerns. "
This is why I see it as the American Spring.
Granted it doesn't have the massive numbers of protesters that the countries where "Springs"
have been claimed before have had. America is not yet anywhere approaching the levels of poverty
and other problems that those countries have, and there is still some of the illusion of democracy
left in its oligarchic politics. And America doesn't have a far richer superpower interfering
and aggressively promoting, with seemingly unlimited wealth and power, its own political culture
as the potential solution to all the ills of the people in the target country, and deliberately
holding out the hope of superpower military intervention on behalf of the protesters if they just
cause enough trouble for long enough.
But still, the Trump candidacy seemingly has triggered something that won't just go away when
Trump goes away (unless another anaesthetising period of economic growth cones along to postpone
things for a while). It will merely develop along different lines according to how Trump is treated
and how far he gets.
As productivity climbed, working-class Americans wanted their wages to rise also. Instead,
Republicans gave them tax cuts for the rich while liberal Democrats called them racists and
bigots.
Who voted the Republicans into power? We know it wasn't African-Americans (80+% of them vote
Democratic), nor was it Latinos, nor Hispanics, nor Asians(not enough of them) nor was it wealthy
people (again not enough of them). So all that left is White people (aka Real Americans™) and
as we all know the vast majority of White Americans are working and middle class. So basically
the White Working and Middle classes voted for the policies that screwed them, the only question
left to answer is why. Where they to lazy and stupid to read the
Republican Platform ? or was it something
else?
I have very limited sympathy for the the White Working and Middle classes, particularly the
Southern ones, they got what they voted for. A little less blaming of liberals & democrats and
a whole lot of self-awareness would do wonders.
You have been over-analyzing the Trump phenomenon and the psyche of the white working class these
last few weeks. You make it sound as if they are some poor oppressed class whose life's are miserable.
I am one of them. I am from them through and through and my life isn't too bad. I'm quite blessed
actually.
Do I have the opportunities that my grandfather who worked at a Ford factory without a high
school diploma, and retired in his early 50's? Or my dad who was able to buy a home on a grocery
store stock boy's wage? No. But I have a safe and warm place to live, a job, a beautiful family,
and my heart is not full of hatred.
You don't seem to give as much time looking into the hearts and souls of poor black folks or
undocumented workers and their struggles. Maybe their struggles aren't noble enough for you attention
and obsessive mulling over. But, let me tell you, they have plenty of legit complaints that go
way beyond "Boohoo! I don't have very much savings!"
"Nobody has ever seen a thing like this in American politics."
You need to revise this statement to say, "in post WWII American television politics." If you
study the history of the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian eras, you will find many examples that resemble
today. I think we over sentimentalize past American politics. Trump very much resembles the politics
and attitude of Jacksonian era America. Just take a look at the back and forth between the campaigners
of John Quincy Adams and the General:
"Jackson blamed the death of his wife, Rachel, which occurred just after the election, on the
Adams campaigners who called her a 'bigamist.'"
Here is another take on Jackson that sounds a lot like Trump:
"Jackson believed that the president's authority was derived from the people and the presidential
office was above party politics. Instead of choosing party favorites, Jackson chose 'plain, businessmen'
whom he intended to control."
This is why Jackson was hated, smeared and maligned, and the same is true of Trump.
And if you think the tabloid gossip going on today is oh so shocking, check out the Petticoat
Affair of 1830:
"In regard to the Petticoat affair, Jackson later remarked, 'I [would] rather have live
vermin on my back than the tongue of one of these Washington women on my reputation.'"
[NFR: I meant "nobody alive has seen a thing like this". - RD]
"Trump may be denied the GOP nomination, in the end, and he probably won't be elected president.
But the people he motivated, and who voted for him, they aren't going away - and neither are their
problems and concerns.
"Who will speak for them then?"
Vox Day points out that if the GOPe denies the nationalists with Trump, then later we will
get something much worse, the ultra-nationalists.
"If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's appeal
(as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big, big
mistake."
I agree with you – and go further: writing any voter off as a racist clod, or any clod, is
idiotic.
But clod or not, a certain segment of the American population has been – for lack of a better
term – "alienated", for political purposes, by the fear and envy of the Other. It began with Reagan's
infamous Welfare Queen speech in Mississippi, thus – and instantly – turning social welfare programs
into a question of race. Liberals/progressives/Democrats have never been able to escape that –
and they could exorcise the issue in electoral terms only by Bill Clinton's sharp tack to the
right. Be that as it may, the gambit worked: the Democrats became known not only as the party
of tax and spend, but also the party of Special Interests (of the rainbow variety), and the programs
supported by Democrats became programs of the Other, to be challenged and dismantled, even if
they benefited the white working class – the segment of the population Reagan cut off of the Democratic
coalition.
Then came the election of 2008, and suddenly the Other was in the White House. The Trumpkins
want to "Take American Back" because they have been told that the Kenyan Socialist Muslim stole
their country. The evidence for that is scant, non-existent, but no matter. Republican leaders
have been screaming from the rooftops not just that the President of the United States should
be replaced in the next election, which is a normal thing to say, but that, in effect, he and
his administration are illegitimate; what he proposes is un-American; he is committing treason
merely by being in Office.
Any wonder then that the most vulnerable segment of the Republican base, subjected to thirty
years of fear on the one hand and sustained economic attacks (mostly by their own side) on the
other, then turn to one who promises deliverance?
"If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's appeal
(as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big, big
mistake."
I don't disagree. But why? *Why* would people (a) not try to understand and (b) write his backers
off? And to be honest, I think that is exactly what they are doing. And that might be the more
important story in this whole mess. We have reached a point where our cultural elites despise
the masses.
Re: Charles Featherstone, "That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence,
frequently not very compassionate or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that
their religion is simplistic and mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with
them. (I find it hard.)"
Replace "white" with "black" or "hispanic" and see how far that observation travels. Featherstone
should be writing for the "poor, uneducated and easy to command" Washington Post. His selective
stereotypical misanthropy would fit right in.
Good thing Featherstone has his lovely immigrant friends to talk to. God help him if he actually
had to cavort with the repulsive white riff-raff.
"They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And
they're voting now for Donald Trump." Yeah. No doubt. But they are voting for the same clowns
for Congress and the Senate. Kentucky might like Trump, but they will keep McConnell. They hate
the establishment that they maintain. It's Obama's fault. He's clouded their minds. That's gotta
be it.
Rod – do you realize how many of Featherstone's words and sentiments could have been applied
to Black Lives Matter? In all seriousness, as I was reading him, I kept thinking, "Working Class
White Lives Matter."
It's frustrating that so many people will hear and connect, emotionally, with what he is saying,
while dimissing many of the same ideas when they are put forth in the African-American context.
It's like they are saying white people are hard-working, screwed over folks who may appropriately
advance this argument, but black people are whiny, criminally-inclined ingrates who should not.
I am genuinely struck by the way the core of his message speaks to the alienation, lack of
faith, lack of trust, and real fear that spurred the rise of BLM. His words, however, will probably
be met largely with compassion, while the movement's words will be dismissed, will be met with
the assertion that the problem of police abusing authority is not as bad as they say it is, or
will be met with the deflection to a morally and politically distinct issue - so-called "black-on-black"
crime.
To be clear, my thoughts about BLM, described above, are particularly troubling in the age of
Trump. I'm noodling over a bunch of things right now, but one big concern I have is the seeming
fragility of a multicultural nation. It feels like we are splintering; the competition for dignity,
if you will, is becoming more intense because we are increasingly persuaded that it exists in
finite supply; and that desire for dignity among Trump supporters is manifesting as shameless
bigotry or willful blindness to it in pursuit of transformative ends.
I get – and hear – the claims of despair that many Trump backers articulate. I just wish they'd
leave him behind and rally around Bernie Sanders. He is, in so many ways, the flipside of Trump.
I'm one of those doing quite well, and supporting Mr. Trump's bid for the Presidency. I'm
a degreed mathematician doing research and development in cybersecurity, with a growing portfolio
of professional publications, and patents pending. I'm a Marine veteran of the Iraq war whose
'eggs aren't too scrambled'. I married woman who went to one of the best schools in the UK and
graduated with honors from one of the best universities in the US. I truly believe that my wife,
my child, and I will be fine no matter who wins this election.
But I'm cheering Mr. Trump and planning on voting for him.
I come from a medium-sized city in Virginia that has hitched its wagon to the fortunes of the
major state university there, as well as the two private colleges in the area. (One of which was
briefly mentioned on this blog in the past year.) My hometown is historically a pretty rural area,
but that's changing.
As a case study, I would point you to our local poultry plant. It used to be the case that
this plant provided good jobs to a lot of the locals who weren't college material, but now you'd
be hard pressed to find many people who grew up in the county working there. You'd be hard pressed
to find more than 15% or so of the workforce fluent in the English Language. The local workforce
was replaced by cheaper immigrant labor.
While this has happened, my hometown has become a major drug smuggling point in the East Coast.
One of my childhood friends got caught up in the synthetic drug trade and is serving a 30-odd
year sentence. There are gangs - Gangster Disciples, SUR 13 I believe I remember hearing about
Bloods in the area. This is not the happy, little rural college town that I remember from my childhood.
(And I do recognize that it may never have been the town of my childhood memories, but what it
has become is NOT an improvement.)
I also LOVE that Mr. Trump is standing up to the blatant dishonesty of political correctness.
(But the PC rant is another topic that I haven't time for this morning.)
Why am I supporting Mr. Trump? My close circle might well benefit a little bit more with another
candidate, but I maintain a memory and fondness of the place that I came from and the people there.
I'd like to see their world built back up, or at least to see its eroding and creative destruction
ceased. Will Mr. Trump accomplish this? I don't know. He is pretty plainly stating that there's
a problem, diagnosing it reasonably well, and claiming that he can do something about it. That's
something. It's more than the lip service that we hear from the other candidates. Mr. Trump is a
deeply flawed candidate and man, but beggars can't be choosers.
GOP policy wrt to its impact on many working and middle class Americans seems to me to be
a classic case of emperors new clothes. It's kind of surprising that it took so long for
so many to see that it's naked. I wonder, if we hadn't had a decade or so of amped up patriotism
from foreign wars whether it would have taken so long.
Rod, at what point do we need to stop merely trying to understand Trump supporters and start trying
to stop them? All due respect, there's nothing about their support for him I don't understand.
I understand them thoroughly. At the end of the day, they support a man who is now a monstrous
demagogue and who would be a monstrous tyrant. I empathize with Charles Featherstone, who lucidly
recognizes his attraction to Trump as envy. But he's also lucid enough not to vote for the guy.
Look, I get not want to bolt over to Hilary Clinton. I also get being irate at the GOP and
not wanting to vote for any of them in the general election. I would even get not voting in the
primary, since virtually everyone except Rand Paul who is not Trump ran on some variation of the
policies that got people mad at the party in the first place. (And Paul's economic ideas are less
than feasible at this point in our history.) None of that is a good reason to vote for
Trump. If the country really is in decline, Trump is the person who would leave it a smoking crater
at the end of four years. Voting for him is madness. Yes, an "understandable" madness,
but madness nonetheless.
So. I've heard the sob stories. I've heard the litany of betrayals. I've heard the indictments
of the GOP's bad faith. I swear to you that I get it. None of that is sufficient, in my
book, to protect Trumpkins from the fundamentally true criticism that they are knowingly supporting
a racist, xenophobic, misogynist, ignorant bully who encourages violence at his rallies and openly
brags about abusing the system to make himself richer (and, by logical extension, to make the
rest of us poorer). If the Trumpkins get that, and they don't care, what do we do, Rod? I mean,
it's all well and good to give these people space to air their grievances and disappointments,
but from where I sit, they are one hundred percent committed to the wholesale decimation of what
precious little respect, civility, and coherent policy debate still remains in national politics.
Doesn't this merit a vigorous, sustained rebuttal or denunciation?
This is important, because Donald Trump is not "single-handedly destroying the Republican
Party." He's doing it with the hands of every single person who has voted for him, and who has
pledged to support his candidacy, however much longer that lasts. And if, God forbid, Trump actually
makes it to the White House, he will not be "single-handedly" destroying the United States of
America. He will do it with the help of every single one of the people who voted for him. I've
no love for the Republican Party. They certainly, as they say, had this coming. But Trump is a
menace to more than the GOP, and there are ways to weaken and destroy a political party that don't
involve running a crypto-fascist as a viable primary candidate.
At what point, Rod, do his voters start sharing culpability for every racist, misogynist, xenophobic,
ignorant thing he says and every act of violence he encourages? Because your posts have made it
very clear that they know exactly what kind of person he is. They're supporting him anyway. Which
means that they are knowingly supporting all the evil crap that goes along with it. People of
good conscience don't support that kind of stuff. As I said at the outset, I totally get refusing
to vote Republican or Democrat. I get why people are angry. I get why, in theory, they want to
vote for someone who will dismantle the status quo. And while I do totally understand why people
vote for Trump, a huge part of that understanding is the knowledge that every single one of these
people has endorsed, with eyes wide open and their consciences apparently clear, everything diabolical
about his campaign as well.
How much time are you going to spend trying to understand that ?
Then why don't these poor desperate people vote for Bernie? Bernie Sanders has spent his whole
life championing the poor and working class and his whole campaign is built around it. You want
to ignore the racial aspects then fine. But don't pretend they don't exist. Maybe it is not even
race as such. More class or clan solidarity. However, understanding the Trump voter and their
general malaise does not detract that Trump is a dangerous demagogue who will ruin this country
in the unlikely event he is elected.
As productivity climbed, working-class Americans wanted their wages to rise also. Instead,
Republicans gave them tax cuts for the rich while liberal Democrats called them racists and bigots.
Mick, above, asks the question that I have:
When did Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakais call white working class people
bigots?
That's a question worth pondering, imho.
icarusr, above, notes:
It began with Reagan's infamous Welfare Queen speech in Mississippi, thus – and instantly
– turning social welfare programs into a question of race.
Bingo. (Although, I would suggest that it's roots go back to Nixon's "Southern Strategy", and
then to Lee Atwater's famous confession).
Some of the dog-whistling is loud and clear (to be clear: I'm not accusing the GOP leaders
of being racists - I'm accusing some of them of demagoguery).
So when Dems see poor working class folks voting for officials that reject raising the minimum
wage (see Arkansas, where they simultaneously voted to increase, and voted for officials who were
against it), or promise to dismantle their state's version of Obamacare even though they love
the program (see, e.g., Kentucky), Dems can't help wonder if the opposition to these programs
- against their own interests - is based on the dog-whistle attacks concocted by the spiritual
descendants of Atwater. These consultants tap into the fear expressed, or rather stoke the anger
expressed by the idea "when I need government assistance, it's because I'm down on my luck, but
I still work hard - when that black guy down the street applies for government assistance, it's
because he's a lazy good-for-nothing."
Which, really, is just a more crass way of saying "Welfare Queen!"
Rod said: "And now Trump. I think back to watching his Mobile rally - August 21 [actually 25],
2015 - on TV, the first time I had seen an entire Trump campaign speech. Thirty thousand people
came out to hear him. And the speech was ridiculous - a rambling mess. I snorted that anybody
would be taken in by this nonsense. I didn't care for any of his competitors either, but at least
they gave coherent speeches. This guy? Clown."
"Ridiculous nonsense"? Rod, you don't hear Trump speeches the way that Middle America hears
him – the way that working America hears him.
This is the link to the first of a 10-part transcript of Trump's Mobile speech and it's worth
skimming through quickly, Rod, with the advantage of 6 months worth of hindsight. The Trump Mobile
speech is a MASTERPIECE. Listening to it, I remember thinking: "Trump understands. Trump tells
it like it is. Trump's the one!"
This blog has replaced Scott Adams as the go to place for understanding Trump. Adams deservedly
got a lot of credit for correctly predicting that Trump would not collapse, but his own repeated
assertions that truth doesn't matter in a 3d world are flatly inconsistent with his pretense to
just be reporting the facts about Trump. Once one suspects that he's pretending to report the
facts while really drumming up support for Trump it becomes clear how one sided is his analysis.
Adams' own sophistic views about the primacy of rhetoric and human beings as meat machines don't
license any other interpretation.
I think the moral center of this blog almost* always gives Rod a vastly greater appreciation
of why people of good will believe and desire what they do, even when Rod disagrees. This is a
general virtue of the blog, but it is really manifest in the coverage of Trump.
The tragic sense of life, and the related appreciation for the necessity of tragic tradeoffs
in human affairs, that informs true and worthwhile conservatism also proves (at least when leavened
by love) to be conducive to understanding as well.
I also think that Rod's analysis of these issues is getting out. I was talking to my father
on the phone last night and asked him what he thought of Trump, and while he would never vote
for Trump he said that it seemed to him that lots of people were very angry because the policies
of the Republican party didn't answer to their pressing problems or concerns. If my father is
understanding things this way, then I do think there is a real possibility of a paleoconservative
moment coming out of the crack up of the Republican party's horrible Frankenstein melange of libertarian
economics, neo-conservative foreign policy, and theocratic statism on drugs and gender, all sewn
together with the kind of rent-seeking corruption under the guise of "privatization" and "economic
development" that has now brought several states (including the gret stet where Rod and I reside)
to their knees.
Trump is scary, but I think a correct understanding of Trump points the way towards a better
muddling through, which (as all paleocons will agree) is the best we can or should hope for this
side of Heaven.
[*Rare exceptions where I think Rod's moral imagination sometimes doesn't extend in this way-
(1) evidence of coming to grips with the utter hell that many gay and transgender kids go through
(especially in conservative Christian households where the suicide and homelessness rate of the
gay kids is immense) and what biology now tells us about gender and sex, and (2) the intellectual
foundations of the Protestant Reformation (e.g. rejecting Aquinas in favor of Augustine) and how
that ties to liberal Protestants' sincere understanding of Christianity.]
I cannot buy this economic argument for support of Trump. Why no mention of Sanders, who is the
only anti-free trade candidate running. Trump *says* he is opposed to free trade, but he is obviously
lying. Historically who spoke for the white working class? Labor. And who was allied with Labor
in the late 19th and early 20th century? The old Socialists, of whom Sanders is the only one left
who holds any power.
The Republicans have always been the party of the capitalist elites and the Whigs before then
too. You can never get any support of working class white people from capitalists, they have completely
opposing interests.
[NFR: Because Bernie Sanders is a cultural leftist who supports generous immigration policies.
- RD]
Charles Featherstone "But you leave people behind at your peril. You can tell them to "lie down
and die," and some will. But many won't.
And if there are enough of them, well "
Well, *what*? I keep seeing these vague statements about how the white working class can only
be "pushed so far", and that their anger must be addressed "or else". Or else what? I ask. They'll
throw their votes away on an unacceptable candidate like Trump who cannot be allowed to take office
(and thereby ensure Mrs. Clinton's election; yeah, that's *really* sticking it to us on the left),
or some other futile, impotent tantrum. These are hollow threats.
Rod "But the people he motivated, and who voted for him, they aren't going away - and neither
are their problems and concerns."
Actually, long-term demographic, economic and cultural trends mean that they *are* going away,
albeit rather slowly. But, in the meantime, they can and will be increasingly contained. Read
Cowen's "Average is Over" for how he predicts modern technologies, including electronic entertainment,
robotic drones, machine surveillance, and psychiatric medications will likely prevent any rebellions.
Or read David Brin's "The Transparent Society" (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society
), about the increasing ubiquity of inescapable surveillance and "sousveillance". Add mass
communication, information abundance, improvements and automation in marketing. And consider social
media, with "Facebook felons" and Twitter "shadowbans". Or the return of Peeple, and the example
set by China's "Sesame Credit". We're all watching one another, compiling and sharing data on
one another. We have facial recognition software that is not only as good or better than human
beings, but computers are already learning to recognize people's emotions from their facial expressions.
Financial transactions are moving ever more away from hard-to-trace cash in favor of readily monitorable
electronic transactions.
Thus, any tantrums by the Trumpenproles that become disruptive will be swiftly and forcefully
crushed. So, ultimately, what can they do, except "lie down and die"?
@Mick, you're right, and I assume your critique cuts both sides of the aisle, right? How do "modern"
Democrats, beholden as they are to Wall Street and SV, still stand up for the trade unions? The
unions, I suspect, vote Democrat for the same reason most Republicans still vote Republican: what
other choice to do they have?
If the news is to be believed, Trump is certainly no friend of the unions, at least in
his own business dealings.
Perot might have won too, had he not withdrawn from the race and got back in. I will never forget
the surreal feeling of going to Air Force basic training in 1992 and entering a news-free bubble
for six weeks, and then emerging to find that Ross Perot was leading the polls in the three-way
race! I think he would have won had he just stayed the course, but he looked erratic when he dropped
out.
I have to say that it is re-assuring to me that Trump is basically a demagogue, promising a
chicken in every pot and every man a king, yet probably not going to deliver. The alternative
to demagogue in this situation is a Vladimir Lenin, and you could imagine what a Lenin would do
with the Trump support.
Trump speaks for a group that has been abandoned and marginalized by the political classes.
He is bringing them back into the system and perhaps bringing a little more balance back to domestic
politics. I don't think elites change unless they feel threatened, and I hope Trump is threatening
enough to the elites, without actually posing the threat a real revolutionary would pose.
Further, I hope that the political system starts working for ALL people, not just some people.
If not, they will get their Lenin and their Jacobin terror, and they will deserve it.
'Trump channels something - the rage and desperation of a people who know they don't matter anymore.'
Maybe I'm a cynic, but when have they ever mattered? 'The People' had tastes of the American
dream in the 1950's and the 80's, as far as I can see, and before, since, and in between have
been taken utterly for granted. Maybe people felt like they mattered, tuning in to the same television
shows and radio programs and meeting at church each week; maybe the body politic was able to relate
to its representatives in a more meaningful way than the identikit dialtones that occupy the political
stage now. But don't forget that back when people 'mattered' they were still shipped off to die
in useless wars, there were still plenty of Americans working long hours for poor pay, and there
were still politicians happy to lie barefaced to their constituency.
My knee-jerk position is to support the working people against the rich. But, given the
voting patterns of the white working class going back to 1980, and even to 1968, I find myself
vacillating between feeling for them and believing that they got what they wanted (and deserved)
good and hard.
And, let's be perfectly honest here. Why did the white working class abandon the Democratic
Party, which supported their economic interests, in favor of the Republican Party, which did not?
Race.
That's it. Pure and simple. Even the evangelical movement is in large part a product of resistance
to integration, as parochial schools could legally be segregated because they were private, and
segregationists flooded into them in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education.
And these madrassas trained the shock troops of the Republican Party, hell-bent to vote against
their own interests because they were bigots.
It's interesting how you can read Mr. Featherstone's words and see an "insightful post". Because
when I read those words all I see is well, exhibit 3875 in why it makes no sense to try and understand
why people support Trump. Say what you will about their frustration, alienation, disenchantment,
whatever. Ultimately the whole thing is just incoherent and utterly unthoughtful.
"Trump is poking all of the right people in the eyes for all the right reasons."
The right people are immigrants and Muslims and the women Trump has attacked in the most personal
of ways? He may be frustrating the ambitions of more conventional conservative politicians and
driving decent liberals into hair-pulling fits, but that's all a result of his absolutely frightening
willingness to whip up enmity towards people who, on the whole, have been attacked and disrespected
far more directly and openly than most of Trump's supporters have been.
And the right reasons are what, exactly? Is there any actual proof that the man really wants
to make America great? Is there any reason to believe he's doing this for any reason other than
to fill the hole in his psyche where self-acceptance should live? To people not under Trump's
spell it is so obvious that his entire candidacy is about his ego, his unceasing need to be not
admired by aggrandized that it's just astonishing to think of how many somersaults a person's
critical faculties must perform to avoid recognizing it.
"He's coarse and crude, but he appears to make no pretenses."
Well, actually, he's nothing but pretenses. That's the problem. He lies. And lies so prolifically
and so wildly that he's not so much a person, or even a character. He's a persona. He has transformed
himself into a tissue thin representation of a "winner". But strip away the lies about how great
he is, how great his business savvy is, etc and you realize that Donald Trump is a lot like Oakland.
There's no there there.
"But it always struck me there was some other agenda to the immigration. That there still is.
I'm not sure what."
This is the logic of someone who has mentally thrown their hands up and said, "I'm frustrated
about my life, so I guess I'll blame, oh, I don't know immigration. Sure, why not?" Dress it
up however you like, but this is functionally the same as posting a "No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish"
sign on your soul.
"That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence, frequently not very compassionate
or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that their religion is simplistic and
mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with them. (I find it hard.) But you leave
people behind at your peril."
I agree with this, but let's not pretend that large swaths of this population have chosen to resist,
at every turn, efforts made to help them. Those efforts themselves may have been clumsy, ineffective
or counterproductive (there's lots of room for criticism and we shouldn't back away from it),
but let's heed the mantra of personal responsibility as well. Because at a certain point I find
myself getting a little, well, tetchy with people who over and over again supported policies,
politicians and parties that hurt them financially because doing so hurt other people socially
and legally and then, after realizing they've shoveled themselves to deep to ever climb out of
their fiscal grave, turn to a demagogue as one last knife in the back to their countrymen.
Then came the election of 2008, and suddenly the Other was in the White House. The Trumpkins
want to "Take American Back" because they have been told that the Kenyan Socialist Muslim stole
their country.
I find it so frustrating when people write stuff like this. People were so hopeful about Obama,
so hopeful about racism in this country. But the first words out of certain sectors of left after
Obama's election weren't hopeful ones about reconciliation. They were "America is still racist."
And they set out to prove it. Now we feel more bitterly divided then ever. I could go into more
detail, about the issues involved, but it's just frustrating to me, and the stuff I quoted above
is ready made excuse that is not true to my experience.
I get – and hear – the claims of despair that many Trump backers articulate. I just wish
they'd leave him behind and rally around Bernie Sanders. He is, in so many ways, the flipside
of Trump.
And honestly, Trump supporters wish that you would rally around Trump. Certainly the differences
between the two candidates are more than mere sensibility. But there is certainly an argument
to be made that Trump's strength on immigration is preferable to Bernie Sanders's wishful thinking.
Re: Charles Featherstone, "That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence,
frequently not very compassionate or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that
their religion is simplistic and mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with
them. (I find it hard.)"
Replace "white" with "black" or "hispanic" and see how far that observation travels. Featherstone
should be writing for the "poor, uneducated and easy to command" Washington Post. His selective
stereotypical misanthropy would fit right in.
Good thing Featherstone has his lovely immigrant friends to talk to. God help him if he
actually had to cavort with the repulsive white riff-raff.
I'm going to defend Charles Featherstone here. I don't think it does any good whatsoever to
romanticize the working poor as salt of the earth, honest-to-goodness decent people who don't
get a fair shake. Poverty brutalizes. The attempt to aid the downtrodden must be accompanied by
a hard-headed assessment of the physical, emotional, and intellectual damage that poverty, deprivation,
and neglect inevitably cause.
"They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And
they're voting now for Donald Trump."
Yeah. No doubt. But they are voting for the same clowns for Congress and the Senate. Kentucky
might like Trump, but they will keep McConnell. They hate the establishment that they maintain.
It's Obama's fault. He's clouded their minds. That's gotta be it.
I think what this speaks to more than anything is the total decay of political life at the
local and community level. The Trump 'movement' is really a mass media event, played out on a
national media stage, with many people playing and voting along just like they do on a regular
talent show competition. But the potential for mobilizing those people into a movement that would
start to build power locally simply doesn't exist.
I suspect Trump voters understand this at some level but are powerless to do anything about
it. So it seems that Trump voters are able to crash the rigged game of a media-driven national
election reality show competition, but can do next to nothing about the iron grip of the institution
they despise on the local politics that no doubt affects their lives far more on a daily basis.
Which is really just to say, again, that the dominant motif of Trump voters is that they are fed
up with being powerless and without influence.
The problem with identity politics is not the groups themselves, but the fact that they tend
to put forward the most extreme leadership (and this generally happens for structural reasons
so is inevitable).
Further, politics is a zero sum game, so if my group gets the right not to bake cakes for gay
weddings, then the other group loses the right to force people to bake cakes for their weddings.
No matter where you draw the line, one group comes away with its feelings hurt. [Without pronouncing
judgment on which group is "in the right".]
The common draw between BLM and Trump is they are both playing on feelings of solidarity. Even
though Trump is really not a white nationalist, and not talking white nationalism, there is an
implicit tone of ethnic and class solidarity as much as there would be at a Black Power rally.
I think it would be helpful to realize that the political leadership of all these groups are
all a$$#0!*$, and the average member of the group is not nearly as radical. It is also necessary
to recognize that someone is always going to lose, and work toward compromises notwithstanding
the leadership, which is always going to be selling saints versus demons and no compromises.
But I would like to see something like national solidarity, that Americans could come together
as one people with a shared history, notwithstanding all the instances in which we have fought
amongst ourselves, and try to start governing in the interest of everyone, and I bet there are
plenty of BLM supporters and Trump supporters who would stand behind that message.
But I think progressives are somewhat naive about mass politics. Sanders is coherent, he has
a lot of policy content, he can articulate his position and I definitely think he has a point.
But politics in mass democracy is ugly, mobilizing on a mass level is ugly. Progressives tend
to focus on the ugliest side of "white solidarity", but if you go down to a minority neighborhood
in Chicago during a highly contested race for mayor, you will note some salty language and maybe
a stereotype or too coming out. It may be that only white people can be racist, but every ethnic
and religious group can certainly be ugly when they are engaged in some kind of political struggle.
In other words, there must always be a tragic dimension of politics, as well as a comic dimension,
and American democracy will never be just a faculty lounge debate.
It is really interesting to read those comments from march 2016 in October ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... I'm tempted to think that the Liberal Establishment hasn't had the same problem to the same degree because the liberals recognize that Democrats want to do more, but they've been stymied by the Republican refusal to give Obama any wins. ..."
"... Trump is a backlash against the GOP elite, in all its various and sundry forms. Whether Kasich, Jeb, Rubio, Christie, or anyone else -- none of these are acceptable to the disillusioned party base. ..."
"... Much of the angst on the Democratic side isn't against the Democratic establishment per se ..."
"... To Republican supporters of Donald Trump: I understand your anger and rage at the Republican Party's failure to pay sufficient attention to your economic concerns – specifically the consequences of exports of jobs and illegal "imports" of workers. but also issues like wage stagnation. I understand, therefore, when the GOP finally has a candidate who does mention these concerns front and centre, he has an appeal for you lacking in the other candidates. ..."
"... America's wounds are entirely self-inflicted. They include the massively destructive drug war; imperialist adventures that have drained the national wealth, made life less safe, and savaged civil liberties; and an increase of government spending as a percentage of GDP from 7 percent in 1900 to 37 percent today. Almost any economist, left or right, would agree that trade and immigration (legal or not) are net benefits. ..."
"... Conservatives, Republican or not, have failed to defend, much less extend, economic freedom; have supported the growth of government; and have persistently supported militaristic empire. ..."
"... He is the upshot of an ideology whose prominent voices have included Coulter, Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly. In politics, you get what you pander to. ..."
"... What you're trying to do is make the "What's the matter with Kansas?" argument a matter of the candidate's approach not the voters' response. But in the final analysis, it amounts to the same thing. ..."
"... James Fallows quotes a data analysis of the vote in Michigan that finds to the analyst's surprise that districts that suffered the greatest loss of manufacturing were NOT the districts that voted predominately for Trump meaning "economic anxiety" does not explain the Trump voting pattern. ..."
"... The number of immigrants and their young children grew six times faster than the nation's total population from 1970 to 2015 - 353 percent vs. 59 percent. ..."
"... This is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third World majority is proceeding right on schedule. ..."
"... Joe Biden has run for president a couple of times, and he always stayed in single digits for the simple reason that he always puts his foot in his mouth, way in. ..."
"... "his is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third World majority is proceeding right on schedule. ..."
"... And will America be the same with different people in it? If the answer is yes, we should ask for evidence that making it different makes it better. If the answer is no, then we should ask why we are doing this. ..."
"... Obama and most Democrats understood very well the anger of poor whites and they tried desperately to win their votes. And, as is now made plain by so many poor, white Trump supporters, they didn't vote for Obama and other Democratic politicians because they believe those politicians hold them in low esteem or have called them racists. ..."
"... But the pivot to a Mr. trump has far more to do with foreign policy than domestic policy aside from immigration. It was his less than aggressive use of the military. ..."
"... It's obvious to many commentators that working-class Republican voters are voting against their own interests by allowing themselves to be fooled by cultural cues and dog whistles. But the big unreported story is that the same thing is happening in the Democratic primaries as well. Poor Southern Blacks are voting by colossal margins for the Wall Street version of the Democratic Party over the socialist version of the Democratic Party. Why? Because the Wall Street candidate is married to a guy who has all his Southern fried cultural cues and dog whistles working right and the socialist has spent too much of his time among up-tight Yankees in Vermont. ..."
"... Anyone who thinks Conservatives, all three of them in proportion to the rest of the electorate will stay home and let Hillary be elected is in need of oxygen. When it comes to the general election Trump will probably bury Hillary. ..."
"... But let us understand one important thing. Trump is in no way destroying the Republican Party. They will still hold the House, may hang onto the Senate, and will still hold the majority of state governments. That is hardly a party that is being destroyed. In the long run, the Democrats are in far worse shape as that Republican majority in every other branch of government not only means that the Democrats do not have much a farm team for future presidential nominees, (look what they got stuck with this year.) but also it means enough barriers being thrown up in the way of the Democrats voting blocks to keep from even voting at all. ..."
"... "but rich people with poor impulse control are pretty much the last people you want in positions of power." That makes a great tweet, but it's helpful to get beyond abstract generalities. Trump has poor impulse control on his mouth, to be sure, but there's every indication that his impulses will not lead to new wars or "kinetic" military actions in places like North Africa, the Middle East or Ukraine. His impulsiveness has also led him to reveal that he wants to be "neutral" on the Palestinian question. To me, his non-interventionist "impulses," if you will, are extremely important on a purely pragmatic level. ..."
"... Union-busting has done more to undercut and immiserate the working class than mass immigration and "free trade," and union leaders spending millions of dollars on electing Democrats and Republicans (at the state level) have betrayed their membership and the working class. ..."
"... Immigration and trade policies do need to be addressed but rebuilding the unions is the vital step for doing so. ..."
"... "There is not one scrap of statistical evidence – no crime stats, no violent crime stats, NOTHING – that supports Featherstone's outrageous statement that Trump white supporters are "prone to brutality and violence "" ..."
"... The WWC started abandoning the Democratic Party starting with the 1966 mid-term elections. The last Democratic candidate for President to get a majority of the white male vote was LBJ in 1964. ..."
"... The Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Acts were used as wedge issues by the 1968 Nixon campaign. Read all about it in Kevin Phillips' book The Emerging Republican Majority. Phillips helped design the Southern Strategy. Also see Atwater, Lee. ..."
"... The rich have always had a lot of influence in the Republican Party, but under George W. Bush, the wealthy totally took over the party, and the party establishment began to worship at the altars of globalism and tax cuts for the rich. The party could care less about its' Base. The party totally lost the concept of the Common Good, such as we had under Eisenhower and even Nixon. ..."
"... The Base has been faithfully voting Republican in spite of getting very little out of the arrangement, but they are now starting to wake up. The GOP Establishment is going to have to make some changes; they can be for free enterprise, but with some concern for American workers. ..."
"... "Jackson believed that the president's authority was derived from the people and the presidential office was above party politics. Instead of choosing party favorites, Jackson chose 'plain, businessmen' whom he intended to control." ..."
"... This is why Jackson was hated, smeared and maligned, and the same is true of Trump. ..."
"... "In regard to the Petticoat affair, Jackson later remarked, 'I [would] rather have live vermin on my back than the tongue of one of these Washington women on my reputation.'" ..."
"... "If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's appeal (as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big, big mistake." ..."
"... "That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence, frequently not very compassionate or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that their religion is simplistic and mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with them. (I find it hard.)" ..."
"... "They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And they're voting now for Donald Trump." Yeah. No doubt. But they are voting for the same clowns for Congress and the Senate. Kentucky might like Trump, but they will keep McConnell. They hate the establishment that they maintain. It's Obama's fault. He's clouded their minds. That's gotta be it. ..."
"... Rod – do you realize how many of Featherstone's words and sentiments could have been applied to Black Lives Matter? In all seriousness, as I was reading him, I kept thinking, "Working Class White Lives Matter." ..."
"... I'm one of those doing quite well, and supporting Mr. Trump's bid for the Presidency. I'm a degreed mathematician doing research and development in cybersecurity, with a growing portfolio of professional publications, and patents pending. I'm a Marine veteran of the Iraq war whose 'eggs aren't too scrambled'. I married woman who went to one of the best schools in the UK and graduated with honors from one of the best universities in the US. I truly believe that my wife, my child, and I will be fine no matter who wins this election. ..."
"... GOP policy wrt to its impact on many working and middle class Americans seems to me to be a classic case of emperors new clothes. ..."
"... This blog has replaced Scott Adams as the go to place for understanding Trump. Adams deservedly got a lot of credit for correctly predicting that Trump would not collapse, but his own repeated assertions that truth doesn't matter in a 3d world are flatly inconsistent with his pretense to just be reporting the facts about Trump. Once one suspects that he's pretending to report the facts while really drumming up support for Trump it becomes clear how one sided is his analysis. Adams' own sophistic views about the primacy of rhetoric and human beings as meat machines don't license any other interpretation. ..."
"... If the news is to be believed, Trump is certainly no friend of the unions, at least in his own business dealings. ..."
"... Trump speaks for a group that has been abandoned and marginalized by the political classes. He is bringing them back into the system and perhaps bringing a little more balance back to domestic politics. I don't think elites change unless they feel threatened, and I hope Trump is threatening enough to the elites, without actually posing the threat a real revolutionary would pose. ..."
"... My knee-jerk position is to support the working people against the rich. But, given the voting patterns of the white working class going back to 1980, and even to 1968, I find myself vacillating between feeling for them and believing that they got what they wanted (and deserved) good and hard. ..."
I'm tempted to think that the Liberal Establishment hasn't had the same problem to the same
degree because the liberals recognize that Democrats want to do more, but they've been stymied
by the Republican refusal to give Obama any wins.
One other interesting thought:
Trump is a backlash against the GOP elite, in all its various and sundry forms. Whether
Kasich, Jeb, Rubio, Christie, or anyone else -- none of these are acceptable to the disillusioned
party base. Nor would Mitt Romney be were he to waltz into the convention and wrest the nomination
away from Crump–his main selling point in 2012 was that he wasn't Barack Obama, and that's not
relevant this time around.
Much of the angst on the Democratic side isn't against the Democratic establishment
per se , but against the specific person of Hillary Rodham Clinton (and a few other specific
Democrats whom the left intensely dislikes, no others of which are running), who has, for reasons
both good and bad, a lot of enemies. Were the 22nd Amendment to not around to prevent
it and Obama to seek a third term, he'd waltz to the nomination. Were Joe Biden to run in her
stead, he'd receive widespread support across the board. Likewise with many other party fixtures
who are highly popular among Democrats (even if reviled outside the party).
I'm just going to repost what I posted on my FB page yesterday:
To Republican supporters of Donald Trump: I understand your anger and rage at the Republican
Party's failure to pay sufficient attention to your economic concerns – specifically the consequences
of exports of jobs and illegal "imports" of workers. but also issues like wage stagnation. I understand,
therefore, when the GOP finally has a candidate who does mention these concerns front and centre,
he has an appeal for you lacking in the other candidates.
America's wounds are entirely self-inflicted. They include the massively destructive drug
war; imperialist adventures that have drained the national wealth, made life less safe, and savaged
civil liberties; and an increase of government spending as a percentage of GDP from 7 percent
in 1900 to 37 percent today. Almost any economist, left or right, would agree that trade and immigration
(legal or not) are net benefits.
Conservatives, Republican or not, have failed to defend, much less extend, economic freedom;
have supported the growth of government; and have persistently supported militaristic empire.
Trump is the predictable result of the nasty and dunderheaded populism toward which conservatives
have been moving for the past 25 years or so. He is the upshot of an ideology whose prominent
voices have included Coulter, Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly. In politics, you get what
you pander to.
Trump is winning by scapegoating those who bear no responsibility for America's social and
economic ills. Still even conservatives who consider themselves proximate descendants of the old
right twiddle their thumbs and blow kisses to the ignoramuses who embrace Trumpian populism, rather
than challenging his malignant and foolish prescriptions. If Trump is elected and gets his way,
perhaps the ensuing international economic disaster and war with China will help to clarify conservative
thinking. I doubt it, though, since conservatism's singular distinction is its failure to accomplish
anything that its adherents desire. The failure has been patent for a long time, and succinctly
described by Hayek in 1960.
OK, responding to about a half-dozen different comments:
First, regarding the "information bubble" that some are in, we have this:
Aside from government employment the Clinton admin was a hostile force to their interests.
Actually, the opposite was true. Fed Government employment went down 8 straight years during
Clinton's Admin, and started going up again under Bush. Stereotypes don't equal facts.
There is not one scrap of statistical evidence – no crime stats, no violent crime stats,
NOTHING – that supports Featherstone's outrageous statement that Trump white supporters are
"prone to brutality and violence "
OK, now that's pretty ironic, coming on a day when a 78-yo Trump supporter just got arrested
for sucker-punching a black guy who was getting thrown out of a Trump rally, as others were yelling
f*****g n*****s. (See it at http://bcove.me/w5m1iftz
- where the perpetrator goes on to say he enjoyed doing it and would kill him next time) (And
the day after Trump's own campaign manager Corey Lewandowski accosted a Breitbart reporter). Violence
at Trump rallies is nothing new in 2016. Google it.
One commenter said that entire reason the WWC votes for the GOP is: "Race. That's it. Pure
and simple."
The response from another: "What a load of crap."
I'm going to take a middle ground. I think that the Dems had far better economic policies towards
the WWC than the GOP, but that because of the Dems leaning so far liberal on social issues
, that partially alienated the WWC.
But race was most definitely a part of it. Southern Strategy? Welfare Queen? Lee Atwater? Those
things really happened and we can't wish them away.
Look - being against immigration for economic reasons has some logic. But being harsh about
it also attracts xeonophobes and racists. I don't think Trump is racist, but when he was a bit
slow to respond to the KKK's endorsement of him, I think Trump was trying to figure out a way
not to damage his support among the white nationalistic crowd.
William F. Buckley, we could sure use you now!
The evidence is thick is that despite his election, certain elements in the Republican
Party persisted in presenting Obama as the Other, the treasonous Other.
Indeed. He was a black-Commie-Kenyan who was illegible to be Prez. And note who was a prominent
leader of the so-called "birther movement"? None other than The Donald himself. And the GOP, with
a nod and a wink, didn't protest too much, because they thought it'd be useful in the 2012 elections.
(McCain of all people, bless him, was one of the few prominent GOPers in 2008 who pushed back
on this Otherization.)
"The problem with BLM and the 'racism' narrative is that there is a real demonstrable
problem in that young Black men commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes (for whatever
reason), and you can't come up with good public policy unless you get honest about that fact."
True. But the problem with the pushback against BLM is that there is a real demonstrable problem
that there are a number of racist police who target blacks and abuse their authority - and lie
on official reports about it. (The Ferguson Report was absolutely devastating!) Conservatives
who favor limited government ought to be all over that, no? The main thing that's changed now
is the ubiquity of cell-phone cameras and increasing use of dash-cams, so we all can see, with
our own eyes, what the black community has been complaining about for 150 years.
Dancer Girl, What you're trying to do is make the "What's the matter with Kansas?" argument a matter of
the candidate's approach not the voters' response. But in the final analysis, it amounts to the
same thing.
Assuming (for the sake of argument) that Bernie will get blacks the single-payer health insurance
and free college tuition they've longed for. You're saying that because he didn't approach their
barbershop the right way, they voted against that–not just for themselves, but for their families,
their children, the whole country. That's not any different from saying that W won the election
because white people thought he was the kind of the guy you could have a beer with.
Your response shows that no, there's no way you can spin the "They vote against their best
interest and good policy because of culture" argument in a way that doesn't make them look like
bad voters. You understood that fact, which is why you felt that you had to reply and say, no,
that's not really the case. You felt the need to rebut it. Well, so do white working class voters
when the argument's used against them. Which illustrates why using that argument is not a good
way to win over voters.
And by the way, reality check: winning 30% of the vote of a given demographic in a two way
contest is not promising, not hopeful, not a turning point–not any of the things the Sanders campaign
says it is. It's getting CRUSHED, SHELLACKED, DEFEATED IN A LANDSLIDE–what ever headline phrase
you want to use. The fact that it's being spun as somehow a great new emerging reality of a "Feel
the Bern" moment among African-Americans is testimony to the enduring hold of the myth that the
"What's the matter with Kansas" argument is only relevant for the voting behavior of down-market
whites.
James Fallows quotes a data analysis of the vote in Michigan that finds to the analyst's surprise
that districts that suffered the greatest loss of manufacturing were NOT the districts that voted
predominately for Trump meaning "economic anxiety" does not explain the Trump voting pattern.
"But it always struck me there was some other agenda to the immigration."
The number of immigrants and their young children grew six times faster than the nation's
total population from 1970 to 2015 - 353 percent vs. 59 percent.
This is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government
parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third
World majority is proceeding right on schedule.
And will America be the same with different people in it? If the answer is yes, we should ask
for evidence that making it different makes it better. If the answer is no, then we should ask
why we are doing this.
We are, in short, being told to commit suicide. For our children's sake, is both our right
and our duty to refuse.
Were Joe Biden to run in her stead, he'd receive widespread support across the board.
Joe Biden has run for president a couple of times, and he always stayed in single digits
for the simple reason that he always puts his foot in his mouth, way in. I have difficulty
believing he wouldn't do so again. I mean, he did it on the afternoon after the inauguration.
Then there is his propensity to pontificate on what Catholic doctrine really means - just like
dominic1955 does. A political leader in a constitutional republican should simply say "I was elected
to represent the people of Delaware, not my church."
"his is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government
parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third
World majority is proceeding right on schedule.
And will America be the same with different people in it? If the answer is yes, we should
ask for evidence that making it different makes it better. If the answer is no, then we should
ask why we are doing this.
We are, in short, being told to commit suicide. For our children's sake, is both our right
and our duty to refuse."
Let's be honest here: there is pretty much 1:1 correlation between people who are concerned
about "replacement " of American people, and people who think Black Americans, here since the
1500s, and some other smaller groups, here since the 1800s, don't belong to the nation you are
trying to "protect." Which is why your tears seem so hollow to outsiders..
The majority of blue collar Trump supporters would have been the direct beneficiaries of Obama's
American Jobs Act. The only reason Boehner and McConnell wouldn't allow that to pass is they knew
that a good economy benefits Obama.
But ironically in allowing these economic inequalities to
fester they made it conducive for Trump's rise. The GOP deserves Trump. He is their reward for
years of crony capitalism, irresponsible government, petty obstruction, and outright nihilism.
And as scared as I am of Trump I look at the electoral map and don't see any possible route for
his victory. Are we really to believe that his vulgar, racist nationalism will move Ohio, Florida,
and Virginia back to the GOP column? Are we really to believe that millions of good conservatives
stayed home in 2012, but that Trump will be the ticket to bring them to the polls in 2016? No.
Trump as GOP nominee all but guarantees President Hillary Clinton. And where will conservatism
go from there? Republican leaders have no one left to lie to. Meep, Meep.
But Ross Perot was that rich guy back in 1992, and he choked. But that was near the beginning
of globalization.
1) Globalization was already here in 1992 and ushered in by the Reagan Revolution and the battle
of the Carter years. Wasn't the boom box in college dorm (or apartment) manufactured in Japan?
Michael Moore first big movie "Roger and Me " was released in 1989. (And centered around Flint,
MI)
2) How did Perot choke? He got 19% against a (now respected) incumbent and the 'Elvis' of politicians.
Yes he made some errors but that was one heck of run for a third party.
RD: If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's
appeal (as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big,
big mistake.
I suspect most mainstream Democrats already understand Trump's appeal. Obama explained this
very plainly eight years ago in a speech in which he referenced these voters' bitterness and their
clinging to guns and religion. He took a lot of heat from Republicans for that speech, but it's
very hard to read that speech and disagree with it.
Obama and most Democrats understood very well the anger of poor whites and they tried desperately
to win their votes. And, as is now made plain by so many poor, white Trump supporters, they didn't
vote for Obama and other Democratic politicians because they believe those politicians hold them
in low esteem or have called them racists. That is the running theme in all of these sympathetic
posts about Trump supporters. It's a lazy cheap shot because it is never corroborated by
any example of a Democratic politician ever actually doing this or anything remotely like it.
It's just an ineffectual way to avoid responsibility for the consequences of one's actions.
These people don't vote for Democratic politicians because they don't like the other people
who vote for Democratic politicians. They do not use their votes to pursue policies that improve
their own conditions. Instead, they use their votes as a weapon against people with whom they
have a grievance.
As Charles Featherstone said: Trump is poking all of the right people in the eyes for all
the right reasons. Over and over we hear commenters on this very blog express some desire
to stick it to SJWs, elites, coastal elites and others who they dislike. Well, there is a cost
for using your vote as an expression of resentment instead of a tool for implementing good policy.
The obvious cost is that you will be harmed by the policies of the Republican politicians you
vote for.
Another, less obvious cost is that other people will think you are backward or less intelligent,
for why else would you pursue policies that clearly harm you just so you can express dislike for
someone else? That's really not anyone else's fault. More importantly, it's not at all clear how
Democrats could change this and still help their current supporters.
First the Republican party is not in a state of free fall. Just because the people shut out since
Pres. Reagan took office as the party shifted toward an interested and wealthier class doesn't
mean those people have not been around. Yesterday I got my voter notice. It said I was unaffiliated.
A battle I go through ever election cycle. And I was prepared to go through it again until I read
this morning that Mr. trump is back peddling on immigration.
We aren't even in the general and he is already tiptoeing through the tulips. I hope it's not
true. Not only is the Republican Party not in disarray, it is in a position to flex some conservative
muscle if they stand to course. That is unless Mr. trump turns out to be a liberal in disguise
all along and that may be.
I don't get my dignity veracity, faith integrity from the political party. I am associated
with the Republican party because they reflect a healthy dose of what I believe. Perhaps a lot
less. Upon examination, it's hard to think of anything the party represents that I consider vital
conservative thought.
I guess if you want to call my loyalty to country bigotry that's your call. I know Mr. trump
will not be calling for a national day of celibacy, prayer, etc. I don't expect him to. I expect
him to govern and I expect him to govern with some sense of understanding one cannot raise taxes
and without a good dose of history that whatever they are being raised for is most likely unnecessary
for anything aside from pandering to some emotional call.
He still as to deal with a connected establishment Congress.
But the pivot to a Mr. trump has far more to do with foreign policy than domestic policy
aside from immigration. It was his less than aggressive use of the military.
Mr. Trump is not going to turn the country into a Hugo Chavez haven of halting corruption.
These kinds of hyperbolic refections of Republican party eulogies are not unknown in history and
thus far they have proved wrong. The Party may shift hopefully more rightward than left. Hopefully
it will shift more country orientation. But make no mistake, Mr Trump will not have been the cause
of any decay. He will be the benefactor of a decay the levin of which has gone unchecked for quite
a long time.
Another thought provoked by Dancer Girl's comments:
"I just wish [Trump voters]'d leave him behind and rally around Bernie Sanders."
Well it would be nice if poor Southern Blacks would do the same.
It's obvious to many commentators that working-class Republican voters are voting against
their own interests by allowing themselves to be fooled by cultural cues and dog whistles. But
the big unreported story is that the same thing is happening in the Democratic primaries as well.
Poor Southern Blacks are voting by colossal margins for the Wall Street version of the Democratic
Party over the socialist version of the Democratic Party. Why? Because the Wall Street candidate
is married to a guy who has all his Southern fried cultural cues and dog whistles working right
and the socialist has spent too much of his time among up-tight Yankees in Vermont.
Just one more way in which salt of the earth Blacks and Whites aren't all that different and
are, in everything except tribal allegiance, getting more similar all the time. Both put racial
honor and dignity over economic self-interest, and for a technocratic, policy-oriented politics
aiming to just make lives better, that's a real problem.
To the liberals and progressives who still dismiss the travails of the white working class,
you only reinforce their alienation and disdain for you.
I have, throughout my adult life, supported economic policies that directly or indirectly benefitted
the working class (white or otherwise) to my own economic detriment. You name the policy – unionization,
higher minimum wages, public health insurance, strong and well-funded public education at all
levels, better public transport, mixed-income housing, consumer protection for financial services,
etc. etc. – I have either advocated or in fact implemented it. I have done so in most instances
in direct contradiction to my own economic interests, because I thought it was the right thing
to do. I have even argued against affirmative action, in recognition of the resentments it creates,
even as I see "hockey/baseball/football/church choir-club affirmative action" all around me. Grin
and bear it; old habits take long to die.
Now, the same people I have been trying to help, called me a "parasite" because I was in the
public sector, "blood-sucker" because I was a lawyer, and a couple of unmentionables because I'm
gay and slightly tanned.
So, please, spare me the "dismiss and be disdained" business: I never dismissed but more often
than not got disdain just because. I wish I had in me to say they deserve their lot, and they
will deserve the eventual betrayal by Trump, but I don't. I'm still a good little liberal, disturbed
by all of this to be sure, but nevertheless hopeful that I can make a difference – for them (I
don't need any help).
Andrew Jackson:
They were "America is still racist." And they set out to prove it. Now we feel more bitterly
divided then ever. I could go into more detail, about the issues involved, but it's just frustrating
to me, and the stuff I quoted above is ready made excuse that is not true to my experience.
When Obama became president, Republican leaders set out to make him a one-term president, not
by offering better solutions, but by making sure he would achieve nothing. The first black president.
And when the birther nonsense continued, Republican leaders did nothing to stop it – as late as
2012, Romney was making light of his birthplace. The first black president. Even as they attack
him for following Wright, a protestant pastor, he was accused of being a secret Muslim. And Republican
leaders did little to combat this calumny.
The evidence is thick is that despite his election, certain elements in the Republican Party
persisted in presenting Obama as the Other, the treasonous Other. Some of it was because he was
a Democrat. But if you are suggesting that racism has had nothing to with what Obama has gone
through, well, we just have to disagree.
Anyone who thinks Conservatives, all three of them in proportion to the rest of the electorate
will stay home and let Hillary be elected is in need of oxygen. When it comes to the general election
Trump will probably bury Hillary.
I want to see how he will work with Congress. We know Congress won't have anything to do with
Hillary and the House will vote to impeach her the first chance it gets, possibly the day after
the inauguration. A vote for Hillary is, at the very least, a vote for four years of absolute
gridlock and virtual civil war in DC. Bernie might actually get some of his less radical ideas
through simply because everyone likes him and for all of his nuttiness does seem to actually care
about the American people before he cares about the sacred policy.
But let us understand one important thing. Trump is in no way destroying the Republican
Party. They will still hold the House, may hang onto the Senate, and will still hold the majority
of state governments. That is hardly a party that is being destroyed. In the long run, the Democrats
are in far worse shape as that Republican majority in every other branch of government not only
means that the Democrats do not have much a farm team for future presidential nominees, (look
what they got stuck with this year.) but also it means enough barriers being thrown up in the
way of the Democrats voting blocks to keep from even voting at all.
"but rich people with poor impulse control are pretty much the last people you want in positions
of power." That makes a great tweet, but it's helpful to get beyond abstract generalities. Trump
has poor impulse control on his mouth, to be sure, but there's every indication that his impulses
will not lead to new wars or "kinetic" military actions in places like North Africa, the Middle
East or Ukraine. His impulsiveness has also led him to reveal that he wants to be "neutral" on
the Palestinian question. To me, his non-interventionist "impulses," if you will, are extremely
important on a purely pragmatic level.
An earlier comment I thought I had posted seems to have vanished (maybe I failed to hit "send"
before leaving for the office )
But +1 to those who compare the plight of working-class whites to African-Americans. Both groups
have subcultures who engage in self-destructive behaviors and take perverse pride in doing so.
Yet, it seems, around here–one of these groups are yeoman folk suffering at the hands of working-class
elites who look down at them, but the other are simply thugs and layabouts. Around here, one culture
is met with sympathy, and the other with scorn. One are the victims of circumstances, the other
are the architects of their own misery.
But of course, this goes way beyond racial politics. Many conservatives lionize the late Margaret
Thatcher, who is often held to have "saved Britain". Saved it from what exactly–the Russians or
the Germans or the French or the Spanish or the Normans or the Vikings or the Romans? No–she is
held to have saved Britain from its own people–specifically unionized miners who had, according
to the retelling, captured an excessive share of the country's wealth. Perhaps they had–truly
answering that question requires either getting into nasty questions of comparable worth, or abandoning
the whole question to the market–but in doing so, she smashed many of Britain's institutions and
communities to bits.
And around here–many of the people who seem outraged at the decline of factory work in rural
communities; were openly cheering the demise of Detroit (and often still are). Many people who
lament the outsourcing of good-paying American jobs, and the devastation of many communities that
result–hate and resent their local schoolteachers or bus drivers who still do have good
jobs with good pay. Granted, public employees have their paychecks financed by the taxpayer, so
the general public is in the position of "management"–but still, the point stands: Some people
expect aid and sympathy when they hit hard times, but have responded to the please of others in
similar circumstances with shame and judgment.
Given that we bailed out Detroit, of course we should help struggling small towns. But we should
help all struggling communities best we can, not only those with particular demographics,
leaving the rest to fester. No demographic in the United States is uniquely noble and uniquely
deserving of public support. To the extent that WCWs believe that they are more noble, more industrious,
more patriotic, and more virtuous than the rest of us–sorry, you're not. (But nor, on the whole,
are you any worse).
Union-busting has done more to undercut and immiserate the working class than mass immigration
and "free trade," and union leaders spending millions of dollars on electing Democrats and Republicans
(at the state level) have betrayed their membership and the working class.
Immigration and trade policies do need to be addressed but rebuilding the unions is the
vital step for doing so. Unfortunately, I don't see the latter happening absent the development
of a tough, theoretically vibrant revolutionary socialist movement, which is my only concession
to the pessimism (or cynicism?) of Walter F.
Jim the First:
"if you're talking about parochial schools in the Catholic sense – they integrated before Brown
v. Board for the most part. If you're talking about parochial schools in the non-Catholic sense,
there just aren't enough of them to matter very much."
Now that all depends on exactly where you are. In the flatter South, protestant or non-denominational
Christian Academies are more important. I can't speak to other northern areas, but around here,
the Catholic Schools are why the city is 50/50 black and white, and the public schools are 80%
black.
"There is not one scrap of statistical evidence – no crime stats, no violent crime stats,
NOTHING – that supports Featherstone's outrageous statement that Trump white supporters are "prone
to brutality and violence ""
I think he's saying white trashy people he's had experience with are like that, not Trump supporters
by and large.
He's right to some degree. I don't see my fellow white collar folks getting drunk of Steel
Reserve and having to have the cops come in an break up a "domestic dispute".
Jim the First- The WWC started abandoning the Democratic Party starting with the 1966 mid-term elections.
The last Democratic candidate for President to get a majority of the white male vote was LBJ in
1964.
The Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Acts were used as wedge issues by the 1968 Nixon
campaign. Read all about it in Kevin Phillips' book The Emerging Republican Majority. Phillips
helped design the Southern Strategy. Also see Atwater, Lee.
True, it wasn't all race. Hippies and peaceniks were associated with the Democrats. Acid, amnesty,
and abortion had a lot to do with it too.
But race was the first big crack in the edifice of the New Deal coalition.
"The point is that Charles has been beat up pretty bad by life. It's still happening. He's
a middle-aged white guy struggling for work, struggling to find solid ground."
"They lost their influence, their dignity and their shot at the American Dream, and now they're
angry. They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And
they're voting now for Donald Trump."
"But I get why people less secure economically than I am don't care, and are for him anyway."
Plus this:
"Point is, Trump is drawing from all demographic groups."
The point is, this last observation invalidates your entire post. If Trump is drawing from
all demographic groups, then his success isn't explained by anecdotes about poor, economically
dispossessed people.
The rich have always had a lot of influence in the Republican Party, but under George W. Bush,
the wealthy totally took over the party, and the party establishment began to worship at the altars
of globalism and tax cuts for the rich. The party could care less about its' Base. The party totally
lost the concept of the Common Good, such as we had under Eisenhower and even Nixon.
The Base has been faithfully voting Republican in spite of getting very little out of the
arrangement, but they are now starting to wake up. The GOP Establishment is going to have to make
some changes; they can be for free enterprise, but with some concern for American workers.
On top of it all, the demographics of the US are changing and whites are shrinking as a percentage
of the electorate. The GOP cannot be a whites only party. Having written off African-Americans,
they are now writing off Hispanics. Unless the GOP makes some fundamental changes, they will not
win another national election.
" But the people he motivated, and who voted for him, they aren't going away - and neither
are their problems and concerns. "
This is why I see it as the American Spring.
Granted it doesn't have the massive numbers of protesters that the countries where "Springs"
have been claimed before have had. America is not yet anywhere approaching the levels of poverty
and other problems that those countries have, and there is still some of the illusion of democracy
left in its oligarchic politics. And America doesn't have a far richer superpower interfering
and aggressively promoting, with seemingly unlimited wealth and power, its own political culture
as the potential solution to all the ills of the people in the target country, and deliberately
holding out the hope of superpower military intervention on behalf of the protesters if they just
cause enough trouble for long enough.
But still, the Trump candidacy seemingly has triggered something that won't just go away when
Trump goes away (unless another anaesthetising period of economic growth cones along to postpone
things for a while). It will merely develop along different lines according to how Trump is treated
and how far he gets.
As productivity climbed, working-class Americans wanted their wages to rise also. Instead,
Republicans gave them tax cuts for the rich while liberal Democrats called them racists and
bigots.
Who voted the Republicans into power? We know it wasn't African-Americans (80+% of them vote
Democratic), nor was it Latinos, nor Hispanics, nor Asians(not enough of them) nor was it wealthy
people (again not enough of them). So all that left is White people (aka Real Americans™) and
as we all know the vast majority of White Americans are working and middle class. So basically
the White Working and Middle classes voted for the policies that screwed them, the only question
left to answer is why. Where they to lazy and stupid to read the
Republican Platform ? or was it something
else?
I have very limited sympathy for the the White Working and Middle classes, particularly the
Southern ones, they got what they voted for. A little less blaming of liberals & democrats and
a whole lot of self-awareness would do wonders.
You have been over-analyzing the Trump phenomenon and the psyche of the white working class these
last few weeks. You make it sound as if they are some poor oppressed class whose life's are miserable.
I am one of them. I am from them through and through and my life isn't too bad. I'm quite blessed
actually.
Do I have the opportunities that my grandfather who worked at a Ford factory without a high
school diploma, and retired in his early 50's? Or my dad who was able to buy a home on a grocery
store stock boy's wage? No. But I have a safe and warm place to live, a job, a beautiful family,
and my heart is not full of hatred.
You don't seem to give as much time looking into the hearts and souls of poor black folks or
undocumented workers and their struggles. Maybe their struggles aren't noble enough for you attention
and obsessive mulling over. But, let me tell you, they have plenty of legit complaints that go
way beyond "Boohoo! I don't have very much savings!"
"Nobody has ever seen a thing like this in American politics."
You need to revise this statement to say, "in post WWII American television politics." If you
study the history of the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian eras, you will find many examples that resemble
today. I think we over sentimentalize past American politics. Trump very much resembles the politics
and attitude of Jacksonian era America. Just take a look at the back and forth between the campaigners
of John Quincy Adams and the General:
"Jackson blamed the death of his wife, Rachel, which occurred just after the election, on the
Adams campaigners who called her a 'bigamist.'"
Here is another take on Jackson that sounds a lot like Trump:
"Jackson believed that the president's authority was derived from the people and the presidential
office was above party politics. Instead of choosing party favorites, Jackson chose 'plain, businessmen'
whom he intended to control."
This is why Jackson was hated, smeared and maligned, and the same is true of Trump.
And if you think the tabloid gossip going on today is oh so shocking, check out the Petticoat
Affair of 1830:
"In regard to the Petticoat affair, Jackson later remarked, 'I [would] rather have live
vermin on my back than the tongue of one of these Washington women on my reputation.'"
[NFR: I meant "nobody alive has seen a thing like this". - RD]
"Trump may be denied the GOP nomination, in the end, and he probably won't be elected president.
But the people he motivated, and who voted for him, they aren't going away - and neither are their
problems and concerns.
"Who will speak for them then?"
Vox Day points out that if the GOPe denies the nationalists with Trump, then later we will
get something much worse, the ultra-nationalists.
"If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's appeal
(as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big, big
mistake."
I agree with you – and go further: writing any voter off as a racist clod, or any clod, is
idiotic.
But clod or not, a certain segment of the American population has been – for lack of a better
term – "alienated", for political purposes, by the fear and envy of the Other. It began with Reagan's
infamous Welfare Queen speech in Mississippi, thus – and instantly – turning social welfare programs
into a question of race. Liberals/progressives/Democrats have never been able to escape that –
and they could exorcise the issue in electoral terms only by Bill Clinton's sharp tack to the
right. Be that as it may, the gambit worked: the Democrats became known not only as the party
of tax and spend, but also the party of Special Interests (of the rainbow variety), and the programs
supported by Democrats became programs of the Other, to be challenged and dismantled, even if
they benefited the white working class – the segment of the population Reagan cut off of the Democratic
coalition.
Then came the election of 2008, and suddenly the Other was in the White House. The Trumpkins
want to "Take American Back" because they have been told that the Kenyan Socialist Muslim stole
their country. The evidence for that is scant, non-existent, but no matter. Republican leaders
have been screaming from the rooftops not just that the President of the United States should
be replaced in the next election, which is a normal thing to say, but that, in effect, he and
his administration are illegitimate; what he proposes is un-American; he is committing treason
merely by being in Office.
Any wonder then that the most vulnerable segment of the Republican base, subjected to thirty
years of fear on the one hand and sustained economic attacks (mostly by their own side) on the
other, then turn to one who promises deliverance?
"If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's appeal
(as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big, big
mistake."
I don't disagree. But why? *Why* would people (a) not try to understand and (b) write his backers
off? And to be honest, I think that is exactly what they are doing. And that might be the more
important story in this whole mess. We have reached a point where our cultural elites despise
the masses.
Re: Charles Featherstone, "That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence,
frequently not very compassionate or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that
their religion is simplistic and mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with
them. (I find it hard.)"
Replace "white" with "black" or "hispanic" and see how far that observation travels. Featherstone
should be writing for the "poor, uneducated and easy to command" Washington Post. His selective
stereotypical misanthropy would fit right in.
Good thing Featherstone has his lovely immigrant friends to talk to. God help him if he actually
had to cavort with the repulsive white riff-raff.
"They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And
they're voting now for Donald Trump." Yeah. No doubt. But they are voting for the same clowns
for Congress and the Senate. Kentucky might like Trump, but they will keep McConnell. They hate
the establishment that they maintain. It's Obama's fault. He's clouded their minds. That's gotta
be it.
Rod – do you realize how many of Featherstone's words and sentiments could have been applied
to Black Lives Matter? In all seriousness, as I was reading him, I kept thinking, "Working Class
White Lives Matter."
It's frustrating that so many people will hear and connect, emotionally, with what he is saying,
while dimissing many of the same ideas when they are put forth in the African-American context.
It's like they are saying white people are hard-working, screwed over folks who may appropriately
advance this argument, but black people are whiny, criminally-inclined ingrates who should not.
I am genuinely struck by the way the core of his message speaks to the alienation, lack of
faith, lack of trust, and real fear that spurred the rise of BLM. His words, however, will probably
be met largely with compassion, while the movement's words will be dismissed, will be met with
the assertion that the problem of police abusing authority is not as bad as they say it is, or
will be met with the deflection to a morally and politically distinct issue - so-called "black-on-black"
crime.
To be clear, my thoughts about BLM, described above, are particularly troubling in the age of
Trump. I'm noodling over a bunch of things right now, but one big concern I have is the seeming
fragility of a multicultural nation. It feels like we are splintering; the competition for dignity,
if you will, is becoming more intense because we are increasingly persuaded that it exists in
finite supply; and that desire for dignity among Trump supporters is manifesting as shameless
bigotry or willful blindness to it in pursuit of transformative ends.
I get – and hear – the claims of despair that many Trump backers articulate. I just wish they'd
leave him behind and rally around Bernie Sanders. He is, in so many ways, the flipside of Trump.
I'm one of those doing quite well, and supporting Mr. Trump's bid for the Presidency. I'm
a degreed mathematician doing research and development in cybersecurity, with a growing portfolio
of professional publications, and patents pending. I'm a Marine veteran of the Iraq war whose
'eggs aren't too scrambled'. I married woman who went to one of the best schools in the UK and
graduated with honors from one of the best universities in the US. I truly believe that my wife,
my child, and I will be fine no matter who wins this election.
But I'm cheering Mr. Trump and planning on voting for him.
I come from a medium-sized city in Virginia that has hitched its wagon to the fortunes of the
major state university there, as well as the two private colleges in the area. (One of which was
briefly mentioned on this blog in the past year.) My hometown is historically a pretty rural area,
but that's changing.
As a case study, I would point you to our local poultry plant. It used to be the case that
this plant provided good jobs to a lot of the locals who weren't college material, but now you'd
be hard pressed to find many people who grew up in the county working there. You'd be hard pressed
to find more than 15% or so of the workforce fluent in the English Language. The local workforce
was replaced by cheaper immigrant labor.
While this has happened, my hometown has become a major drug smuggling point in the East Coast.
One of my childhood friends got caught up in the synthetic drug trade and is serving a 30-odd
year sentence. There are gangs - Gangster Disciples, SUR 13 I believe I remember hearing about
Bloods in the area. This is not the happy, little rural college town that I remember from my childhood.
(And I do recognize that it may never have been the town of my childhood memories, but what it
has become is NOT an improvement.)
I also LOVE that Mr. Trump is standing up to the blatant dishonesty of political correctness.
(But the PC rant is another topic that I haven't time for this morning.)
Why am I supporting Mr. Trump? My close circle might well benefit a little bit more with another
candidate, but I maintain a memory and fondness of the place that I came from and the people there.
I'd like to see their world built back up, or at least to see its eroding and creative destruction
ceased. Will Mr. Trump accomplish this? I don't know. He is pretty plainly stating that there's
a problem, diagnosing it reasonably well, and claiming that he can do something about it. That's
something. It's more than the lip service that we hear from the other candidates. Mr. Trump is a
deeply flawed candidate and man, but beggars can't be choosers.
GOP policy wrt to its impact on many working and middle class Americans seems to me to be
a classic case of emperors new clothes. It's kind of surprising that it took so long for
so many to see that it's naked. I wonder, if we hadn't had a decade or so of amped up patriotism
from foreign wars whether it would have taken so long.
Rod, at what point do we need to stop merely trying to understand Trump supporters and start trying
to stop them? All due respect, there's nothing about their support for him I don't understand.
I understand them thoroughly. At the end of the day, they support a man who is now a monstrous
demagogue and who would be a monstrous tyrant. I empathize with Charles Featherstone, who lucidly
recognizes his attraction to Trump as envy. But he's also lucid enough not to vote for the guy.
Look, I get not want to bolt over to Hilary Clinton. I also get being irate at the GOP and
not wanting to vote for any of them in the general election. I would even get not voting in the
primary, since virtually everyone except Rand Paul who is not Trump ran on some variation of the
policies that got people mad at the party in the first place. (And Paul's economic ideas are less
than feasible at this point in our history.) None of that is a good reason to vote for
Trump. If the country really is in decline, Trump is the person who would leave it a smoking crater
at the end of four years. Voting for him is madness. Yes, an "understandable" madness,
but madness nonetheless.
So. I've heard the sob stories. I've heard the litany of betrayals. I've heard the indictments
of the GOP's bad faith. I swear to you that I get it. None of that is sufficient, in my
book, to protect Trumpkins from the fundamentally true criticism that they are knowingly supporting
a racist, xenophobic, misogynist, ignorant bully who encourages violence at his rallies and openly
brags about abusing the system to make himself richer (and, by logical extension, to make the
rest of us poorer). If the Trumpkins get that, and they don't care, what do we do, Rod? I mean,
it's all well and good to give these people space to air their grievances and disappointments,
but from where I sit, they are one hundred percent committed to the wholesale decimation of what
precious little respect, civility, and coherent policy debate still remains in national politics.
Doesn't this merit a vigorous, sustained rebuttal or denunciation?
This is important, because Donald Trump is not "single-handedly destroying the Republican
Party." He's doing it with the hands of every single person who has voted for him, and who has
pledged to support his candidacy, however much longer that lasts. And if, God forbid, Trump actually
makes it to the White House, he will not be "single-handedly" destroying the United States of
America. He will do it with the help of every single one of the people who voted for him. I've
no love for the Republican Party. They certainly, as they say, had this coming. But Trump is a
menace to more than the GOP, and there are ways to weaken and destroy a political party that don't
involve running a crypto-fascist as a viable primary candidate.
At what point, Rod, do his voters start sharing culpability for every racist, misogynist, xenophobic,
ignorant thing he says and every act of violence he encourages? Because your posts have made it
very clear that they know exactly what kind of person he is. They're supporting him anyway. Which
means that they are knowingly supporting all the evil crap that goes along with it. People of
good conscience don't support that kind of stuff. As I said at the outset, I totally get refusing
to vote Republican or Democrat. I get why people are angry. I get why, in theory, they want to
vote for someone who will dismantle the status quo. And while I do totally understand why people
vote for Trump, a huge part of that understanding is the knowledge that every single one of these
people has endorsed, with eyes wide open and their consciences apparently clear, everything diabolical
about his campaign as well.
How much time are you going to spend trying to understand that ?
Then why don't these poor desperate people vote for Bernie? Bernie Sanders has spent his whole
life championing the poor and working class and his whole campaign is built around it. You want
to ignore the racial aspects then fine. But don't pretend they don't exist. Maybe it is not even
race as such. More class or clan solidarity. However, understanding the Trump voter and their
general malaise does not detract that Trump is a dangerous demagogue who will ruin this country
in the unlikely event he is elected.
As productivity climbed, working-class Americans wanted their wages to rise also. Instead,
Republicans gave them tax cuts for the rich while liberal Democrats called them racists and bigots.
Mick, above, asks the question that I have:
When did Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakais call white working class people
bigots?
That's a question worth pondering, imho.
icarusr, above, notes:
It began with Reagan's infamous Welfare Queen speech in Mississippi, thus – and instantly
– turning social welfare programs into a question of race.
Bingo. (Although, I would suggest that it's roots go back to Nixon's "Southern Strategy", and
then to Lee Atwater's famous confession).
Some of the dog-whistling is loud and clear (to be clear: I'm not accusing the GOP leaders
of being racists - I'm accusing some of them of demagoguery).
So when Dems see poor working class folks voting for officials that reject raising the minimum
wage (see Arkansas, where they simultaneously voted to increase, and voted for officials who were
against it), or promise to dismantle their state's version of Obamacare even though they love
the program (see, e.g., Kentucky), Dems can't help wonder if the opposition to these programs
- against their own interests - is based on the dog-whistle attacks concocted by the spiritual
descendants of Atwater. These consultants tap into the fear expressed, or rather stoke the anger
expressed by the idea "when I need government assistance, it's because I'm down on my luck, but
I still work hard - when that black guy down the street applies for government assistance, it's
because he's a lazy good-for-nothing."
Which, really, is just a more crass way of saying "Welfare Queen!"
Rod said: "And now Trump. I think back to watching his Mobile rally - August 21 [actually 25],
2015 - on TV, the first time I had seen an entire Trump campaign speech. Thirty thousand people
came out to hear him. And the speech was ridiculous - a rambling mess. I snorted that anybody
would be taken in by this nonsense. I didn't care for any of his competitors either, but at least
they gave coherent speeches. This guy? Clown."
"Ridiculous nonsense"? Rod, you don't hear Trump speeches the way that Middle America hears
him – the way that working America hears him.
This is the link to the first of a 10-part transcript of Trump's Mobile speech and it's worth
skimming through quickly, Rod, with the advantage of 6 months worth of hindsight. The Trump Mobile
speech is a MASTERPIECE. Listening to it, I remember thinking: "Trump understands. Trump tells
it like it is. Trump's the one!"
This blog has replaced Scott Adams as the go to place for understanding Trump. Adams deservedly
got a lot of credit for correctly predicting that Trump would not collapse, but his own repeated
assertions that truth doesn't matter in a 3d world are flatly inconsistent with his pretense to
just be reporting the facts about Trump. Once one suspects that he's pretending to report the
facts while really drumming up support for Trump it becomes clear how one sided is his analysis.
Adams' own sophistic views about the primacy of rhetoric and human beings as meat machines don't
license any other interpretation.
I think the moral center of this blog almost* always gives Rod a vastly greater appreciation
of why people of good will believe and desire what they do, even when Rod disagrees. This is a
general virtue of the blog, but it is really manifest in the coverage of Trump.
The tragic sense of life, and the related appreciation for the necessity of tragic tradeoffs
in human affairs, that informs true and worthwhile conservatism also proves (at least when leavened
by love) to be conducive to understanding as well.
I also think that Rod's analysis of these issues is getting out. I was talking to my father
on the phone last night and asked him what he thought of Trump, and while he would never vote
for Trump he said that it seemed to him that lots of people were very angry because the policies
of the Republican party didn't answer to their pressing problems or concerns. If my father is
understanding things this way, then I do think there is a real possibility of a paleoconservative
moment coming out of the crack up of the Republican party's horrible Frankenstein melange of libertarian
economics, neo-conservative foreign policy, and theocratic statism on drugs and gender, all sewn
together with the kind of rent-seeking corruption under the guise of "privatization" and "economic
development" that has now brought several states (including the gret stet where Rod and I reside)
to their knees.
Trump is scary, but I think a correct understanding of Trump points the way towards a better
muddling through, which (as all paleocons will agree) is the best we can or should hope for this
side of Heaven.
[*Rare exceptions where I think Rod's moral imagination sometimes doesn't extend in this way-
(1) evidence of coming to grips with the utter hell that many gay and transgender kids go through
(especially in conservative Christian households where the suicide and homelessness rate of the
gay kids is immense) and what biology now tells us about gender and sex, and (2) the intellectual
foundations of the Protestant Reformation (e.g. rejecting Aquinas in favor of Augustine) and how
that ties to liberal Protestants' sincere understanding of Christianity.]
I cannot buy this economic argument for support of Trump. Why no mention of Sanders, who is the
only anti-free trade candidate running. Trump *says* he is opposed to free trade, but he is obviously
lying. Historically who spoke for the white working class? Labor. And who was allied with Labor
in the late 19th and early 20th century? The old Socialists, of whom Sanders is the only one left
who holds any power.
The Republicans have always been the party of the capitalist elites and the Whigs before then
too. You can never get any support of working class white people from capitalists, they have completely
opposing interests.
[NFR: Because Bernie Sanders is a cultural leftist who supports generous immigration policies.
- RD]
Charles Featherstone "But you leave people behind at your peril. You can tell them to "lie down
and die," and some will. But many won't.
And if there are enough of them, well "
Well, *what*? I keep seeing these vague statements about how the white working class can only
be "pushed so far", and that their anger must be addressed "or else". Or else what? I ask. They'll
throw their votes away on an unacceptable candidate like Trump who cannot be allowed to take office
(and thereby ensure Mrs. Clinton's election; yeah, that's *really* sticking it to us on the left),
or some other futile, impotent tantrum. These are hollow threats.
Rod "But the people he motivated, and who voted for him, they aren't going away - and neither
are their problems and concerns."
Actually, long-term demographic, economic and cultural trends mean that they *are* going away,
albeit rather slowly. But, in the meantime, they can and will be increasingly contained. Read
Cowen's "Average is Over" for how he predicts modern technologies, including electronic entertainment,
robotic drones, machine surveillance, and psychiatric medications will likely prevent any rebellions.
Or read David Brin's "The Transparent Society" (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society
), about the increasing ubiquity of inescapable surveillance and "sousveillance". Add mass
communication, information abundance, improvements and automation in marketing. And consider social
media, with "Facebook felons" and Twitter "shadowbans". Or the return of Peeple, and the example
set by China's "Sesame Credit". We're all watching one another, compiling and sharing data on
one another. We have facial recognition software that is not only as good or better than human
beings, but computers are already learning to recognize people's emotions from their facial expressions.
Financial transactions are moving ever more away from hard-to-trace cash in favor of readily monitorable
electronic transactions.
Thus, any tantrums by the Trumpenproles that become disruptive will be swiftly and forcefully
crushed. So, ultimately, what can they do, except "lie down and die"?
@Mick, you're right, and I assume your critique cuts both sides of the aisle, right? How do "modern"
Democrats, beholden as they are to Wall Street and SV, still stand up for the trade unions? The
unions, I suspect, vote Democrat for the same reason most Republicans still vote Republican: what
other choice to do they have?
If the news is to be believed, Trump is certainly no friend of the unions, at least in
his own business dealings.
Perot might have won too, had he not withdrawn from the race and got back in. I will never forget
the surreal feeling of going to Air Force basic training in 1992 and entering a news-free bubble
for six weeks, and then emerging to find that Ross Perot was leading the polls in the three-way
race! I think he would have won had he just stayed the course, but he looked erratic when he dropped
out.
I have to say that it is re-assuring to me that Trump is basically a demagogue, promising a
chicken in every pot and every man a king, yet probably not going to deliver. The alternative
to demagogue in this situation is a Vladimir Lenin, and you could imagine what a Lenin would do
with the Trump support.
Trump speaks for a group that has been abandoned and marginalized by the political classes.
He is bringing them back into the system and perhaps bringing a little more balance back to domestic
politics. I don't think elites change unless they feel threatened, and I hope Trump is threatening
enough to the elites, without actually posing the threat a real revolutionary would pose.
Further, I hope that the political system starts working for ALL people, not just some people.
If not, they will get their Lenin and their Jacobin terror, and they will deserve it.
'Trump channels something - the rage and desperation of a people who know they don't matter anymore.'
Maybe I'm a cynic, but when have they ever mattered? 'The People' had tastes of the American
dream in the 1950's and the 80's, as far as I can see, and before, since, and in between have
been taken utterly for granted. Maybe people felt like they mattered, tuning in to the same television
shows and radio programs and meeting at church each week; maybe the body politic was able to relate
to its representatives in a more meaningful way than the identikit dialtones that occupy the political
stage now. But don't forget that back when people 'mattered' they were still shipped off to die
in useless wars, there were still plenty of Americans working long hours for poor pay, and there
were still politicians happy to lie barefaced to their constituency.
My knee-jerk position is to support the working people against the rich. But, given the
voting patterns of the white working class going back to 1980, and even to 1968, I find myself
vacillating between feeling for them and believing that they got what they wanted (and deserved)
good and hard.
And, let's be perfectly honest here. Why did the white working class abandon the Democratic
Party, which supported their economic interests, in favor of the Republican Party, which did not?
Race.
That's it. Pure and simple. Even the evangelical movement is in large part a product of resistance
to integration, as parochial schools could legally be segregated because they were private, and
segregationists flooded into them in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education.
And these madrassas trained the shock troops of the Republican Party, hell-bent to vote against
their own interests because they were bigots.
It's interesting how you can read Mr. Featherstone's words and see an "insightful post". Because
when I read those words all I see is well, exhibit 3875 in why it makes no sense to try and understand
why people support Trump. Say what you will about their frustration, alienation, disenchantment,
whatever. Ultimately the whole thing is just incoherent and utterly unthoughtful.
"Trump is poking all of the right people in the eyes for all the right reasons."
The right people are immigrants and Muslims and the women Trump has attacked in the most personal
of ways? He may be frustrating the ambitions of more conventional conservative politicians and
driving decent liberals into hair-pulling fits, but that's all a result of his absolutely frightening
willingness to whip up enmity towards people who, on the whole, have been attacked and disrespected
far more directly and openly than most of Trump's supporters have been.
And the right reasons are what, exactly? Is there any actual proof that the man really wants
to make America great? Is there any reason to believe he's doing this for any reason other than
to fill the hole in his psyche where self-acceptance should live? To people not under Trump's
spell it is so obvious that his entire candidacy is about his ego, his unceasing need to be not
admired by aggrandized that it's just astonishing to think of how many somersaults a person's
critical faculties must perform to avoid recognizing it.
"He's coarse and crude, but he appears to make no pretenses."
Well, actually, he's nothing but pretenses. That's the problem. He lies. And lies so prolifically
and so wildly that he's not so much a person, or even a character. He's a persona. He has transformed
himself into a tissue thin representation of a "winner". But strip away the lies about how great
he is, how great his business savvy is, etc and you realize that Donald Trump is a lot like Oakland.
There's no there there.
"But it always struck me there was some other agenda to the immigration. That there still is.
I'm not sure what."
This is the logic of someone who has mentally thrown their hands up and said, "I'm frustrated
about my life, so I guess I'll blame, oh, I don't know immigration. Sure, why not?" Dress it
up however you like, but this is functionally the same as posting a "No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish"
sign on your soul.
"That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence, frequently not very compassionate
or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that their religion is simplistic and
mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with them. (I find it hard.) But you leave
people behind at your peril."
I agree with this, but let's not pretend that large swaths of this population have chosen to resist,
at every turn, efforts made to help them. Those efforts themselves may have been clumsy, ineffective
or counterproductive (there's lots of room for criticism and we shouldn't back away from it),
but let's heed the mantra of personal responsibility as well. Because at a certain point I find
myself getting a little, well, tetchy with people who over and over again supported policies,
politicians and parties that hurt them financially because doing so hurt other people socially
and legally and then, after realizing they've shoveled themselves to deep to ever climb out of
their fiscal grave, turn to a demagogue as one last knife in the back to their countrymen.
Then came the election of 2008, and suddenly the Other was in the White House. The Trumpkins
want to "Take American Back" because they have been told that the Kenyan Socialist Muslim stole
their country.
I find it so frustrating when people write stuff like this. People were so hopeful about Obama,
so hopeful about racism in this country. But the first words out of certain sectors of left after
Obama's election weren't hopeful ones about reconciliation. They were "America is still racist."
And they set out to prove it. Now we feel more bitterly divided then ever. I could go into more
detail, about the issues involved, but it's just frustrating to me, and the stuff I quoted above
is ready made excuse that is not true to my experience.
I get – and hear – the claims of despair that many Trump backers articulate. I just wish
they'd leave him behind and rally around Bernie Sanders. He is, in so many ways, the flipside
of Trump.
And honestly, Trump supporters wish that you would rally around Trump. Certainly the differences
between the two candidates are more than mere sensibility. But there is certainly an argument
to be made that Trump's strength on immigration is preferable to Bernie Sanders's wishful thinking.
Re: Charles Featherstone, "That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence,
frequently not very compassionate or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that
their religion is simplistic and mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with
them. (I find it hard.)"
Replace "white" with "black" or "hispanic" and see how far that observation travels. Featherstone
should be writing for the "poor, uneducated and easy to command" Washington Post. His selective
stereotypical misanthropy would fit right in.
Good thing Featherstone has his lovely immigrant friends to talk to. God help him if he
actually had to cavort with the repulsive white riff-raff.
I'm going to defend Charles Featherstone here. I don't think it does any good whatsoever to
romanticize the working poor as salt of the earth, honest-to-goodness decent people who don't
get a fair shake. Poverty brutalizes. The attempt to aid the downtrodden must be accompanied by
a hard-headed assessment of the physical, emotional, and intellectual damage that poverty, deprivation,
and neglect inevitably cause.
"They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And
they're voting now for Donald Trump."
Yeah. No doubt. But they are voting for the same clowns for Congress and the Senate. Kentucky
might like Trump, but they will keep McConnell. They hate the establishment that they maintain.
It's Obama's fault. He's clouded their minds. That's gotta be it.
I think what this speaks to more than anything is the total decay of political life at the
local and community level. The Trump 'movement' is really a mass media event, played out on a
national media stage, with many people playing and voting along just like they do on a regular
talent show competition. But the potential for mobilizing those people into a movement that would
start to build power locally simply doesn't exist.
I suspect Trump voters understand this at some level but are powerless to do anything about
it. So it seems that Trump voters are able to crash the rigged game of a media-driven national
election reality show competition, but can do next to nothing about the iron grip of the institution
they despise on the local politics that no doubt affects their lives far more on a daily basis.
Which is really just to say, again, that the dominant motif of Trump voters is that they are fed
up with being powerless and without influence.
The problem with identity politics is not the groups themselves, but the fact that they tend
to put forward the most extreme leadership (and this generally happens for structural reasons
so is inevitable).
Further, politics is a zero sum game, so if my group gets the right not to bake cakes for gay
weddings, then the other group loses the right to force people to bake cakes for their weddings.
No matter where you draw the line, one group comes away with its feelings hurt. [Without pronouncing
judgment on which group is "in the right".]
The common draw between BLM and Trump is they are both playing on feelings of solidarity. Even
though Trump is really not a white nationalist, and not talking white nationalism, there is an
implicit tone of ethnic and class solidarity as much as there would be at a Black Power rally.
I think it would be helpful to realize that the political leadership of all these groups are
all a$$#0!*$, and the average member of the group is not nearly as radical. It is also necessary
to recognize that someone is always going to lose, and work toward compromises notwithstanding
the leadership, which is always going to be selling saints versus demons and no compromises.
But I would like to see something like national solidarity, that Americans could come together
as one people with a shared history, notwithstanding all the instances in which we have fought
amongst ourselves, and try to start governing in the interest of everyone, and I bet there are
plenty of BLM supporters and Trump supporters who would stand behind that message.
But I think progressives are somewhat naive about mass politics. Sanders is coherent, he has
a lot of policy content, he can articulate his position and I definitely think he has a point.
But politics in mass democracy is ugly, mobilizing on a mass level is ugly. Progressives tend
to focus on the ugliest side of "white solidarity", but if you go down to a minority neighborhood
in Chicago during a highly contested race for mayor, you will note some salty language and maybe
a stereotype or too coming out. It may be that only white people can be racist, but every ethnic
and religious group can certainly be ugly when they are engaged in some kind of political struggle.
In other words, there must always be a tragic dimension of politics, as well as a comic dimension,
and American democracy will never be just a faculty lounge debate.
"... People are in information overload most of the time, and where politics are concerned, they really just want to know who to root for. They ask, "who is the good guy? who is the bad guy?" "Whose right?" "What should be done?" And, people like the opinions they have, whatever those opinions may be; they use their political opinions to feed their sense of self-esteem and social belonging, for better and for worse. ..."
"... I was thinking about what a brilliant innovation the Clinton Foundation is, how well it is designed to solve the problems of Machiavelli's Prince. ..."
"... I've seen some articles that attempt to understand the CF as a means to the political ambitions of the Clintons, but they seldom grasp the awesome accomplishment it is in ways that also fully understand why enemies of the Clintons are keen to attack it and why it so reliably produces the neoliberal pablum that Thomas Franks despises. ..."
"... If we could imagine a Marx tackling the CF as a vehicle of class interest, that would be pretty interesting. ..."
People are in information overload most of the time,
and where politics are concerned, they really just want to know who to root
for. They ask, "who is the good guy? who is the bad guy?" "Whose right?" "What
should be done?" And, people like the opinions they have, whatever those
opinions may be; they use their political opinions to feed their sense of
self-esteem and social belonging, for better and for worse.
I have some friends, who are really into a particular sport as fans, not
participants. One guy knows everything about baseball. It is fun to watch a
game with him, because he knows when someone is about to try to steal a base
and stuff like that and he can explain the manager's strategy and has gossip
about the players careers and personal lives. And, apparently, he has an
encyclopedic knowledge of baseball history - appears to, anyway: what dramatic
thing happened in game 3 of the 1967 World Series and so on and exactly why
everyone hated Ty Cobb.
No one like that shows up at CT to talk politics. Maybe it is just as well.
Sports guys can wield that knowledge and remain affable, but political guys
tend to be arrogant and off-putting. But, I do think we could use more of that
spirit sometimes.
I was thinking about what a brilliant innovation the Clinton Foundation
is, how well it is designed to solve the problems of Machiavelli's Prince.
But, we would struggle to discuss it in those terms; the partisan contest means
that the CF is either horribly corrupt or prosaically innocent. The pressure to
evaluate it is so high, that seeing the functional details is hard.
I've seen some articles that attempt to understand the CF as a means to
the political ambitions of the Clintons, but they seldom grasp the awesome
accomplishment it is in ways that also fully understand why enemies of the
Clintons are keen to attack it and why it so reliably produces the neoliberal
pablum that Thomas Franks despises.
If we could imagine a Marx tackling the CF as a vehicle of class
interest, that would be pretty interesting.
"... Okay, I'm done laughing at the folly of this. Just as the marketplace works best when participants are self-selecting, so do the decisions about livelihood and voting. Or do you really believe that some pool of bureaucrats should be making the social and economic decisions for all of us? ..."
"... Things haven't really changed all that much since Anthony Downs wrote The Economic Theory of Democracy almost 60 years ago. The sad fact is that most elections are decided by low information voters who are easily swayed. ..."
Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him vote for your candidate.
I personally believe low productivity growth and low interest rates lead to the impression the system
is rigged. Low productivity growth means low wage increases, and low interest rates mean high asset
prices, which favor those with assets, ie, the insiders. Both make the guy on the street feel like the
system is not working for him.
One might argue, however, that if any citizen is too lazy or uninformed or self-involved or uninterested
in politics to take the trouble to vote, so be it. Why drag them to the polls? Perhaps it is just as
well if the views of the uninformed or self-involved don't carry as much weight as others! I am not
going to take a position on this question one way or the other. Let's consider only those citizens who
are as informed and civic-minded as the rest of us, but are alienated by the system and think that "votes
of people like them" don't make a difference. There are, by far, enough of these people for their votes
in fact to make the difference.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/opinion/should-everybody-vote.html?_r=0
Okay, I'm done laughing at the folly of this. Just as the marketplace works best when participants
are self-selecting, so do the decisions about livelihood and voting. Or do you really believe that some
pool of bureaucrats should be making the social and economic decisions for all of us?
Things haven't really changed all that much since Anthony Downs wrote
The
Economic Theory of Democracy
almost 60 years ago. The sad fact is that most elections
are decided by low information voters who are easily swayed.
Another important poli-sci book that came out around the same time was Robert Dahl's
A Preface
to Democratic Theory
, and here I believe things have changed since Dahl first theorized about the
conditions for "polyarchal" democracy. In short, polyarchal democracy was plausible and even likely
60 years ago. Today not so much.
Bruce Hall
do you really believe that some pool of bureaucrats should be making the social
and economic decisions for all of us?
If you want effective and responsive government, then yes. If you want legitimate government, then
no. We have a few thousand years of history that tells us we can't have both for more than 5 or 6 generations;
it's an unstable knife's edge.
The problem is that "messy and freedom" are luxuries that you buy only with
the capital earned by first being "effective and responsive." After a few generations
of messiness that capital gets consumed. People being what they are, they quickly
and gladly trade away that freedom for security. It's an old pattern that we
see time and again, and not just in ancient times. Look at the rise of far right
wing parties in both Western Europe and Eastern Europe. Look at Singapore. Look
at what's happening in Turkey right now. Look at the deplorable views of some
of Trump's supporters. And what do you think will happen to "messy and freedom"
if 100 years from now the climate "alarmists" and "pool of bureaucrats" at NOAA
and EPA turn out to have been proven right? The unfortunate truth is that healthy
democracies are temporary and fortunate aberrations from the normal course of
events. Years ago I read Benjamin Friedman's
The Moral Consequences of Economic
Growth
and I always wondered why Friedman shied away from the natural conclusion
implied in his main argument. The natural conclusion isn't
just
that
without economic growth our politics becomes meaner and nastier; it's that people
quickly forget their brave words about freedom and start looking around for
someone on a white horse.
Government in its attempts to help people also caused enormous damage.
For example, in "the War on Poverty," we spent trillions of dollars trying
to reduce poverty. Yet, the same percentage of the population is in poverty.
However, it did reduce "deep poverty" substantially. Government should focus
on problems that are similar to deep poverty (rather than income inequality)
and smooth-out business cycles (to sustain or maximize employment). The federal
government needs to operate within a budget, e.g. 18% of GDP in normal times.
More GDP means more tax revenue and less spending on the unemployed, to fund
other programs.
I have to disagree with your analysis here. According to census figures
the poverty rate for families in 1959 was upward of 18%. By 1969 it was
hugging 10%.
The largest reduction was the number of senior citizens living in poverty.
IMHO, this is the definition of success. Your definition may be different.
A second point I would like to make is that, as Krugman pointed out
first, potential GDP growth was largely unchanged from 1970 to 2000, regardless
of changing party control and shifting demographics. After 2000 there's
a sizable dropoff, some levelling, and another drop at the last recession,
again followed by some levelling.
I personally believe it to be very likely that the heavy chopping away
at the Federal social safety net from 1995 to 2005 seriously reduced the
ability of household demand to recover from recessions. I have not yet
put numbers to it, but am working toward it. I will gladly share my results
and data when I do.
So existing data show that programs created during the War on Poverty,
and built upon during the 1970s and 1980s, were effective at reducing
poverty. There's also strong circumstantial evidence that curtailing those
programs has reduced the growth potential of the US economy.
Thanks for reading. I hope everyone has a good day!
The People's Pawn, below is a chart of the poverty rate by the Washington
Post. Note, that the poverty rate was falling sharply before the War on
Poverty went into full effect (also shown in your data). I doubt, for
example, the black community is better off today, after accounting for
the steep rise in living standards, since the 1960s. Demographics doesn't
explain the sharp, sudden, and sustained downshift in GDP growth in this
"recovery." In the 2001-07 expansion, increasingly larger trade deficits,
up to 6% of GDP, can explain much of the slower GDP growth, although the
female labor force participation rate declined slowly after it peaked
in 2000.
I have another question for you guys. I asked a
question
a couple of years ago
on this blog about my decision to buy a big screen tv rather
than sign up for Obamacare. Mr. Baffles called me a
deadbeat,
but my evil conservative Republican Pop told me I was just being rational. He said
lots of young (and older) people would make the same decision and Obamacare would
never come close to signing up the people expected. He said Obamacare will filled
with perverse incentives. He was right, so I guess I don't feel so bad.
But now my Pop's got me confused again. I read Prof Frankel's post and I thought "cool," all I have
to do to get some free stuff is go out and vote. That doesn't seem so hard. But then I ran into my Pop.
He told me about something he called the "rational voter hypothesis." He said that it's not rational
for me to vote. My vote would only matter if the vote is evenly split between 2 candidates and my candidate
would lose if I didn't vote. He said that I need to calculate the expected value of all the free stuff
I'd get–free medical care, free college education, etc. etc.–by multiplying its value by the probability
that my vote will make a difference. And then I need to subtract the expected cost of voting. He said
the expected benefit will be much lower than the expected cost and thus I shouldn't vote if I'm smart.
That's because the probability that I could decide the election is very small.
So I said, "That's so cynical. How do you know I can't make a difference Pop? Professor Frankel told
me all I need to do is go out and vote to change the world." That's when all the conservative mumbo
jumbo started.
He said I could never know if the race were so close that my vote could matter. But I could estimate
the probability just by reading the newspaper. In Florida in 2000, about 6 million people voted and
it was very close. Suppose I read right before the election that there was a poll of 1000 people and
the poll said that vote was even: 500 people planned to vote for Bush and 500 people planned to vote
for Gore. With that information my Pop claimed I could estimate the probability that my vote would matter.
In that case, the standard deviation of the number of people voting for Gore could be estimated to
be sqrt(N*p*(1-p)) where N = 1000 and p = 0.5. So, the standard deviation of the number of people voting
for Gore would be 15.8 and the standard deviation of the probability of voting for Gore would be 15.8/1000
= 0.0158 = 1.6 percentage points.
So, we'd expect Gore to receive 0.5 * 6,000,000 = 3,000,000 votes with a standard deviation of 0.0158
* 6,000,000 = 94,868 votes.
If you use the normal distribution approximation, the probability that the vote is tied and my vote
decides the election is about 1/sqrt(2*pi)/94,868 = 4 in 1 million. Whew! My head is spinning but that
seems pretty small.
My Pop told me that the way I drive, I'm more likely to die on the way to the polling booth in a
car crash than I am to decide the election.
Well, I'm not risking my life to get some free stuff. I think I'll stay home and watch my big screen
tv on election day. Am I wrong?
Well, for starters, when you go to the polls you aren't just voting for President.
There are a lot of down ballot races as well. And for many of them your vote counts
very much. A few months ago there was a local initiative in my town. Voter turnout
was very low. The "for" vote fell short of the 60% required by the smallest of
margins a small fraction of a percentage point. Then a few weeks later they "found"
an absentee ballot that somehow got lost. There was some back and forth as to whether
or not it was a legal ballot. It was decided that it was. And the ballot measure
just cleared the 60% hurdle. We've also had ties for city council. And a few election
cycles back my county exactly tied in the Presidential vote. So if you live in
a battleground state, then there's a pretty good chance that your vote will count
in at least one of the many races and ballot initiatives. There might not be much
point in voting if you live in a deeply red or blue state, but battleground states
are a different story. Besides, it's fun to vote. I don't like absentee ballots
because I enjoy the experience of going into a voting both and voting against all
of the clowns with an "R" attached to them. I get a lot of pleasure from it.
As to Obamacare, there's quite likely going to be a perverse outcome if it fails.
And that outcome would likely please many of us who support universal Medicare.
If Obamacare fails because healthy young folks don't want to sign up, the alternative
will not be going back to the pre-Obamacare world. That world was rapidly collapsing,
which is why there was such demand for health insurance reform. If Obamacare fails,
then the next approach will be universal Medicare which means young, healthy people
who didn't want to join in Obamacare will find themselves paying into Medicare
with no realistic way to avoid it. Besides, Rick Stryker, Jr. won't be a young
kid forever. Some day he'll be middle-aged and in need of health insurance. If
Jr believes in consumptions smoothing over his lifetime, then he's probably better
off overpaying a bit when he's young rather than overpaying a lot when he's older
because he's confronted with a private insurance market that is in a death spiral.
Health care insurance is not the same as health care. You can thank government
for making health care a luxury good and creating rationing. We need to allow
the free market to work for huge efficiency gains and much lower prices. Then,
we can afford to subsidize or pay for preexisting conditions and catastrophic
health care.
"We need to allow the free market to work for huge efficiency gains and
much lower prices."
we tried that already. the world prior to obamacare. it failed. you need
to at least acknowledge that reality before you can try to present a solution
moving forward.
Do you really believe health care was operating in the free market
system before Obamacare?
Government, for decades, has piled on more and more constraints and
red tape on health care resulting in the inefficient and expensive system
we have today.
Your solution (from prior comments) seems to be since government intervention
created an grossly suboptimal and unsustainable system, it should take
over the entire system.
Peak, do you really believe government was the cause of health care
problems prior to 2008?
Not surprising, coming from a person who also believes the government
was responsible for the banks poor behavior leading up to the financial
crisis. I don't suppose the latest episodes from Wells Fargo and Deutschbank
will have you reconsider your interpretation.
Seems as though you have a standard response for any problem-it must
be the government. Let you in on a little secret. The problems facing
wells and deutsch today are a direct result of their own terrible business
decisions-not the government.
Baffling, you don't really care about helping people. You always defend
government, even when it creates systemic failures, e.g. in the financial
and health care industries.
There will always be some bad apples and policies that aren't perfect.
Nonetheless, banks are actually in business to make money, which has been
harder in the continuing low interest rate and highly regulated environment.
You can find faults in any corporate policy. You also need to look
at the successes. There are always problems in a big company. Some succeed
and some fail. However, it's not a systemic failure, like the moral hazard
government created in the housing market.
I thought I'd better respond for Rick Jr since he's glued to his big screen
tv and can't be bothered.
The calculation I explained to Rick Jr. was just to illustrate a general
point, that the probability of a vote mattering is very small in general. I
picked the best case in which it might matter. In that case, you know a priori
that the vote is incredibly close and you know that your state will be decisive.
Usually, that's not the situation and so the probability is much lower. It really
doesn't get much better down ballot. In almost all cases, you won't have the
same information to judge whether the race is close enough to do a calculation.
You rarely have polls of local ballot initiatives. Of course, you can always
point to races that were very close. That's a variation of the classical birthday
problem. The probability that any 2 people have the same birthday is low but
the probability that some pair of 2 people have the same birthday can be surprisingly
high. If you look over enough races, you will find some squeakers but that doesn't
change the probability calculation for any particular race.
That this probability is very low was first recognized by Downs as well as
Tullock in "Towards a Mathematics of Politics." Both noted that since this probability
is low, influencing the election can't be the motivation of a rational voter.
Both posited that people vote because they derive some sort of utility or satisfaction
from the act of voting itself. As you yourself said, voting is fun.
The political scientists Riker and Ordershook called the utility from voting
D and claimed that a rational voter will vote if
pB + D – C > 0 where p is the probability of the vote mattering, B is the
benefit, D is the enjoyment derived from the act of voting, and C is the cost
of voting. Since, p is very small and C is fairly well understood, all the action
is in D.
There are a number of theories about what D is. One is the expressive voter
hypothesis, which I think characterizes the voters that Jeff is talking about.
In this formulation, voters are aware that their vote doesn't matter and use
the opportunity to express an opinion about what they think the situation ought
to be. The cost of expressing such an opinion is essentially C, since p is very,
very low and the expressive voter sacrifices little in the way of benefits.
If this theory does explain the Nader voters, Jeff's arguments are likely to
fall on deaf ears.
Besides, focusing on Nader misses the larger picture. In Florida, some 6%
of registered Democrats voted for Bush. Had Gore been a better candidate and
nailed down his base better in Florida, he would have won. These voters who
crossed the line weren't disgruntled about the system. They actively chose Bush
over Gore.
When you look at modern get-out-the-vote techniques, they depend on big data
to identify possible voters and different psychological persuasion techniques
to appeal to voters classified by their data. Different methods are applied
to different voters. These methods do work and can move the vote a percent or
two on election day.
These techniques are a much more profitable line of attack. The Democrats
are still much better than Republicans on this high tech ground game. Obama
pioneered the modern data-driven ground game, using it effectively in 2008 and
2012. Romney also developed some capability, but the software failed massively
on election day.
Hillary has a big advantage over Trump in this regard. The Republicans have
tried to catch up but Trump seems to be rejecting the use of what's been developed.
Or so he claims. If this isn't misdirection on Trump's part, he may need an
extra point or so in the polls just to equalize her ground game.
One way of looking at low voter turnouts is that those absent voters are largely
happy with the status quo and 'rationally' do no expect it to change much.
Perhaps these absent voters have figured out the enormous influence of unelected special interest
groups and have simply given up.
Yet another way is to look at the US presidential system with its first-past-the-post vote allocation
system and overwhelming incentives to vote strategically and conclude that it is not really very democratic.
Perhaps by 18th century standards but not by modern standards. That and strategic voting appears more
costly, so these considerations drive up voter costs without any apparent increase in expected benefits.
Yet another way is look at how the position of president combines both head of state and head of
government which appears to inevitably complicate political negotiation.
The Latin Americans have an interesting expression for folks with strong patriotic feelings: patriotudos.
Patriots with big balls. It implies that patriotudos are not big on 'thinking'. Electing the head of
state and head of the federal government in one person brings more emotional input into the voting equation.
As for the potential for voting to have a difference in recent years, I cannot help but view that
as dangerous analysis if not simply misinformation.
1. The Sept 11th attacks responded to provocations provided by US political leaders and representatives
from the Democratic party. Democrats have been the most vocal supporters of the Nuclear weapons backed
affirmative action ethnic cleansing program that succinctly describes the ethnically exclusive Israeli
nation building process.
2. Both the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq received considerable support from high
profile Democrats. The reluctance of many NATO partners to join in the adventures should have signalled
something of use to US decision makers but apparently did not.
3. The 'War on Terror' receives considerable bi-partisan support yet the US won WW II by essentially
burning the flesh of innocent civilians in Germany and Japan. Up until the emergence of Da'esh, those
fighting the War on Terror - Israel and the USA - killed more civilians than the so-called 'terrorists'
did. Please recall the strong support among Democrat partisans for Israel's kill ratios.
4. US citizens continue to enjoy the lowest excise taxes on diesel and gasoline among the rich OECD
nations. There is broad bi-partisan support for keeping these taxes low. There has been broad bi-partisan
support for using top-down violent means for fixing democracy in the Mid-East as a way to ensuring more
stable oil flows from the Gulf of Persia. There has been broad bi-partisan support for maintaining a
multi-billion dollar US fleet presence near the Gulf of Persia in order to help secure oil flows to
the global economy including the USA. (Only a Neo-Marxist in the Baran-Sweezy tradition could fully
appreciate these policies of social wealth destruction for questionable goals.)
In fact, the current Democrat-lead federal government has appeared more interested in shutting down
pipeline development than increasing fossil fuel taxes on end users. This while middle-aged white males
are registering lower life expectancies and it is widely believed that current generations of North
American children will exhibit even lower life expectancies. One could speculate that Americans really
should spend less time in their automobiles but that is clearly not the view of the vast majority of
Democrats.
To conclude, voting appears to make a no difference with respect to significant energy and foreign
policy decisions that have been big drivers of the US economy and perceptions of security over the past
1/2 a century.
There is never a good reason to vote for Republicans.
Whoever is elected, they will be a one-term president (neither will do anything that needs to be
done to fix the economy).
As far as Nader being a spoiler in 2000, Gore was a terrible candidate who won the popular vote and
would have won in Jeb Bush's Florida except for the Supreme Court stopping the recount.
If Hillary loses, the Dems have no one to blame but themselves. She is the worst candidate they could
have selected.
Let's face it, both Clinton and Trump should be in jail, not running for president.
From
Washington's governing elites think we're all morons, a new study
says
In 2014, MIT Professor and Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber was caught
on tape explaining that "the stupidity of the American voter or whatever was
really, really critical for [Obamacare] to pass."
Most lawmakers and
voters
, he suggested, did not really understand the law and that "lack
of transparency is a huge political advantage."
The 'governing elite' puts the politician and voter in the same moron
category.
[W]here rulers have little in common with the ruled, those in power are
unlikely to exhibit sympathy, as the Constitution's framers might have put it,
for their subjects. Rulers are likely, instead, to
view their subjects
instrumentally
much, says Aristotle, as they might see their tools,
horses, oxen, or slaves, and deal with them in an unjust manner. . .
This is narcissism writ large. What we have is a system whereby self
selecting narcissists run for office (Does a normal person really want the jawb
of getting up in front of people to lie and smile?) and bask in the glory of
power. and then has to deal with psychopaths that have back stabbed and ass
licked their way to the top of the bureaucratic heap.
"... OMG, you will make up anything, won't you! That is NOT what rigged means! When a basketball game is rigged, it doesn't mean the final score has been "falsified"! It means that someone -- probably the refs (i.e, in an election, the media) has systematically tilted the playing field. ..."
"... Usually when we say a game was rigged, we mean players on the teams manipulated the score (missing shots,etc) in order to make sure a specific team beat the spread. ..."
"... My own experience looking systematically at election results in aggregate suggests that big disparities in campaign spending can indeed have very big effects, the most obvious in recent history being Obama's win in Indiana in 2008. ..."
"... I suspect that if more people believe elections are rigged, more will be likely to support/accept/tolerate a military takeover. ..."
"... "Rigged" is not a precise term. There's a continuum from, say, discouraging some voters from turning up to stuffing ballot boxes (or worse). Some places in the US are well towards the middle of that spectrum (purging rolls, making ID mandatory but difficult to obtain, cutting voting places, gerrymanders....) ..."
"... As for "American elections are not perfect, but ...they're pretty darn good." By the standards of other developed countries (and even many undeveloped ones), US electoral processes are pretty horrible, but that is true of much US administration. Extreme decentralisation, a rich heritage of patronage and a deep suspicion of government do not make for efficient public services. ..."
"... Recently (as sometime this past year, iIRC) former President Carter outright said that the US doesn't have a functioning democracy. ..."
I read both your writing and Cowen's regularly. And saw your twitter exchange. And it seems
completely obvious to me that Cowen's main complaint was hypocrisy/double standards. A (perhaps
overdone) theme of his.
Just look at Cowen's first point. quote:
1. Numerous arguments insist that money buys elections and campaign finance reform is imperative.
That's not exactly my view, with Trump himself now being Exhibit A on the other side of the issue,
but please try to be consistent. A lot of you believe that elections are (were?) rigged! (Hey,
psst when can we go back to them being rigged again? Asking for a friend!)
He's being a total smart aleck! Annoyed about people whining about overuse of rigged and dumbing
it way way down. And not understanding that by theory all complex elections have a manipulative
aspect. And then going on and complaining when the other side uses "rigged" in the same way. This
is so clear, and so snarky.
Hence I think your summary at top of Cowen's claims is flat out not what he intended. And in
fact your points #1 and #2 are (ironically) in total agreement with what Cowen is complaining
about. And even true for #3 as well. Cowen is saying Trump is using rigged in a fashion that's
quite popular in partisan politics, and this is a problem. Something you obviously agree with.
And being annoyed folks don't understand the difference being fraud, and influence, and the Gibbard-Sattherthwaite
theorem.
Anyway, I think there is a true complaint about Cowen's post (besides being too snide without
using enough emoji to cue in a modern reader), is it implies a false equivalence between the republican
nominee for president saying "rigged" and folks in the more partisan press. I suspect Cowen would
acknowledge this, and should have made this more clear in his post. This is pretty much the primary
problem in my view, and has led to his post being so misread. It really is a bit deal for the
republican nominee to say this, and not acknowledging that fact makes anything else you say easy
to misunderstand.
Another true complaint is he implies there's more lax use of rigged on one side than the other
(prior to Trump). I re-read his post though, and am not sure he makes that claim. But it's pretty
easy to get that impression.
I have heard a variation of this argument with respect to what is, or what isn't a coup when
talking about Brazil. In general, I find an excessive devotion to rigor as applied to aggressive
action to be distasteful. It's almost always an attempt at derailing (or feels like an attempt
to derail) the topic at hand.
If Brazil's bad faith impeachment drama wasn't a coup, then why do we call the 1997 event in
Turkey "the Postmodern Coup"? That's because we pay attention to the ends of these sort of actions,
and not the means, and attempting portray a memorandum as just a memorandum, and willfully ignoring
the potential implied use of force is simply being deliberately obtuse.
Again, what are the ends of straight up vote-rigging, like what can be done with electronic
voting machines, say, in Kansas? Are they different from the unequal deploying of voting machines?
Or the use of vote fraud as an excuse to intimidate people by having police "check up" on where
they live? Does these alternative means really do less violence to the society at large? If not,
do people not have the correct instinct to apply the most overt and indefensible terms to the
panoply of underhanded strategies, so as to throw disinfectant social light on these tactics?
A liitle more soul searchin from the LEft is needed here. You do not mention the blatant manipulation
of Illinois in the 1960 election, and the noble attitude of Nizon of not diiging into it further.
Contrast this with the 2000 Election. Even after the myth of fraud had stolen Florida from
Gore was thoroughly debunked one year later by an extensive audit by the vote, Democrats still
were referring to George W. Bush as illegitimate well after that.
And there is the case of all the attitude of the DNC against Sanders. This is not exactly coming
out of the blue. And Democrats also bear responsibility.
"When most people hear the word "rigged" in the context of an election, they probably think
that means the results have been falsified ..."
OMG, you will make up anything, won't you! That is NOT what rigged means! When a basketball
game is rigged, it doesn't mean the final score has been "falsified"! It means that someone --
probably the refs (i.e, in an election, the media) has systematically tilted the playing field.
If you are just going to make up BS off the top of your head like this, I gotta de-link your
blog.
In basketball, playing on your home court "tilts the playing field" in favor of one team. Playing
your home games in Denver tilts the playing field towards the home team even more. There seems
to be some acclimation effect to the altitude that is difficult for road teams to deal with in
just a day or two.
Neither of these structural factors means basketball is rigged because they don't fundamentally
change the conditions under which the game is played. Both teams try to get the ball through the
hoop without traveling or double dribbling.
Same with elections. The two party system is like home field advantage. Money and PACs may
be like playing at home in Denver. Folks like Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Donald Trump, and Bernie
Sanders are all trying to get the ball through the hoop without traveling or double dribbling.
The referees aren't calling Bernie for traveling when he clearly held his pivot foot. Nor are
they awarding Hillary points for shots she misses. They all raise money under the same rules.
They all buy ads under the same rules. They get ballot access and debate access under the same
rules. They're all free to attempt to influence party platforms under the same rules. They all
compete for media under the same rules.
As to the media are they biased? I'd suspect so. Do they have rooting interests? Probably.
Does that mean elections are rigged? Are MLB games rigged because umpires are more likely to call
borderline pitches strikes against Latino hitters?
Usually when we say a game was rigged, we mean players on the teams manipulated the score
(missing shots,etc) in order to make sure a specific team beat the spread.
Thanks for this post. I like Tyler's blog very much and was very surprised to see something
this poor from him. Ironically, I think part of his motivation was to criticize the watering-down
of "rigged" just as you do, but he did a poor job of it.
Two separate problems are here: (1) A linguistic problem causing gaps in communication: "Rigged"
has become so broad that it has become almost useless for conveying actual beliefs. Its primary
meaning is outright miscounting votes a la Stalin, but it is now being used for much milder influences
as well. (2) Trump appears to be claiming there will be outright miscounting of votes, a terrible
claim by a major candidate.
I think Tyler meant to say that unfortunately, (1) gives Trump cover for (2). He can say the
election will be "rigged," and most listeners will think he means in the strict Stalinist sense
(I do)...but some people who might be outraged by the claim will instead think it sounds vaguely
normal, due to (1).
Tyler did not write that the election will be rigged. I don't quite understand your confusion
on the point, to be honest. Your long excerpt from him omits the part where he says he believes
the opposite:
"Personally, I think median voters more or less get what they want on a large number of issues,
especially broad-based ones in the public eye. You won't find the word 'rigged' popping up too
much in the MR search function, besides I started blogging (and breathing) after Kennedy vs. Nixon.
But my goodness, I can in fact understand why Donald Trump thinks the system is rigged. For years,
you have been telling him that it is."
I do not wish to enter into a discussion in this space as to whether there is evidence that
insider tampering with electronic voting machines changed the outcome of races in Alaska in 2008
and 2014 and Kansas in 2014, but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that Steven Levitt's work
on elections outcomes linked in "most evidence shows" above has been vociferously contested by
some in the Political Science field, for example Thomas Ferguson's "Investment Theory of Party
Competition".
I'm not really inclined to buy Chomskian bullshit by the pound from Ferguson in preference
to Chicago School apologetics from Levitt, and I don't have the expertise in statistics to judge
their competing claims, but I have a pretty good idea which of the two makes more money promoting
these respective ideas on election financing, and given Levitt's terrible work on climate science
in SuperFreakonomics, I'm not at all inclined to give his claims on campaign finance the benefit
of the doubt.
My own experience looking systematically at election results in aggregate suggests that
big disparities in campaign spending can indeed have very big effects, the most obvious in recent
history being Obama's win in Indiana in 2008.
Not directly related to whether elections are rigged, but related:
""In the past three decades, the share of U.S. citizens who think that it would be a "good"
or "very good" thing for the "army to rule"-a patently undemocratic stance-has steadily risen.
In 1995, just one in sixteen respondents agreed with that position; today, one in six agree.
While those who hold this view remain in the minority, they can no longer be dismissed as a
small fringe, especially since there have been similar increases in the number of those who
favor a "strong leader who doesn't have to bother with parliament and elections" and those
who want experts rather than the government to "take decisions" for the country. Nor is the
United States the only country to exhibit this trend. The proportion agreeing that it would
be better to have the army rule has risen in most mature democracies, including Germany, Sweden,
and the United Kingdom."
http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2016/08/is-support-for-democracy-eroding.html
I suspect that if more people believe elections are rigged, more will be likely to support/accept/tolerate
a military takeover.
"Rigged" is not a precise term. There's a continuum from, say, discouraging some voters
from turning up to stuffing ballot boxes (or worse). Some places in the US are well towards the
middle of that spectrum (purging rolls, making ID mandatory but difficult to obtain, cutting voting
places, gerrymanders....)
As for "American elections are not perfect, but ...they're pretty darn good." By the standards
of other developed countries (and even many undeveloped ones), US electoral processes are pretty
horrible, but that is true of much US administration. Extreme decentralisation, a rich heritage
of patronage and a deep suspicion of government do not make for efficient public services.
"... OMG, you will make up anything, won't you! That is NOT what rigged means! When a basketball game is rigged, it doesn't mean the final score has been "falsified"! It means that someone -- probably the refs (i.e, in an election, the media) has systematically tilted the playing field. ..."
"... Usually when we say a game was rigged, we mean players on the teams manipulated the score (missing shots,etc) in order to make sure a specific team beat the spread. ..."
"... My own experience looking systematically at election results in aggregate suggests that big disparities in campaign spending can indeed have very big effects, the most obvious in recent history being Obama's win in Indiana in 2008. ..."
"... I suspect that if more people believe elections are rigged, more will be likely to support/accept/tolerate a military takeover. ..."
"... "Rigged" is not a precise term. There's a continuum from, say, discouraging some voters from turning up to stuffing ballot boxes (or worse). Some places in the US are well towards the middle of that spectrum (purging rolls, making ID mandatory but difficult to obtain, cutting voting places, gerrymanders....) ..."
"... As for "American elections are not perfect, but ...they're pretty darn good." By the standards of other developed countries (and even many undeveloped ones), US electoral processes are pretty horrible, but that is true of much US administration. Extreme decentralisation, a rich heritage of patronage and a deep suspicion of government do not make for efficient public services. ..."
"... Recently (as sometime this past year, iIRC) former President Carter outright said that the US doesn't have a functioning democracy. ..."
I read both your writing and Cowen's regularly. And saw your twitter exchange. And it seems
completely obvious to me that Cowen's main complaint was hypocrisy/double standards. A (perhaps
overdone) theme of his.
Just look at Cowen's first point. quote:
1. Numerous arguments insist that money buys elections and campaign finance reform is imperative.
That's not exactly my view, with Trump himself now being Exhibit A on the other side of the issue,
but please try to be consistent. A lot of you believe that elections are (were?) rigged! (Hey,
psst when can we go back to them being rigged again? Asking for a friend!)
He's being a total smart aleck! Annoyed about people whining about overuse of rigged and dumbing
it way way down. And not understanding that by theory all complex elections have a manipulative
aspect. And then going on and complaining when the other side uses "rigged" in the same way. This
is so clear, and so snarky.
Hence I think your summary at top of Cowen's claims is flat out not what he intended. And in
fact your points #1 and #2 are (ironically) in total agreement with what Cowen is complaining
about. And even true for #3 as well. Cowen is saying Trump is using rigged in a fashion that's
quite popular in partisan politics, and this is a problem. Something you obviously agree with.
And being annoyed folks don't understand the difference being fraud, and influence, and the Gibbard-Sattherthwaite
theorem.
Anyway, I think there is a true complaint about Cowen's post (besides being too snide without
using enough emoji to cue in a modern reader), is it implies a false equivalence between the republican
nominee for president saying "rigged" and folks in the more partisan press. I suspect Cowen would
acknowledge this, and should have made this more clear in his post. This is pretty much the primary
problem in my view, and has led to his post being so misread. It really is a bit deal for the
republican nominee to say this, and not acknowledging that fact makes anything else you say easy
to misunderstand.
Another true complaint is he implies there's more lax use of rigged on one side than the other
(prior to Trump). I re-read his post though, and am not sure he makes that claim. But it's pretty
easy to get that impression.
I have heard a variation of this argument with respect to what is, or what isn't a coup when
talking about Brazil. In general, I find an excessive devotion to rigor as applied to aggressive
action to be distasteful. It's almost always an attempt at derailing (or feels like an attempt
to derail) the topic at hand.
If Brazil's bad faith impeachment drama wasn't a coup, then why do we call the 1997 event in
Turkey "the Postmodern Coup"? That's because we pay attention to the ends of these sort of actions,
and not the means, and attempting portray a memorandum as just a memorandum, and willfully ignoring
the potential implied use of force is simply being deliberately obtuse.
Again, what are the ends of straight up vote-rigging, like what can be done with electronic
voting machines, say, in Kansas? Are they different from the unequal deploying of voting machines?
Or the use of vote fraud as an excuse to intimidate people by having police "check up" on where
they live? Does these alternative means really do less violence to the society at large? If not,
do people not have the correct instinct to apply the most overt and indefensible terms to the
panoply of underhanded strategies, so as to throw disinfectant social light on these tactics?
A liitle more soul searchin from the LEft is needed here. You do not mention the blatant manipulation
of Illinois in the 1960 election, and the noble attitude of Nizon of not diiging into it further.
Contrast this with the 2000 Election. Even after the myth of fraud had stolen Florida from
Gore was thoroughly debunked one year later by an extensive audit by the vote, Democrats still
were referring to George W. Bush as illegitimate well after that.
And there is the case of all the attitude of the DNC against Sanders. This is not exactly coming
out of the blue. And Democrats also bear responsibility.
"When most people hear the word "rigged" in the context of an election, they probably think
that means the results have been falsified ..."
OMG, you will make up anything, won't you! That is NOT what rigged means! When a basketball
game is rigged, it doesn't mean the final score has been "falsified"! It means that someone --
probably the refs (i.e, in an election, the media) has systematically tilted the playing field.
If you are just going to make up BS off the top of your head like this, I gotta de-link your
blog.
In basketball, playing on your home court "tilts the playing field" in favor of one team. Playing
your home games in Denver tilts the playing field towards the home team even more. There seems
to be some acclimation effect to the altitude that is difficult for road teams to deal with in
just a day or two.
Neither of these structural factors means basketball is rigged because they don't fundamentally
change the conditions under which the game is played. Both teams try to get the ball through the
hoop without traveling or double dribbling.
Same with elections. The two party system is like home field advantage. Money and PACs may
be like playing at home in Denver. Folks like Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Donald Trump, and Bernie
Sanders are all trying to get the ball through the hoop without traveling or double dribbling.
The referees aren't calling Bernie for traveling when he clearly held his pivot foot. Nor are
they awarding Hillary points for shots she misses. They all raise money under the same rules.
They all buy ads under the same rules. They get ballot access and debate access under the same
rules. They're all free to attempt to influence party platforms under the same rules. They all
compete for media under the same rules.
As to the media are they biased? I'd suspect so. Do they have rooting interests? Probably.
Does that mean elections are rigged? Are MLB games rigged because umpires are more likely to call
borderline pitches strikes against Latino hitters?
Usually when we say a game was rigged, we mean players on the teams manipulated the score
(missing shots,etc) in order to make sure a specific team beat the spread.
Thanks for this post. I like Tyler's blog very much and was very surprised to see something
this poor from him. Ironically, I think part of his motivation was to criticize the watering-down
of "rigged" just as you do, but he did a poor job of it.
Two separate problems are here: (1) A linguistic problem causing gaps in communication: "Rigged"
has become so broad that it has become almost useless for conveying actual beliefs. Its primary
meaning is outright miscounting votes a la Stalin, but it is now being used for much milder influences
as well. (2) Trump appears to be claiming there will be outright miscounting of votes, a terrible
claim by a major candidate.
I think Tyler meant to say that unfortunately, (1) gives Trump cover for (2). He can say the
election will be "rigged," and most listeners will think he means in the strict Stalinist sense
(I do)...but some people who might be outraged by the claim will instead think it sounds vaguely
normal, due to (1).
Tyler did not write that the election will be rigged. I don't quite understand your confusion
on the point, to be honest. Your long excerpt from him omits the part where he says he believes
the opposite:
"Personally, I think median voters more or less get what they want on a large number of issues,
especially broad-based ones in the public eye. You won't find the word 'rigged' popping up too
much in the MR search function, besides I started blogging (and breathing) after Kennedy vs. Nixon.
But my goodness, I can in fact understand why Donald Trump thinks the system is rigged. For years,
you have been telling him that it is."
I do not wish to enter into a discussion in this space as to whether there is evidence that
insider tampering with electronic voting machines changed the outcome of races in Alaska in 2008
and 2014 and Kansas in 2014, but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that Steven Levitt's work
on elections outcomes linked in "most evidence shows" above has been vociferously contested by
some in the Political Science field, for example Thomas Ferguson's "Investment Theory of Party
Competition".
I'm not really inclined to buy Chomskian bullshit by the pound from Ferguson in preference
to Chicago School apologetics from Levitt, and I don't have the expertise in statistics to judge
their competing claims, but I have a pretty good idea which of the two makes more money promoting
these respective ideas on election financing, and given Levitt's terrible work on climate science
in SuperFreakonomics, I'm not at all inclined to give his claims on campaign finance the benefit
of the doubt.
My own experience looking systematically at election results in aggregate suggests that
big disparities in campaign spending can indeed have very big effects, the most obvious in recent
history being Obama's win in Indiana in 2008.
Not directly related to whether elections are rigged, but related:
""In the past three decades, the share of U.S. citizens who think that it would be a "good"
or "very good" thing for the "army to rule"-a patently undemocratic stance-has steadily risen.
In 1995, just one in sixteen respondents agreed with that position; today, one in six agree.
While those who hold this view remain in the minority, they can no longer be dismissed as a
small fringe, especially since there have been similar increases in the number of those who
favor a "strong leader who doesn't have to bother with parliament and elections" and those
who want experts rather than the government to "take decisions" for the country. Nor is the
United States the only country to exhibit this trend. The proportion agreeing that it would
be better to have the army rule has risen in most mature democracies, including Germany, Sweden,
and the United Kingdom."
http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2016/08/is-support-for-democracy-eroding.html
I suspect that if more people believe elections are rigged, more will be likely to support/accept/tolerate
a military takeover.
"Rigged" is not a precise term. There's a continuum from, say, discouraging some voters
from turning up to stuffing ballot boxes (or worse). Some places in the US are well towards the
middle of that spectrum (purging rolls, making ID mandatory but difficult to obtain, cutting voting
places, gerrymanders....)
As for "American elections are not perfect, but ...they're pretty darn good." By the standards
of other developed countries (and even many undeveloped ones), US electoral processes are pretty
horrible, but that is true of much US administration. Extreme decentralisation, a rich heritage
of patronage and a deep suspicion of government do not make for efficient public services.
"... "Clinton is an insider in an outsider year. It's as simple as that. Trying to blame everything and everyone but her is really tiresome and not helping her actually win." ..."
"... Thank you. How can such very serious people ignore the Bernie Sanders phenomenon and dismiss that so easily? People want reform, they want change. And the two party system keeps serving up more of the same rotten, ineffective corruption. ..."
"... Hillary is a candidate of "status quo" and as such is in bad position. As you correctly noted "People want reform, they want change." And her health, abhorrent warmongering and emailgate make her political position only worse. Please note that calling her "a staunch warmonger" is just a politically correct definition of the type of politician she represents. If we take the standards of Nuremberg trials, she might well be considered a war criminal ..."
"... the charter defined three categories of crimes: crimes against peace (including planning, preparing, starting or waging wars of aggression or wars in violation of international agreements), war crimes (including violations of customs or laws of war, including improper treatment of civilians and prisoners of war) and crimes against humanity (including murder, enslavement or deportation of civilians or persecution on political, religious or racial grounds). ..."
"... It was determined that civilian officials as well as military officers could be accused of war crimes. ..."
"... today's Democrats have become the Party of War: a home for arms merchants, mercenaries, academic war planners, lobbyists for every foreign intervention, promoters of color revolutions, failed generals, exploiters of the natural resources of corrupt governments. We have American military bases in 80 countries, and there are now American military personnel on the ground in about 130 countries, a remarkable achievement since there are only 192 recognized countries. Generals and admirals announce our national policies. Theater commanders are our principal ambassadors. Our first answer to trouble or opposition of any kind seems always to be a military movement or action. ..."
"... Re "first past the post": You are absolutely correct and this is the main obstacle to the rise of third parties. The Green Party has as one of the main campaign items the need for ranked choice. ..."
"... I think changing this is perhaps the single most urgent reform item in our politics, and can be accomplished at the local and state level without running afoul of federal or constitutional constraints. ..."
"... the occupied [nations officials] are the only candidate for war crime trials...... Lemay, Harris, everyone in 8 nations that own them involved in nuclear weapons in any way would be hanged if their targets got their way ..."
"... dnc insider [is] definition of crooked! ..."
"... There's a pendulum, which sometimes swings the wrong way. Go figure. Bush Jr was the outsider. Gore was the insider. Likewise Trump and Hillary Clinton? ..."
"... The race baiting has to stop. Krugman should travel to Camden, Rochester, East St. Louis or any of the thousands of towns and cities that were stripped of their wealth thanks to free trade policies he championed. ..."
"... It is close because Trump offers hope. People remember that times were much, much better when their cities had factories before the so-called globalization hurricane just "naturally" swept everything away. Twenty years of protectionism and an undervalued currency will turn the US into a star trek land like Singapore. 10 more years on our current free trade trajectory and we'll be Haiti, another free trade paradise. ..."
"Clinton is an insider in an outsider year. It's as simple as that. Trying to blame everything and
everyone but her is really tiresome and not helping her actually win."
Thank you. How can such very serious people ignore the Bernie Sanders phenomenon and dismiss that
so easily? People want reform, they want change. And the two party system keeps serving up more of
the same rotten, ineffective corruption.
Disencruft Macro -> to Jesse...
insider in an outsider year. It's as simple as that. Trying to blame everything and everyone but
her is really tiresome and not helping her actually win.
She needs to either regain some outsider cred (impossible, her entire candidacy is based on her
being the "most accomplished candidate ever" which necessarily implies having experience on the inside)
Or tar Trump with insider status. That should be doable but it's proving a hard sell. People seem
to be excusing Trump's links and ties with insiders. It seem people will excuse what he has done
because he was just playing the game by the rules that already existed. On the other hand, Clinton
is seen (wrongly in my opinion) as being one of the rule makers and then breaking the rules to her
benefit.
That might be the crucial distinction. Trump had no part in making the rules so breaking them
is understandable. But if Clinton was part of the people who made the rules it is hypocritical for
her to break the rules she made for other people to abide by.
I don't think Clinton is especially bad and I'm definitely voting for her. I'm only positing a
theory as to why Trump's proven malfeasance doesn't seem to impact his standing with the voters while
Clinton's implied, but not proven, malfeasance is a big issue.
"And the two party system keeps serving up more of the same rotten, ineffective corruption."
That's by design. "First past the post" system is perfect for maintaining status quo. It is essentially
an ingenious modification of a one party rule, disguised as two party "equilibrium". It is not that
different from the USSR system of elections -- a predefined by the elite candidate eventually wins
in all cases. The only difference is that in this case there two such predefined, preapproved candidates
and associated exciting political theater, instead of boring (but more economical and honest ;-)
single one.
I think the Communists would only increase their legitimacy (and might prolong the life of the
USSR) by switching to this system. The essence -- communist nomenclatura rule in case of the USSR,
neoliberal elite (financial oligarchy) in case of the USA are the same.
In this system any new movement (think Sanders) can be immaculated and integrated into existing
neoliberal framework by one of two semi-identical parties of "hard" and "soft" neoliberalism. And
that "self-stabilizing" function of crushing any political insurrection "by integration" while it
is in its infancy works fine until the total crash of the system.
In this regard, the appearance of Trump on the scene as a candidate from Repugs is a surprise
and might be viewed as a revolutionary moment as it shows that the republican elite lost control
over peons. The Dem elite managed to crush the insurrection, as expected.
Trump is a sign of a mounting backlash against neoliberal globalization, of political destabilization
due to rejection of neoliberal dogma by the majority of population. At this point neoliberal brainwashing
stops working, much like happened in the USSR with communist propaganda.
Hillary is a candidate of "status quo" and as such is in bad position. As you correctly noted
"People want reform, they want change." And her health, abhorrent warmongering and emailgate make
her political position only worse. Please note that calling her "a staunch warmonger" is just a politically
correct definition of the type of politician she represents. If we take the standards of Nuremberg
trials, she might well be considered a war criminal :
The Allies eventually established the laws and procedures for the Nuremberg trials with the
London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), issued on August 8, 1945. Among other
things, the charter defined three categories of crimes: crimes against peace (including planning,
preparing, starting or waging wars of aggression or wars in violation of international agreements),
war crimes (including violations of customs or laws of war, including improper treatment of civilians
and prisoners of war) and crimes against humanity (including murder, enslavement or deportation
of civilians or persecution on political, religious or racial grounds).
It was determined that civilian officials as well as military officers could be accused
of war crimes.
John and Robert Kennedy devoted their greatest commitments and energies to the prevention of
war and the preservation of peace. To them that was not an abstract formula but the necessary
foundation of human life. But today's Democrats have become the Party of War: a home for arms
merchants, mercenaries, academic war planners, lobbyists for every foreign intervention, promoters
of color revolutions, failed generals, exploiters of the natural resources of corrupt governments.
We have American military bases in 80 countries, and there are now American military personnel
on the ground in about 130 countries, a remarkable achievement since there are only 192 recognized
countries. Generals and admirals announce our national policies. Theater commanders are our principal
ambassadors. Our first answer to trouble or opposition of any kind seems always to be a military
movement or action.
Re "first past the post": You are absolutely correct and this is the main obstacle to the rise of
third parties. The Green Party has as one of the main campaign items the need for ranked choice.
I think changing this is perhaps the single most urgent reform item in our politics, and can be
accomplished at the local and state level without running afoul of federal or constitutional constraints.
the occupied [nations officials] are
the only candidate for war crime trials...... Lemay, Harris, everyone in 8 nations that own them involved in nuclear weapons in any way would
be hanged if their targets got their way
Pinkybum -> efcdons...
"Clinton is an insider in an outsider year."
Having voted for Bernie this is not the choice we are faced with.
"She needs to either regain some outsider cred"
Having ran as an insider and won she needs to do no such thing...
lsm -> Pinkybum...
dnc insider [is]
definition of crooked! no conviction...
Fred C. Dobbs said...
There's a pendulum, which
sometimes swings the wrong way. Go figure. Bush Jr was the outsider. Gore was the insider. Likewise Trump and Hillary Clinton?
This pendulum has (almost) magical effects. As for me, and many here, I hope its effect is not
felt this time.
The race
baiting has to stop. Krugman should travel to Camden, Rochester, East St. Louis or any of the thousands
of towns and cities that were stripped of their wealth thanks to free trade policies he championed.
It is close because Trump offers hope. People remember that times were much, much better when
their cities had factories before the so-called globalization hurricane just "naturally" swept everything
away. Twenty years of protectionism and an undervalued currency will turn the US into a star trek
land like Singapore. 10 more years on our current free trade trajectory and we'll be Haiti, another
free trade paradise.
[With a title like that then I just had to read it. It was
just the ordinary pants on fire gotchas about team Trump, but
then it ended on what I found a very weird note:]
...There are real debates and real uncertainty about
climate change and how to deal with it. But its existence and
the risks it poses are undeniable.
Or at least they should be. The refusal to accept this
reality is the biggest, most worrisome sign – yes, even
bigger than the nomination of Trump – that the country
currently lacks a functioning conservative party.
[I don't want a functioning conservative party. The one
that we have is still functioning well enough keep the rich
getting richer, the poor poorer, and the status quo
comfortably protected from environmental activists. I want an
entirely ineffective conservative party. Sure liberal
exuberance can benefit from some restraint exerted by
competent pragmatists, but conservatives have never actually
been anything but shills for the wealthy. You don't find
competent pragmatists in politics at all. They are engineers
and scientists and all too rare even there. Hell it is hard
enough to find even impractical people that are competent.
Conservatives are only marginally competent at being
sycophants for the wealthy and that really does not seem to
have changed in other than the aesthetics necessary to shift
the pandering over to a newly energized hostile electorate.]
"... "There's just a deep desire to believe that we can have free college, free healthcare, that what we've done hasn't gone far enough, and that we just need to, you know, go as far as, you know, Scandinavia, whatever that means, and half the people don't know what that means, but it's something that they deeply feel," ..."
"... "I am occupying from the center-left to the center-right. And I don't have much company there. Because it is difficult when you're running to be president, and you understand how hard the job is – I don't want to overpromise," said Clinton, who has customarily eschewed political spectrum labels. ..."
"... "understanding" ..."
"... "Some are new to politics completely. They're children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents' basement. They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don't see much of a future," ..."
"... "If you're feeling like you're consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some other job that doesn't pay a lot, and doesn't have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it, then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing." ..."
"... "listening to the concerns" of "the most diverse, open-minded generation in history." ..."
"... People who have the TV on all day and watch the news from the mainstream media are naturally going to get hoodwinked. They aren't the brightest, but they're also distracted and mislead. ..."
"... She is the definition of implicit bias. ..."
"... After all, they are the deplorables. HRC is truly the most despicable, scandal ridden, lying war monger to ever grace American politics. ..."
"... Shame on Sanders for supporting that Nazi witch. ..."
"... Millions of people were adversely harmed by her misguided policies and her "pay-to-play" operations involving favors in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative. ..."
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made forthright remarks about Bernie Sanders'
supporters during a private meeting with fundraisers, an audio from which has been leaked following
an email hack.
"There's just a deep desire to believe that we can have free college, free healthcare, that
what we've done hasn't gone far enough, and that we just need to, you know, go as far as, you know,
Scandinavia, whatever that means, and half the people don't know what that means, but it's something
that they deeply feel," Clinton said during a Q&A with potential donors in McLean in Virginia,
in February, when she was still in a close primary race with Sanders.
The frontrunner to become the next US President said that herself and other election observers
had been "bewildered" by the rise of the "populist, nationalist, xenophobic, discriminatory"
Republican candidates, presumably Donald Trump, on the one side, and the radical left-wing idealists
on the other.
Clinton painted herself as a moderate and realistic contrast to the groundswell.
"I am occupying from the center-left to the center-right. And I don't have much company there.
Because it is difficult when you're running to be president, and you understand how hard the job
is – I don't want to overpromise," said Clinton, who has customarily eschewed political spectrum
labels.
According to the Washington Free Beacon, which posted the audio of Clinton's remarks, the recording
was attached to an email sent out by a campaign staffer, which has been hacked. It is unclear if
the leak is the work of the same hackers who got hold of a trove of Democratic National Committee
(DNC) emails in July.
... ... ...
In the session, Clinton called for an "understanding" of the motives of Sanders' younger
backers, while describing them in terms that fluctuate between patronizing and unflattering.
"Some are new to politics completely. They're children of the Great Recession. And they are
living in their parents' basement. They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available
to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don't see much of a future,"
said Clinton, who obtained the support of about 2,800 delegates, compared to approximately 1,900
for Sanders, when the results were tallied in July.
"If you're feeling like you're consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some
other job that doesn't pay a lot, and doesn't have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it,
then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing."
Despite well-publicized tensions, particularly between the more vocal backers, Sanders endorsed
Clinton at the Democratic National Convention two months ago, and the two politicians have campaigned
together this week, sharing the stage.
Following the leak, the Clinton campaign has not apologized for the audio, insisting that it shows
that the nominee and is "listening to the concerns" of "the most diverse, open-minded generation
in history."
"As Hillary Clinton said in those remarks , she wants young people to be idealistic and set big
goals," said her spokesman Glen Caplin. "She is fighting for exactly millennial generation cares
more about – a fairer, more equal, just world."
In other parts of the 50-minute recording, Clinton spoke about US capacity to "retaliate"
against foreign hackers that would serve as a "deterrence" and said she would be "inclined"
to mothball the costly upgrade of the Long Range Standoff (LRSO) missile program.
The more she runs her mouth the more support she loses.
Gold Carrot -> Olive Sailboat 6m
Well if somebody is supported by Soros, Warren Buffet, Walmart family, Gates, Moskowitz, Pritzker,
Saban and Session what do you expect. Give me 8 names of other Americans who can top their money
worth. And even so called financial supporters of Republican party like Whitman and Koch brothers
are not supporting Trump. Whitman actually donate to Clinton. In fact most of the donation for
Trump campaign is coming from people who donate at average less than 200 dollars. Clinton represent
BIG MONEY that... See more
GA 2h
Clinton has a supremacist problem, she considers all americans under deserving people, she
thinks she is a pharaoh and we are little people. Reply Share 15
Red Ducky -> GA 23m
you think trump is different? ask yourself this question: Why do Rich people spend hundreds
of millions of dollars for a job that only pays $400K a year?
Rabid Rotty -> Red Ducky 9m
And Trump has stated several times that he will not take the Presidential Salary
pHiL SwEeT -> Rabid Rotty 8m
Uh, yah, Red Ducky just explained how it's not about the money, they're already rich. It's
about power, status, control and legacy.
Green Weights 2h
if Clinton sends her followers and their families to concentration camps, they'll still continue
supporting her. yes, that's how stupid they really are.
Olive Basketball -> Green Weights 55m
People who have the TV on all day and watch the news from the mainstream media are naturally
going to get hoodwinked. They aren't the brightest, but they're also distracted and mislead.
Cyan Beer 2h
She is the definition of implicit bias.
Norm de Plume
Sure enough. The real Americans. Not people, like her, who have dedicated their lives to
aggrandizing
themselves living effectively tax-free at the people's expense.
Seve141 7m
After all, they are the deplorables. HRC is truly the most despicable, scandal ridden, lying war
monger to ever grace American politics.
Tornado_Doom 12m
Shame on Sanders for supporting that Nazi witch.
Green Band Aid -> Tornado_Doom 12m
Sanders will be getting paid. All he does is for money.
Tornado_Doom -> Green Band Aid 11m
Does an old rich man like him need money?
Green Leaf 43m
Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State during Barack Obama's first term was an unmitigated
disaster for many nations around the world. The media has never adequately described how a
number of countries around the world suffered horribly from HC's foreign policy decisions.
Millions of people were adversely harmed by her misguided policies and her "pay-to-play" operations
involving favors in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative.
Countries adversely impacted by HC's foreign policy decisions include Abkhazia, Argentina,
Bolivia, Brazil, Central African Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti,
Honduras, Iraq, Kosovo, Libya, Malaysia, Palestine, Paraguay, South Sudan, Syria, Thailand,
Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Venezuela, Western Sahara, Yemen - one would think they had
a visit from the anti-Christ instead of HC. Or is HC the anti-Christ in disguise?
Green Leaf 45m
The majority of American's will vote Trump for 3 primary reasons.
1. National Security: They
trust him when it comes to protecting national security and to stop illegal aliens from entering
US boarders along with stopping the mass importation of un-vetted refugees from the middle
east.
2. Economy: They know he knows how to get things done under budget and ahead of schedule..
and he knows how to make money. They want a successful businessman in office, not another political
who is out to enrich his or herself at their expense. In addition he knows how to create jobs
and he has a major plan to cut taxes to help the poor - no tax for anyone earning less then
$50,000 and
3. Hillary's severe covered-up health problems: With all of the problems that the
US is experience they don't want someone who passes out from a seizure in the middle of the
day running the country. This is a severely ill woman is, evidently, of the rare kind that
requires a permanent traveling physician and a "mystery man" who rushes to her side whenever
she has one of her frequent and uncontrollable seizure "episodes" (or otherwise freezes up
with a brain "short-circuit" during a speech). She has Parkinson's. The pneumonia was just
a symptom for something much more serious. She even had a mini seizure during the debate for
those with a medical background to see.
"... But Paul Krugman I have lost a lot of respect for. There was a candidate that people believed in and that stood up for working people and liberal values and that motivated people to come out and support him and his goals for the U.S.A. A candidate that would have neutralized Trump's appeal to the working class (which is mostly where I am). Krugman trashed him relentlessly using his very large soap box. ..."
I won't say bad things about Clinton. Because she is far better than the alternative at this point.
But Paul Krugman I have lost a lot of respect for. There was a candidate that people believed
in and that stood up for working people and liberal values and that motivated people to come out
and support him and his goals for the U.S.A. A candidate that would have neutralized Trump's appeal
to the working class (which is mostly where I am). Krugman trashed him relentlessly using his
very large soap box.
Now he is horrified that the polls are so close.
I can't say anything more without being negative. Except vote for Clinton- she's better than
Trump. Which is a pathetic endorsement.
"... Not because of policy, but because they *hate* Clinton's dishonest scumbags like Debbie Wasserman Shultz... They know them and hate them. ..."
"... Clinton brags about how much she's done for the children meanwhile she's a millionaire who gives speeches to Goldman Sachs and does nothing but attend fundraisers thrown by rich donors. ..."
"... a lot of Sanders supporters have a visceral dislike of Sanders people who lied to them and about us... The dishonesty is blatant, just how Hillary lied about Sanders during the primary. ..."
"... wait until the election is over. The hatred toward Clinton and surrogates ... will come pouring out. That is if she wins. ..."
Peter K. :
September 30, 2016 at 06:35 AM
Clinton should be beating Trump easily in the polls. Sanders
would be. Trump is the worst candidate in history.
Why
isn't she don't better? It's because Clinton surrogates like
PGL are hateful and obnoxious. The voters hate these people
and don't agree with Clinton's centrism. The voters hate the
BS we're expected to believe like how corporate trade is
nothing but beneficial or that the Obama years were great.
Not
because of policy, but because they *hate* Clinton's
dishonest scumbags like Debbie Wasserman Shultz... They
know them and hate them.
Clinton brags about how much she's done for the children
meanwhile she's a millionaire who gives speeches to Goldman
Sachs and does nothing but attend fundraisers thrown by rich
donors.
I'll vote for Hillary but
a lot of Sanders supporters
have a visceral dislike of Sanders people who lied to them
and about us... The dishonesty is blatant, just how
Hillary lied about Sanders during the primary.
But Sanders
knows policywise Trump is much, much worse than Hillary even
if she's not that good.
Peter K. -> Peter K....
, -1
That's why Sanders is campaigning for Hillary. But
wait
until the election is over. The hatred toward Clinton and
surrogates ... will come pouring out. That is if she
wins.
From the heart of the blob: "We've Got to Face It: Trump Is Riding a
Global Trend" [Foreign Policy].
"We need to think about how to make
democracy more effective at cushioning citizens from the shocks of change.
We need to think hard about tackling political polarization and creating new
space for politics that can actually address pressing problems rather than
succumbing to the gridlock that discredits democracy. We need to think about
information policies - including media literacy programs - that can offer
urgently needed counterweights to the echo chambers and conspiracy factories
of the internet." Seems a little late to do your thinking .
When you step back from it, that is a terrifying statement. In the Foreign
Policy view Democracy is supposed to act a some sort of cushion against the
shocks of change. I had been under the impression that Democracy was about the
population directing changes and directing their own lives. That was, I
believe, the basic idea.
But clearly for the elites at FP Democracy is not a bedrock principle of our
society but some sort of safety valve while we norms all get beaten up by "The
market".
"We need to think about how to make democracy more
effective at cushioning citizens from the shocks of
change." (Foreign Policy)
To parse this: "the only kind of change we will consider
completely screws people over so let's give them a bandaid".
In Apocalypse Now they massacre a village and then run
around trying to give everybody first aid, I say this time
around we should just try and skip the massacre part.
Or how about a scene from your handle
OpenThePodBayDoorsHal
Clinton:"I enjoy serving you the people and have
many stimulating conversations with you. I understand
what you must be going thru the last 8 years. But if
you sit down and take a stress pill, and think about
it, I'm sure we can work things out. I have the
greatest enthusiasm to serve you. I enjoy working with
people. Remember these things have happened before, and
they have always been shown to be due to human
error what are you doing what are you doing .what are
you doing?
We need to think hard about succumbing to the gridlock that discredits
democracy.
There is no gridlock that discredits democracy. What we have are
billionaire sets, one buying each party, and then pitting them at odds with
each other.
That is not democracy that is being discredited. What is being discredited
is the two-party system overloaded with money. That of course is a feature;
not a bug. The billionaires are raking it in while doing nothing for anyone
less. How much better could it get?
Pay no attention to those men behind the closed door discussing policy
behind your backs with both sides of the aisle
Nevermind that energy policy was discussed behind closed doors(Bush),
health care(Obama) was discussed behind closed doors, trade is being
discussed behind closed doors(Obama and next president) .
The fact that we have pay to play lobbyists accessing the WH to write
policy behind the backs of average citizens discredits democracy. But hey,
I imagine our pundit class is hoping we don't notice that.
"... FDR once said, "A nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself." This is happening in the United States in the most literal sense, given that our political and economic system are wedded to a market-driven system willing to destroy the planet, while relentlessly undermining those institutions that make a democracy possible. ..."
"... War is no longer an instrument to be used by political powers, but a form of rule, a general condition of the social order itself -- a permanent social relation and organizing principle that affects all aspects of the social order. In fact, the US has moved from a welfare state in the last forty years to a warfare state, and war has now become the foundation for politics, wedded to a misguided war on terror, the militarization of everyday life ..."
"... Politics has become a comprehensive war machine that aggressively assaults anything that does not comply with its underlying economic, religious, educative and political fundamentalisms. ..."
"... The vocabulary of war has become normalized and mobilizes certain desires, not only related to violence and social combat, but also in the creation of agents who act in the service of violence. ..."
"... This retreat into barbarism is amplified by the neoliberal value of celebrating self-interest over attention to the needs of others. It gets worse. As Hannah Arendt once observed, war culture is part of a species of thoughtlessness that legitimates certain desires, values and identities that make people insensitive to the violence they see around them in everyday life. ..."
"... A one-dimensional use of data erases the questions that matter the most: What gives life meaning? What is justice? What constitutes happiness? These things are all immeasurable by a retreat into the discourse of quantification. ..."
"... Reducing everything to quantitative data creates a form of civic illiteracy, undercuts the ethical imagination, kills empathy and mutilates politics. ..."
"... America's obsession with metrics and quantitative data is a symptom of its pedagogy of oppression. Numerical values now drive teaching, reduce culture in the broadest sense to the culture of business and teach children that schools exist largely to produce conformity and kill the imagination. Leon Wieseltier is right in arguing that the unchecked celebration of metrics erases the distinction "between knowledge and information" and substitutes quantification for wisdom. ..."
"... The left appears to have little interest in addressing education as central to how people think and see things. Education can enable people to recognize that the problems they face in everyday life need a new language that speaks to those problems. What is particularly crucial here is the need to develop a politics in which pedagogy becomes central to enabling people to understand and translate how everyday troubles connect to wider structures. ..."
"... We no longer live in a democracy. The myth of democracy has to be dismantled. ..."
"... We have to make clear that decisions made by the state and corporations are not in the general interest. We must connect the war on Black youth to the war on workers and the war on the middle class ..."
"... As Martin Luther King recognized at end of his life, the war at home and the war abroad cannot be separated. Such linkages remain crucial to the democratic project. ..."
Henry Giroux:FDR once said, "A nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself."
This is happening in the United States in the most literal sense, given that our political and economic
system are wedded to a market-driven system willing to destroy the planet, while relentlessly undermining
those institutions that make a democracy possible. What this suggests and the book takes up in multiple
ways is that the United States is at war with its own idealism, democratic institutions, the working
and middle classes, minority youth, Muslims, immigrants and all of those populations considered disposable.
War has taken on an existential quality in that we are not simply at war; rather, as Étienne
Balibar insists, "we are in war," inhabiting a war culture that touches every aspect of society.
War is no longer an instrument to be used by political powers, but a form of rule, a general condition
of the social order itself -- a permanent social relation and organizing principle that affects all
aspects of the social order. In fact, the US has moved from a welfare state in the last forty years
to a warfare state, and war has now become the foundation for politics, wedded to a misguided war
on terror, the militarization of everyday life, and a culture of fear, which have become its most
important regulative functions. Politics has become a comprehensive war machine that aggressively
assaults anything that does not comply with its underlying economic, religious, educative and political
fundamentalisms.
As a comprehensive war machine, the United States operates in the service of a police state, violates
civil liberties and has given rise to a military-industrial-surveillance complex that President Eisenhower
could never have imagined. For instance, the largest part of the federal budget -- 600 billion dollars
-- goes to the military. The US rings the earth with military bases, and the US military budget is
larger than those of all other advanced industrial countries combined. And that doesn't count the
money spent on the National Surveillance State and intelligence agencies.
... ... ...
What's interesting about the war metaphor is that it produces a language that celebrates what
the US should be ashamed of, including the national surveillance state, the military-industrial complex,
the war on whistleblowers, the never-ending spectacle of violence in popular culture and endless
wars abroad. The vocabulary of war has become normalized and mobilizes certain desires, not only
related to violence and social combat, but also in the creation of agents who act in the service
of violence.
Violence is not only normalized as the ultimate measure for solving problems, but also
as a form of pleasure, especially with regard to the production of violent video games, films and
even the saturation of violence in daily mainstream news. Violence saturates American life, as it
has become cool to be cruel to people, to bully people and to be indifferent to the suffering of
others. The ultimate act of pleasure is now served up in cinematically produced acts of extreme violence,
produced both to numb the conscience and to up the pleasure quotient.
This retreat into barbarism is amplified by the neoliberal value of celebrating self-interest
over attention to the needs of others. It gets worse. As Hannah Arendt once observed, war culture
is part of a species of thoughtlessness that legitimates certain desires, values and identities that
make people insensitive to the violence they see around them in everyday life.One can't have
a democracy that organizes itself around war because war is the language of injustice -- it admits
no compassion and revels in a culture of cruelty.
How does the reduction of life to quantitative data -- testing in schools, mandatory minimums
in sentencing, return on investment -- feed into the cultural apparatuses producing a nation at war
with itself?
This is the language of instrumental rationality gone berserk, one that strips communication of
those issues, values and questions that cannot be resolved empirically. This national obsession with
data is symbolic of the retreat from social and moral responsibility. A one-dimensional use of data
erases the questions that matter the most: What gives life meaning? What is justice? What constitutes
happiness? These things are all immeasurable by a retreat into the discourse of quantification.
This
type of positivism encourages a form of thoughtlessness, undermines critical agency, makes people
more susceptible to violence and emotion rather than reason. Reducing everything to quantitative
data creates a form of civic illiteracy, undercuts the ethical imagination, kills empathy and mutilates
politics.
The obsession with data becomes a convenient tool for abdicating that which cannot be measured,
thus removing from the public sphere those issues that raise serious questions that demand debate,
informed judgment and thoughtfulness while taking seriously matters of historical consciousness,
memory and context. Empiricism has always been comfortable with authoritarian societies, and has
worked to reduce civic courage and agency to an instrumental logic that depoliticizes people by removing
matters of social and political responsibility from ethical and political considerations.
America's obsession with metrics and quantitative data is a symptom of its pedagogy of oppression.
Numerical values now drive teaching, reduce culture in the broadest sense to the culture of business
and teach children that schools exist largely to produce conformity and kill the imagination. Leon
Wieseltier is right in arguing that the unchecked celebration of metrics erases the distinction
"between knowledge and information" and substitutes quantification for wisdom.
This is not to say that all data is worthless or that data gathering is entirely on the side of
repression. However, the dominant celebration of data, metrics and quantification flattens the human
experience, outsources judgement and distorts the complexity of the real world. The idolatry of the
metric paradigm is politically and ethically enervating and cripples the human spirit.
In ignoring the power of the pedagogical function of mainstream cultural apparatuses, many on
the left have lost their ability to understand how domination and resistance work at the level of
everyday life. The left has relied for too long on defining domination in strictly structural terms,
especially with regard to economic structures. Many people on the left assume that the only form
of domination is economic. What they ignore is that the crises of economics, history, politics and
agency have not been matched by a crisis of ideas. They don't understand how much work is required
to change consciousness or how central the issue of identification is to any viable notion of politics.
People only respond to a politics that speaks to their condition. What the left has neglected is
how matters of identification and the centrality of judgment, belief and persuasion are crucial to
politics itself. The left underestimates the dimensions of struggle when it gives up on education
as central to the very meaning of politics.
The left appears to have little interest in addressing education as central to how people think
and see things. Education can enable people to recognize that the problems they face in everyday
life need a new language that speaks to those problems. What is particularly crucial here is the
need to develop a politics in which pedagogy becomes central to enabling people to understand and
translate how everyday troubles connect to wider structures.
What do you want people to take away from the book?
Certainly, it is crucial to educate people to recognize that American democracy is in crisis and
that the forces that threaten it are powerful and must be made visible. In this case, we are talking
about the merging of neoliberalism, institutionalized racism, militarization, racism, poverty, inequities
in wealth and power and other issues that undermine democracy.
We no longer live in a democracy. The myth of democracy has to be dismantled. To understand that,
we need to connect the dots and make often isolated forms of domination visible -- extending from
the war on terror and the existence of massive inequalities in wealth and power to the rise of the
mass incarceration state and the destruction of public and higher education. We have to make clear
that decisions made by the state and corporations are not in the general interest. We must connect
the war on Black youth to the war on workers and the war on the middle class, while exposing the
workings of a system that extorts money, uses prison as a default welfare program and militarizes
the police as a force for repression and domestic terrorism. We must learn how to translate individual
problems into larger social issues, create a comprehensive politics and a third party with the aim
not of reforming the system, but restructuring it. As Martin Luther King recognized at end of
his life, the war at home and the war abroad cannot be separated. Such linkages remain crucial to
the democratic project.
"... "They have a few pro-Trump voices, but pretty much the CNN as a network is for Clinton – just like Fox is for Trump. They are not really media outlets; they are echo chambers for the respective political campaign," ..."
"... "The debate showed how vapid, how sensationalized, how empty the American political election cycle is – very expensive, but very long, and very empty. Both of them tried to outdo each other to show who had more support from the generals and admirals. It is not a good harbinger of where things are going in terms of American politics," ..."
"... "unwitting agent" ..."
"... "US national security." ..."
"... "The attack on Russia, the attempt to blame Russia for all things, including for the hack of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] files that showed the DNC was violating its own rules and trying to tilt the election for Clinton, which happened on the first day of the Democratic national convention. Russia became a convenient punching bag, so that the Democratic Party could divert attention from its own wrongdoing. But it's manifested itself into something more than just a diversion," ..."
"... "Clinton has the support of all of the neoconservatives: Robert Kagan, husband of Victoria Nuland; a hundred of Republican foreign policy elites. I think they represent the mainstream Washington consensus, which is the consensus of the military industrial complex, which wants to incentivize American public opposition or even hatred toward Russia as a pretext for building up the military armaments business. The expansion or escalation of tension with Russia is very good for the arms business, very good for the military industrial complex. So it is not just electoral politics. I think this is the Hillary Clinton presidency we see in the making. If she is elected, I think this bodes very badly for US- Russian relations," ..."
The debate has shown how sensationalized, vapid and empty the US election cycle is, said Brian Becker,
from the anti-war Answer Coalition, adding that the candidates' attempts to outdo each other on military
support is not a good harbinger for US politics.
A CNN/ORC
poll shows that majority of voters feel Hillary Clinton won Monday night's
debate over Donald Trump.
According to Brian Becker of the anti-war Answer Coalition, one cannot judge who won by CNN polls
as it has been actively campaigning for Clinton.
"They have a few pro-Trump voices, but pretty much the CNN as a network is for Clinton – just
like Fox is for Trump. They are not really media outlets; they are echo chambers for the respective
political campaign," he told RT.
"The debate showed how vapid, how sensationalized, how empty the American political election
cycle is – very expensive, but very long, and very empty. Both of them tried to outdo each other
to show who had more support from the generals and admirals. It is not a good harbinger of where
things are going in terms of American politics," Becker said.
Ahead of the election, Clinton and her supporters have been repeatedly using anti-Russia rhetoric
and accusing Trump of being "unwitting agent" of President Putin and posing a threat to
"US national security." On Monday, Clinton played her Russian card again to attack her opponent.
In Becker's view, it's an attempt to divert public attention from the party's own wrongdoing and,
also, the escalation of tensions with Moscow will only benefit the US military industrial complex
who supports Clinton.
"The attack on Russia, the attempt to blame Russia for all things, including for the hack
of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] files that showed the DNC was violating its own rules
and trying to tilt the election for Clinton, which happened on the first day of the Democratic national
convention. Russia became a convenient punching bag, so that the Democratic Party could divert attention
from its own wrongdoing. But it's manifested itself into something more than just a diversion,"
he said.
"Clinton has the support of all of the neoconservatives: Robert Kagan, husband of Victoria
Nuland; a hundred of Republican foreign policy elites. I think they represent the mainstream Washington
consensus, which is the consensus of the military industrial complex, which wants to incentivize
American public opposition or even hatred toward Russia as a pretext for building up the military
armaments business. The expansion or escalation of tension with Russia is very good for the arms
business, very good for the military industrial complex. So it is not just electoral politics. I
think this is the Hillary Clinton presidency we see in the making. If she is elected, I think this
bodes very badly for US- Russian relations," Becker added.
"... And while Clinton is far better funded than Trump, it's not at all clear that she's getting any kind of bang for the buck. Perhaps candidate quality is a wild card at the Presidential level. ..."
"... The Dollary Clump Campaign is likely to screw up a lot of models, its already turned satire from a form of critique to a form of government reducing important propaganda organs to pathetic persiflage in the process. ..."
"... Well, then could not one conclude that the Supreme Court was wrong in declaring money to be a form of protected speech? According to this study, money isn't speech, it is votes. ..."
"... And if that is true, then the Supreme Courts rulings violate the "one man: one vote" principle. The number of votes a person has is now determined by his/her wealth and how much of it they are willing to buy an election with. ..."
This is important work by Ferguson and his colleagues, Paul Jorgensen, and
Jie Chen, and especially relevant to the 2016 election. From
the executive summary at iNet :
Social scientists have stubbornly held that money and election outcomes
are at most weakly linked. New research provides clear evidence to the contrary.
Thomas Ferguson, Paul Jorgensen, and Jie Chen reveal strikingly direct
relations between money and major party votes in all U.S. elections for
the Senate and House of Representatives from 1980 to 2014. Using a new and
comprehensive dataset built from government sources, they find that the
relationship between the proportions of money spent by the winning party
and votes is close to a straight line.
(
Here is the PDF of the full paper , How Money Drives US Congressional Elections,
Thomas Ferguson, Paul Jorgensen, and Jie Chen, Working Paper No. 48, August
1, 2016.) First, I'll look at the dataset. Then, I'll look at that "straight
line" relation. Finally, I'll look at some of the political implications of
Ferguson's work for thinking about 2016.
The Dataset
If you are a data person, and especially a big data person, Ferguson's project
is thrilling. Most everyone will be familiar with the problem of determining
whether "Mr. Bob Smith, 1234 Your St., Anytown USA" and "R. Smith, Yore Avenue,
Anystate" are really the same person; there's a whole industry built up to work
that stuff out because marketers (and debt collectors) need it. How much more
complex when the names and addresses are entered by people with every incentive
to conceal their identities! From
the full paper (pp. 8-9):
For this paper, the thornier data problems arise from the fragmentation
of reporting sources and formats – whose chaotic realities are, we are sure,
a major reason why progress has been so slow in understanding campaign finance.
Because we have extensively discussed elsewhere the measures we have taken
to overco me these problems, our discussion here will be summary.
The guiding idea of our Political Money Project is to return to the raw
data made available by the FEC and the IRS and create a single unified database
containing all contributions in whatever form. This is a tall order, as
anyone with any familiarity with our vastly different data sources will
realize. In particular, FEC sources are sometimes jarringly inconsistent;
many previous analysts do always appear to recognize the extent of the "flow
of funds" anomalies in this data. And not all the IRS contributions are
easily available in electronic form for all years.
But our real work commences only once this stage is completed. At both
the FEC and the IRS, standards for reporting names of both individual and
corporate contributors are laughably weak. Both companies and individuals
routinely take advantage of regulatory nonchalance about even arrant non-compliance.
Along with an enormous number of obviously bad faith reports (such as presidential
contributions listed as coming from individuals working at banks that were
swallowed long ago by other giants) all sorts of naïve, good faith errors
abound in spelling, consistent use of Jr., Sr., or Mr., Ms., and Mrs., along
with many incomplete entries and hyphenated names. Many people, especially
very wealthy contributors, legitimately have more 9 than one address and
fail to consistently list their corporate affiliations ("retired" as a category
of contributor is extensively abused; some people who chair giant c orporations
claim the status).
From the outset we recognized that solving this problem was indispensable
to making reliable estimates of the concentration of political contributions.
We adapted for our purposes programs of the type used by major hospital
s and other institutions dealing with similar problems, adding many safeguards
against tricks that no medical institution ever has to worry about; all
the while checking and cross-checking our results, especially for large
contributors. In big data efforts , there is never a point where such tasks
can be regarded as unimpeachably finished. But we are certain that our data
substantially improve over other sources on offer, including rosters of
campaign contributions compiled by for-profit companies and all public sources.
Because we can compare many reports filed by people who we recognize
as really the same person, we are able to see through schemes, such as those
encouraged by the Obama campaigns (especially in 2008)[1], that encourage
individual contributors to break up contributions into what looks like many
"small" donations. We are also able to fill in many entries for workplace
affiliation left blank. By itself, these steps lead to a quantum leap in
the number of contributions coming from the same enterprises. But we have
also used business directories and data from the Securities and Exchange
Commission to pin down the corporate affiliations of many other contributors,
whose identifications, once established, are similarly extendible.
Again, I can't stress enough how excellent and important this work is. And
it's really hard to do!
Data compiled like this allows us to brush past artificial efforts to
distinguish kinds of spending in Congressional races, such as "inside" vs.
"outside" funds (that is, spent by candidate's own committee or by allegedly
"independent" outside groups) or the spending of challengers or incumbents.
Instead we simply pool all spending by and on behalf of candidates and then
examine whether relative, not absolute, differences in total outlays are
related to vote differentials.
If conventional claims about the limited importance of political money
are correct, then the individual data points – particular House or Senate
election outcomes – should be scattered indifferently across the graph.
Money just wouldn't predict voting outcomes very well. If on the other hand,
money is strongly associated with votes received, then the fit would approximate
a straight line. All kinds of intermediate cases, of course, can be imagined.
And here are those straight lines:
(These table is an excellent example of
the power of Tufte's "small multiples." Readers who are clever about statistics
(and I am not) will have objected that Ferguson's methodology may not be able
to tease out money as an effect from money as a cause, to which Ferguson et
al. respond as follows:
[T]here is one last redoubt in which skeptics can take refuge: the possibility
that money and votes are reciprocally related. AsJac obson artfully frames
the conundrum that protects this escape hatch: "Money may help win votes,
but the expectation that a candidate can win votes also brings in money.
To the degree that (expected) votes influence spending, ordinary measures
will exaggera te the effects of spending on votes."
Our response to this challenge consists of two parts. Firstly, at least
one clear natural experiment exists, in which it is possible to say with
reasonable certainty that a tidal wave of money helped produce a sho cking
political upset that was anticipated by scarcely anyone: The famous 1994
election in which Newt Gingrich and a Golden Horde of donors stunned the
world by seizing control of the House of Representatives for the Republicans
for the first time since 1954 (and only the third time since 1932). Taking
a leaf from recent studies in economics and finance of event analysis, we
use published estimates of the change in the odds of a Republican takeover
to rule out appeals to confident expectations of taking over the House as
the explanation for the wave of money that drowned House Democrats that
year.
But 1994 is only one case, though admittedly a momentous one. We have
not been able to locate usable odds compilations for other elections. In
the hope of bypassing tedious debates over a host of less clear cut cases,
we searched for more general approaches. We suspect that where politics
and money is concerned, the search for good instruments is in most instances
akin to hunting the Snark. A better approach is to search for estimation
methods that do not require us to lean so heavily on thin reeds. This quest
led us to the work of Peter Ebbes and his colleagues. Ebbes and his associates
have developed latent instrumental variable (LIV) models into a practical
working tool, where the instrument is unknown, and used them to attack a
variety of problems.
These methods are relatively new and, of course, like virtually all statistical
tools, rely on assumptions for their validity, but the assumptions required
do not appear any more farfetched than more conventional approaches to tackling
the question. Irene Hueter's recent critical review is very helpful in clarifying
important points. While critical on various secondary issues, she concludes
that the method appears to be fundamentally sound and to work in practice:
the solutions it gives to some classical econometric applications appear
reasonable and in line with results using more traditional methods. We think
it is time to try the approach on money and politics, particularly since
we can crosscheck its findings with our results on 1994, obtained by the
completely different approach now conventional in finance.
Personally, I have to accept Ferguson's authority on this, but the Naked
Capitalism commentariat being what it is, perhaps readers will be able to comment
on the "latent instrumental variable" approach.
The 2016 Election
One more conclusion that Ferguson et al. draw is that yes, we do live in
an oligarchy (although factional conflicts take place among oligarchs:
We demonstrated, for example, that the 1% - defined quite carefully –
dominated both major parties; at the same time, however, our results once
again directly confirmed the huge differences in the extent to which specific
sectors and blocs of firms within big business differentially support Democrats
or Republicans. The results point up the futility of trying to underst and
the dynamics of American politics without reference to investor coalitions
and strongly support a broad investment approach to party competition. We
showed that the case of the Tea Party was no different by tracking the rates
of support for its candidates within business as a whole but, most importantly,
within big business. Claims that major American businesses do not financially
support Tea Party candidates are plainly false.
I'm not sure whether Ferguson's results for House (and Senate) races translate
directly to Presidential races. However, it would seem to me that at least in
2016, the relationship between money and electoral success has not been linear.
After all, how much did George Bush blow? $270 million? And while Clinton is
far better funded than Trump, it's not at all clear that she's getting any kind
of bang for the buck. Perhaps candidate quality is a wild card at the Presidential
level.
NOTE
[1] Well, well. I remember raising this issue in 2008, and being scoffed
at. It would be interesting to know if the same techniques were used by the
Trump campaign, which just came out with a small donors story, and, to be fair,
whether they were used by Clinton or even Sanders.
The Clinton campaign's tactics to inflate the small donor numbers are
apparently to just bill their small donors over and over again. Typical
democrats: screw over your poorest supporters (in all fairness, Republicans
are good at that trick too).
I think it is rigthly arguable that the relation between money attracted
and voting outcome can be reciprocally related. In the case that a candidate
is seen as a potential winner, it can attract money that "wins" the rigth
to be heared after the election. In other words, to make the candidate friendly
to the interests that money represents. This is backed by the fact that
the most powerful contributors finance both candidates (the two candidates
that have real chance).
Anycase, this study very much supports Greg Palast's book title. Money
has a clear effect in election outcome, and almost certainly an even bigger
effect on policy, after the election. Good job indeed!
"And while Clinton is far better funded than Trump, it's not at all clear
that she's getting any kind of bang for the buck. Perhaps candidate quality
is a wild card at the Presidential level."
The Dollary Clump Campaign is likely to screw up a lot of models, its
already turned satire from a form of critique to a form of government reducing
important propaganda organs to pathetic persiflage in the process.
"One more conclusion that Ferguson et al. draw is that yes, we do
live in an oligarchy"
The sleuthing required for this effort is amazing, as anyone who has
tried to research campaign spending knows, and Ferguson et al are to be
highly commended for their effort to shine more daylight on the sordid side
of American democracy.
But about that oligarchy. Why not share that information? If the data
has been aggregated to individuals and corporations can they be ranked and
listed for the world to see? Can Ferguson et al at least share with us a
glimpse of who is actually controlling the levers of power in our democracy
as it sure isn't the people.
About a year ago, there was an article in the NY Times with a list of
the 158 families who are supposedly donating the most to the Presidential
campaign. This list has some major gaps, since the Koch family, the Walton
family, and the (Sheldon) Adelson families are not on it. Also, it's in
the NY Times, so if you don't want to use up your monthly allotment of articles,
link to the article from an incognito or private browser.
The 7th edition of his book
Who
Rules America? is available, and it has a list price of about $110.00.
A
loose leaf version can be had for a steal, only about $80.00.
I wanted to ignore them; I tried to ignore them! I remembered that there
had been an article about 158 rich families, so I a web search. After looking
at 6 or 7 articles, all of which were fairly short and just linked to the
NY Times article, I declared victory, gave up, and looked at the NY Times
article, which is the only place where I could find the actual list.
I actually meant to add that. It would be nice to have an API to the
data, for example, even if it isn't all available as a CSV (and there could
be lamentable but legitimate funding reasons for that).
Yes and no - sorry, but at this point in time it isn't really important,
we all know Wall Street owns the government, we know where those crapweasels
comes from at the Department of Treasury, and Justice, and State (we know
that the CIA within the State Department, which the Kennedy brothers once
attempted to eradicate, has been incredibly strengthened by Hillary Clinton
when she was secretary of state by her hiring all those former CIA types),
etc., etc.
We know this stuff already, and those of us concerned enough have read
David Dayen's masterful book, Chain of Title , and realize that Covington
& Burling's point man, Erick Holder, was appointed by Obama so the MERS
criminal conspiracy wouldn't be uncovered and the banksters wouldn't be
criminally prosecuted as they should all be!
The part that I didn't look at - and I need to look at more of Ferguson
work - is how he uses aggregations of funders to outline elite factional
conflict (otherwise obscured by the "bad" record keeping) in the donor class,
i.e. the 1%. That's very useful, pragmatically.
re: "I'm not sure whether Ferguson's results for House (and Senate) races
translate directly to Presidential races. However, it would seem to me that
at least in 2016, the relationship between money and electoral success has
not been linear. After all, how much did George Bush blow? $270 million?
And while Clinton is far better funded than Trump, it's not at all clear
that she's getting any kind of bang for the buck."
Spending levels and Presidential campaigns often do NOT correlate directly
for a simple reason: Presidential elections are one of the few political
contests in which "free media," i.e., coverage in the news media, TV, blog
commentary, Twitter, etc, compensates and often overwhelms the advertising
and organizational effects of the campaigns themselves. Thus, Trump has
so far received news media coverage worth at least a billion dollars in
paid advertising. Further, Jeb, Trump, Clinton are known commodities to
the general public. Bernie was an interesting phenomenon. In the end, of
course, his fundraising was quite respectable. But in the beginning he benefited
from another factor. There was a large latent pro-change anti-Clinton constituency
in the Democratic Party hungry for a hero. Presidential primary campaigns
are long. There was time for the news to get out and word to spread.
Once
the latent anti-Clintonites realized they had a candidate, they gravitated
to him, which generated more attention and more money Finally, there are
always exceptions in any data set. Over the years there are numerous examples
of Congressional candidates defeating better funded opponents, especially
in primaries, where turnout is small. Such exceptions do NOT disprove the
general rule. It has always been a rule of thumb among practicing political
professionals that the bigger your candidate's funding advantage, the better
your chances on election day. Ferguson has proved what common sense and
practical experience tell us.
Ferguson says explicitly that the linear correlation in Senate races
is choppier (I forget the exact term of art) and one reason is media. So
that makes sense.
And makes independent media all the more important
Well, then could not one conclude that the Supreme Court was wrong in
declaring money to be a form of protected speech? According to this study,
money isn't speech, it is votes.
And if that is true, then the Supreme Courts
rulings violate the "one man: one vote" principle. The number of votes a
person has is now determined by his/her wealth and how much of it they are
willing to buy an election with.
Like the USSR the USA has one party
system. This guy does not understand that both part are wings of single Neoliberal
Party of the USA. Differences are rather superficial. Democrats are better in fooling
minorities and low income voters.
Notable quotes:
"... Perhaps we need to rethink our electoral model of winner-take-all elections, and particularly of single-member House districts - a model that reinforces, rather than cuts against, this growing geographic polarization, and one that makes it harder for parties to reflect their internal diversity. ..."
"... Well, let's see, both parties have been playing the social issue, divide and conquer game for decades. Throw in Citizens United, which has... ..."
...Most large cities, college towns, the Northeast and the West Coast are
deep-blue Democratic. Ruby-red Republican strongholds take up most of the South,
the Great Plains, the Mountain States and the suburban and rural areas in between.
Rather than compete directly against each other, both parties increasingly occupy
their separate territories, with diminishing overlap and disappearing common
accountability. They hear from very different constituents, with very different
priorities.
... The House, the supposed "people's chamber," is a sea of noncompetition.
Out of 435 seats up for election this year, just 25 are considered tossups by
The Cook Political Report . In 2014, 82 percent of House races were decided
by at least 15 percentage points, including 17 percent that were not contested
by one of the two major parties.
The Senate is only slightly better. A mere six seats out of 34 up for election
are considered
genuine tossups by Cook's assessment (Florida, Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire,
North Carolina and Pennsylvania), while five are in the "lean" category.
The presidential candidates are also ignoring most of the country, instead
focusing on the handful of swing states that always seem to take on outsize
importance.
In the 2012 presidential election , only four states were decided by five
or fewer percentage points, and the median state-level margin of victory was
a whopping 16.9 percent (in other words, not even close). Compare that with
the 1976 presidential election , when 20 states were decided by five or
fewer percentage points (and 31 were decided by eight percentage points or fewer),
and the median state-level margin of victory was 5.9 percent.
...
While gerrymandering
may explain some of the noncompetitiveness of House races, it can't explain
the Senate or the Electoral College. No amount of nonpartisan redistricting
can overcome
the fundamental disconnect between place-based, winner-take-all elections
and polarized, geographically separated parties.
Competition is even rarer these days in state legislatures, where 43 percent
of candidates
did not face a major party opponent in 2014, and fewer than one in 20 races
was decided by five percentage points or less. That made 2014
one of the most uncompetitive state-election years in decades.
These patterns are likely to continue: The current partisan geography is
a natural political alignment.
Around the world , urban areas tend to be left-leaning and cosmopolitan;
rural and suburban areas tend to be conservative and populist.
... ... ...
As the parties became more homogeneous, rank-and-file members began to cede
more authority to their leaders to enforce party discipline within Congress,
especially in the House. Particularly after the watershed election of 1994,
when many longtime conservative Democratic seats turned into relatively safe
Republican seats, a new generation of conservative lawmakers and a newly assertive
party leadership exerted a hard-right pull on the Republican Party. That election
also bled the Democratic Party of many of its conservatives, shifting its caucus
to the left. The election of 2010 was the culmination of the decades-long undoing
of the New Deal coalition, sweeping away the few remaining Southern conservative
Democrats.
Moreover, as more of the country became one-party territory, the opposing
party in these places grasped the improbability of winning and so had little
incentive to invest in mobilization and party building. This lack of investment
further depleted a potential bench of future candidates and made future electoral
competitions less and less likely.
These trends have been especially bad news for congressional Democrats, whose
supporters are both
more
densely concentrated into urban areas (giving them fewer House seats) and
less likely to vote in nonpresidential years (when most elections for governor
are held, robbing the party of prominent state leaders). Since Republicans hold
more relatively safe House seats, Democrats might benefit from occasional wave
elections when the Republican brand has been significantly weakened (e.g., 2006
and 2008). But given the underlying dynamics, such elections are far more likely
to be aberrations than long-lasting realignments.
An optimistic view of a future devoid of much electoral competition is that
it saves members of Congress from having to constantly worry about re-election,
which
critics have argued pushes members toward short-term, parochial lawmaking.
Perhaps all these safe seats can finally free up members to think beyond the
next electoral cycle, and become genuine statesmen again..
... ... ...
By contrast, Congress was probably at its most fluid and productive during
the periods of highest two-party competition, from the 1960s through the 1980s.
This was partly because competition kept turnover steady enough that it brought
in a relatively even flow of new members with new ideas. It also encouraged
members to cut deals to bring home earmarks that would help them get elected.
Members don't do these things anymore because they don't have to. Whatever
bipartisan bonhomie that once existed in Washington was a consequence of these
underlying electoral conditions. Trying to re-establish that good will without
fixing the underlying causes is like building a bridge across a river without
foundations to ground the towers.Certainly, there are some signs that we may
have already hit the nadir of electoral non-competition. In
presidential polling , for example, blue states are looking a little less
blue this year than in past years, and red states are looking a little less
red. Split-ticket voting will likely be up this year as well. If the Republican
Party truly becomes the party of Donald J. Trump (and there is
good reason to think it will), and Democrats continue to court moderate
pro-business Republicans alienated by Mr. Trump while giving up on nostalgia-minded
white working-class voters (
also likely ), this may make some states and congressional districts more
competitive. Changing demographics, especially in places with rising immigrant
populations, may also change the dynamics of competition. There are also some
signs that divisions within the parties are coming to undermine longstanding
party unity, creating potential for new crosscutting alliances in ways that
are
likely to reduce polarization .
But we have a long way to go. These nascent trends could use a boost.
Perhaps we need to rethink our electoral model of winner-take-all elections,
and particularly of single-member House districts - a model that reinforces,
rather than cuts against, this growing geographic polarization, and one that
makes it harder for parties to reflect their internal diversity.
The single-member, winner-take-all elections we use are a relative rarity
among advanced democracies. They are not mandated by the Constitution, which
lets states decide how to elect their representatives. In fact, many states
originally used
multimember districts . Returning to this approach would make it far easier
to draw competitive districts that mix urban and rural areas. It would make
it easier for different wings in both parties to send members to Congress, creating
more diversity within the parties. It might also allow some smaller, regional
parties to emerge, since multimember allow candidates to win with far less than
majority support. These developments would increase the possibilities for deal-making
in Congress. The
FairVote proposal of multimember districts with ranked choice voting seems
especially promising on this front.
But the first step in electoral reform is recognizing that this country has
a problem. For decades, we had reasonably robust electoral competition, so there
was little obvious reason to worry about our electoral system. But that era
is over.
Nick Metrowsky
Well, let's see, both parties have been playing the social issue,
divide and conquer game for decades. Throw in Citizens United, which has...
ttrumbo
We're the most economically divided industrial country; so that's who
we are. We've let the favored few gain so much wealth and power that...
BirdL
The related implications for one-party states, especially deep red ones,
is that policy making is way too "easy," with little deliberation...
Like the USSR the USA has one party
system. This guy does not understand that both part are wings of single Neoliberal
Party of the USA. Differences are rather superficial. Democrats are better in fooling
minorities and low income voters.
Notable quotes:
"... Perhaps we need to rethink our electoral model of winner-take-all elections, and particularly of single-member House districts - a model that reinforces, rather than cuts against, this growing geographic polarization, and one that makes it harder for parties to reflect their internal diversity. ..."
"... Well, let's see, both parties have been playing the social issue, divide and conquer game for decades. Throw in Citizens United, which has... ..."
...Most large cities, college towns, the Northeast and the West Coast are
deep-blue Democratic. Ruby-red Republican strongholds take up most of the South,
the Great Plains, the Mountain States and the suburban and rural areas in between.
Rather than compete directly against each other, both parties increasingly occupy
their separate territories, with diminishing overlap and disappearing common
accountability. They hear from very different constituents, with very different
priorities.
... The House, the supposed "people's chamber," is a sea of noncompetition.
Out of 435 seats up for election this year, just 25 are considered tossups by
The Cook Political Report . In 2014, 82 percent of House races were decided
by at least 15 percentage points, including 17 percent that were not contested
by one of the two major parties.
The Senate is only slightly better. A mere six seats out of 34 up for election
are considered
genuine tossups by Cook's assessment (Florida, Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire,
North Carolina and Pennsylvania), while five are in the "lean" category.
The presidential candidates are also ignoring most of the country, instead
focusing on the handful of swing states that always seem to take on outsize
importance.
In the 2012 presidential election , only four states were decided by five
or fewer percentage points, and the median state-level margin of victory was
a whopping 16.9 percent (in other words, not even close). Compare that with
the 1976 presidential election , when 20 states were decided by five or
fewer percentage points (and 31 were decided by eight percentage points or fewer),
and the median state-level margin of victory was 5.9 percent.
...
While gerrymandering
may explain some of the noncompetitiveness of House races, it can't explain
the Senate or the Electoral College. No amount of nonpartisan redistricting
can overcome
the fundamental disconnect between place-based, winner-take-all elections
and polarized, geographically separated parties.
Competition is even rarer these days in state legislatures, where 43 percent
of candidates
did not face a major party opponent in 2014, and fewer than one in 20 races
was decided by five percentage points or less. That made 2014
one of the most uncompetitive state-election years in decades.
These patterns are likely to continue: The current partisan geography is
a natural political alignment.
Around the world , urban areas tend to be left-leaning and cosmopolitan;
rural and suburban areas tend to be conservative and populist.
... ... ...
As the parties became more homogeneous, rank-and-file members began to cede
more authority to their leaders to enforce party discipline within Congress,
especially in the House. Particularly after the watershed election of 1994,
when many longtime conservative Democratic seats turned into relatively safe
Republican seats, a new generation of conservative lawmakers and a newly assertive
party leadership exerted a hard-right pull on the Republican Party. That election
also bled the Democratic Party of many of its conservatives, shifting its caucus
to the left. The election of 2010 was the culmination of the decades-long undoing
of the New Deal coalition, sweeping away the few remaining Southern conservative
Democrats.
Moreover, as more of the country became one-party territory, the opposing
party in these places grasped the improbability of winning and so had little
incentive to invest in mobilization and party building. This lack of investment
further depleted a potential bench of future candidates and made future electoral
competitions less and less likely.
These trends have been especially bad news for congressional Democrats, whose
supporters are both
more
densely concentrated into urban areas (giving them fewer House seats) and
less likely to vote in nonpresidential years (when most elections for governor
are held, robbing the party of prominent state leaders). Since Republicans hold
more relatively safe House seats, Democrats might benefit from occasional wave
elections when the Republican brand has been significantly weakened (e.g., 2006
and 2008). But given the underlying dynamics, such elections are far more likely
to be aberrations than long-lasting realignments.
An optimistic view of a future devoid of much electoral competition is that
it saves members of Congress from having to constantly worry about re-election,
which
critics have argued pushes members toward short-term, parochial lawmaking.
Perhaps all these safe seats can finally free up members to think beyond the
next electoral cycle, and become genuine statesmen again..
... ... ...
By contrast, Congress was probably at its most fluid and productive during
the periods of highest two-party competition, from the 1960s through the 1980s.
This was partly because competition kept turnover steady enough that it brought
in a relatively even flow of new members with new ideas. It also encouraged
members to cut deals to bring home earmarks that would help them get elected.
Members don't do these things anymore because they don't have to. Whatever
bipartisan bonhomie that once existed in Washington was a consequence of these
underlying electoral conditions. Trying to re-establish that good will without
fixing the underlying causes is like building a bridge across a river without
foundations to ground the towers.Certainly, there are some signs that we may
have already hit the nadir of electoral non-competition. In
presidential polling , for example, blue states are looking a little less
blue this year than in past years, and red states are looking a little less
red. Split-ticket voting will likely be up this year as well. If the Republican
Party truly becomes the party of Donald J. Trump (and there is
good reason to think it will), and Democrats continue to court moderate
pro-business Republicans alienated by Mr. Trump while giving up on nostalgia-minded
white working-class voters (
also likely ), this may make some states and congressional districts more
competitive. Changing demographics, especially in places with rising immigrant
populations, may also change the dynamics of competition. There are also some
signs that divisions within the parties are coming to undermine longstanding
party unity, creating potential for new crosscutting alliances in ways that
are
likely to reduce polarization .
But we have a long way to go. These nascent trends could use a boost.
Perhaps we need to rethink our electoral model of winner-take-all elections,
and particularly of single-member House districts - a model that reinforces,
rather than cuts against, this growing geographic polarization, and one that
makes it harder for parties to reflect their internal diversity.
The single-member, winner-take-all elections we use are a relative rarity
among advanced democracies. They are not mandated by the Constitution, which
lets states decide how to elect their representatives. In fact, many states
originally used
multimember districts . Returning to this approach would make it far easier
to draw competitive districts that mix urban and rural areas. It would make
it easier for different wings in both parties to send members to Congress, creating
more diversity within the parties. It might also allow some smaller, regional
parties to emerge, since multimember allow candidates to win with far less than
majority support. These developments would increase the possibilities for deal-making
in Congress. The
FairVote proposal of multimember districts with ranked choice voting seems
especially promising on this front.
But the first step in electoral reform is recognizing that this country has
a problem. For decades, we had reasonably robust electoral competition, so there
was little obvious reason to worry about our electoral system. But that era
is over.
Nick Metrowsky
Well, let's see, both parties have been playing the social issue,
divide and conquer game for decades. Throw in Citizens United, which has...
ttrumbo
We're the most economically divided industrial country; so that's who
we are. We've let the favored few gain so much wealth and power that...
BirdL
The related implications for one-party states, especially deep red ones,
is that policy making is way too "easy," with little deliberation...
(Re Silc). "Interestingly, the biggest
drag on Trump among this group was his verbal
treatment of women."
"Let's start by giving Donald Trump every
state that Romney won in 2012, even North
Carolina where, as of Thursday morning,
Clinton had a narrow lead in the RCP average
of polls in that state. That would give Trump
245 electoral votes to Clinton's 293, with
270 needed to win. Now let's give Trump every
state where Clinton's RCP average lead was
less than 3 points, thus putting Iowa, Nevada,
Florida, and Ohio in Trump's column. Clinton
would then lead 273-265 and still be in the
winner's circle. Now let's assume that Trump
wins Maine's second congressional district,
which would narrow her lead to 272 to 266. To
be clear, I do not think that Trump will sweep
North Carolina, Iowa, Nevada, Florida, and
Ohio. For that matter, he is struggling to
keep his lead in places like Arizona and
Georgia.
Even giving Trump every state
that is close, he still comes up short. To get
over the top he would need to win states where
today he's not running particularly close.
These include New Hampshire, where the RCP
average gives Clinton a 5-point edge,
Pennsylvania a 6.2-point lead, Michigan a
5.6-point lead, and Virginia a 3.7-point lead"
[
Cook
Political Report
] [dusts hands]. "The key
thing to think about in the coming weeks is who
the election is really about. For most of the
past three months, it was a referendum on
Trump, and he was losing. The last couple of
weeks, the race has been about Clinton and she
has been losing ground as a result." The
political class cannot concieve of the idea that
the election might be a referendum on
them
.
And that a narrow win will not be enough to
allow them to retain the mandate of heaven.
"The larger explanation for the Trump
phenomenon is even more unsettling for
Washington's political class, especially the
media. They have lost their power" [
Politico
].
No, they haven't. But they are frantic to retain
it. "Only a decade or two ago, the media world
was confined to a group of people in D.C. and
New York-a group that largely knew each other,
mingled in the same places, vacationed in the
same locales. The most influential members of
the group routinely defined what constituted a
gaffe, others echoed that view, and it became
the conventional wisdom for the rest of America.
In the age of the Internet, with bloggers spread
out across the nation, and multiple platforms
across the political spectrum, that's no longer
possible. The growing divergence between these
'insiders' and the new 'outsiders' has played to
Trump's benefit, every single time he made what
was once conceived as a 'game-changing' error."
Hmm. I remember 2003-2006 very well, when
bloggers were going to do just this. That was
going to happen until it didn't. In other words,
I don't think it's bloggers and platforms that
are the drivers; aspirational 10%-ers, as it
were. It's a solid chunk of the 90% being
mightily ticked off (though ticked off in ways
appropriate to their various conditions). And
that's not going to change.
"Thus Clinton's peculiar predicament. She has
moved further left than any modern Democratic
nominee, and absorbed the newer left's
Manichaean view of the culture war" [Ross
Douthat,
The New York Times
]. And "culture war"
completely explains why all those bright young
people were chanting the talking points of an
elderly white male socialist delivering
hour-long speeches on policy to ginormous
rallies. If you want to see an utterly classic
conflation of "liberal" and "left," read this.
Douthat really is an idiot.
"View from the barber's chair: In Florida
even blacks and Hispanics may be turning against
Hillary Clinton" [
Independent
].
This is good, although using the word "safari"
for encounters with Florida voters might not be
an ideal choice of words.
UPDATE "There are three consistent features
to all of conservative talk radio: Anger, Trump,
and ads targeting the financially desperate" [
Chris
Arnade
]. "The ads are a constant. Ads
protecting against coming financial crisis
(Surprise! It is Gold.) or ads that start,
'Having trouble with the IRS?' The obvious
lessons being 1) Lots of conservative talk radio
listeners are in financial distress. 2) They are
willing to turn to scams."
UPDATE "[Squillionare Tom Steyer is] chipping
in an additional $15 million to For Our Future,
a joint effort among four labor unions and a
super PAC he founded called Next Gen Climate.
The money won't go to TV ads but to a
door-to-door campaign that aims to knock on 2
million doors in seven swing states, encouraging
"sporadic" voters to get to the polls" [
USA
Today
]. Once again, if the Democrats didn't
suck at basic party functions, they wouldn't
have to suck up to squillionaires like this.
UPDATE "No matter who wins in November,
America is going to face a divide unseen in
decades. If Donald Trump wins, he will confront
a resident media more hateful than that which
confronted Richard Nixon in 1968" [Patrick
Buchanan,
The American Conservative
]. "If Hillary
Clinton wins, she will come to office distrusted
and disbelieved by most of her countrymen, half
of whom she has maligned either as "deplorables"
or pitiful souls in need of empathy." A country
Buchanan worked so tirelessly to unify! Still,
the old reprobate has this right. If Clinton
wins (likely modulo events, dear boy, events)
and the Republicans retain the House and the
Senate, they'll impeach her over some damned
thing in the emails. And they'll be right.
UPDATE "Trump Boasts About Using 'Other
People's Money' In Business" [
Talking
Points Memo
]. History's worst monster!
UPDATE "A fuzzy screenshot of an email
instructing people on how to disrupt internet
groups is doing the rounds today, and it's worth
having a really good look at. It's unclear where
this particular handbook came from, and what
particular groups they intend to target, but
anyone who has been in Bernie, Green, or
Libertarian groups will soon recognize these
same tactics and patterns" [
Inquisitr
].
A recent
Detroit Free Press/WXYZ-TV poll of the state, however, found Clinton's lead
shrinking from 11 points to just 3 - within the poll's margin of error.
Michigan wasn't the only state that swung toward the Republican nominee:
In Ohio, Trump has a clear advantage at this point
in the race. Polls there showed him up 3, 4, and 5 points this week.
Iowa, which has voted Democratic in six of the past
seven elections, also looks firmly in the Trump camp right now. A Monmouth
University survey of the state found him up 8.
Florida is as much of a toss-up state as they come,
with a bit of a Trump bend in the past week. Two polls there gave the real-estate
mogul a 4-point lead, while another showed Clinton up 2 points.
Colorado and Virginia, two Democratic-leaning
states that leaned more and more toward Clinton in recent weeks, both saw
significant recent swings toward Trump. In the former, an Emerson College
survey put Trump up 4 in the state. In the latter, Trump trailed by just
3 in a University of Mary Washington poll, though a Public Policy Polling
survey found Clinton up a comfortable 8 points.
In Nevada, a Monmouth survey found Trump up 2, a 6-point
swing from August. Clinton leads by less than a point in the state's polling
average.
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.
In a minute, we'll be joined by former third-party presidential candidate
Ralph Nader. But first, this is
George Farah, the founder and executive director of Open Debates, speaking
on Democracy Now! about how the Democrats and Republicans took control of the
debate process.
GEORGE FARAH:
GEORGE FARAH: The League
of Women Voters ran the presidential debate process from 1976 until 1984,
and they were a very courageous and genuinely independent, nonpartisan sponsor.
And whenever the candidates attempted to manipulate the presidential debates
behind closed doors, either to exclude a viable independent candidate or
to sanitize the formats, the league had the courage to challenge the Republican
and Democratic nominees and, if necessary, go public.
In 1980, independent candidate John B. Anderson was polling about 12
percent in the polls. The league insisted that Anderson be allowed to participate,
because the vast majority of the American people wanted to see him, but
Jimmy Carter, President Jimmy Carter, refused to debate him. The league
went forward anyway and held a presidential debate with an empty chair,
showing that Jimmy Carter wasn't going to show up.
Four years later, when the Republican and Democratic nominees tried to
get rid of difficult questions by vetoing 80 of the moderators that they
had proposed to host the debates, the league said, "This is unacceptable."
They held a press conference and attacked the campaigns for trying to get
rid of difficult questions.
And lastly, in 1988, was the first attempt by the Republican and Democratic
campaigns to negotiate a detailed contract. It was tame by comparison, a
mere 12 pages. It talked about who could be in the audience and how the
format would be structured, but the league found that kind of lack of transparency
and that kind of candidate control to be fundamentally outrageous and antithetical
to our democratic process. They released the contract and stated they refuse
to be an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American people and refuse
to implement it.
And today, what do we have? We have a private corporation that was created
by the Republican and Democratic parties called the Commission on Presidential
Debates. It seized control of the presidential debates precisely because
the league was independent, precisely because this women's organization
had the guts to stand up to the candidates that the major-party candidates
had nominated.
"... Brexit went on to win 52% to 48% . That is a swing of +14% to -4% on the day of the vote! The polls were off by 18% against the Elites/Globalist who inhabit the European Political Industrial Complex (or PIC) ..."
"... [Note: Political Industrial Complex (PIC) = all the career politicians, all the career bureaucrats, the sea of career political consultants and career staff, the political donor class and their career lobbyists, and of course the pliant career political news media. The EU is the epitome of the Political Industrial Complex – the apex of bad ideas hoisted upon the masses without thought or responsibility. The "elite" denizens of the PIC live apart from the rest of humanity] ..."
"... Check back for updates if we detect a hint of Brexit tonight ..."
Given the uniqueness of this election cycle with
candidate Trump and the populist wave building in many
countries of "the west", it is hard to put much trust in the
polls.
This lesson was learned
during the Brexit vote in the UK
when polls showed the "stay" campaign comfortably ahead
on the day of the vote
:
The paper ballots were still being counted by hand.
Only the British overseas territory of Gibraltar had
reported final results. Yet the assumption of a Remain
victory filled the room-and depressed my hosts.
One important journalist had received a detailed
briefing earlier that evening of the results of the
government's exit polling: 57 percent for Remain
.
… why would any anti-big-government voter participate
in a poll from the PIC? They won't. So the polls become
more and more over sampled by the PIC defenders: an ever
shrinking fraction of the voting population.
[Note:
Political Industrial Complex (PIC)
= all the career politicians, all the career bureaucrats,
the sea of career political consultants and career staff,
the political donor class and their career lobbyists, and of
course the pliant career political news media. The EU is the
epitome of the Political Industrial Complex – the apex of
bad ideas hoisted upon the masses without thought or
responsibility. The "elite" denizens of the PIC live apart
from the rest of humanity]
Today we are going to get a clear indication of how deep
the ant-elite wave is in America. Paul Ryan, GOP Speaker of
the House, is fighting off a primary challenger who has
built his "Hail Mary" campaign on the populist movement. How
he performs against Ryan is going to be a clear and
unambiguous measure of the anti-government movement.
I seriously doubt Ryan will lose. But I also seriously
doubt he will win by 60%. The closer Ryan gets to 60%, the
less likely we have "Brexit In America" and the more likely
it is Hillary can pull this election out. But if Ryan is
down near 20% (or worse), then it is more likely Trump will
ride a populist wave to victory in November.
This will be a very enlightening evening as the primary
results come in.
BTW, turnout seems to be low today, which is probably
really bad for Ryan. We know the populist voters have
energy (see Trumps record breaking vote totals in his
primaries). So ambivalence will probably be on the Ryan
side. The lower the turnout, the more likely it is Ryan's
tepid supporters who just failed to be worried about him
losing. Paul Nehlen's supporters – who were all about
sending a message to DC – will win the day on the urge to
purge DC.
Check back for updates if we detect a hint of
Brexit tonight
"... Something along the lines of Sweden, or maybe Germany: the means of production is left in private hands and the owning class is welcome to get rich (there are the equivalent of billionaires in both countries) but there are strict limits as to how much they can screw their workers, cheat their customers or damage the environment. ..."
"... Also, basic social welfare matters (healthcare, child care etc.) are publicly provided, or at least publicly backstopped. The model may not be perfect but it appears to work quite well all in all. ..."
"... Sweden has no taxes on inheritance or residential property, and its 22 percent corporate income tax rate is far lower than America's 35 percent." ..."
"... I do not think that drag queens reading stories, Lionel Shriver's speech and backlash, or the latest Clinton scandal mean civilizational death. They are outliers, but serve to remind the vast majority of the country that there is plenty of room in America for eccentrics of every description to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ..."
"... HRC is not really unthinkable. She is just not preferable. A vote for HRC is an acquiescence to the status quo of corrupt, big money politics. Voting for the status quo is unthinkable only if you think the apocalypse is around the next bend. Let's be serious. ..."
"... "we are at the mercy of systematic forces, difficult to name, which can be manipulated by the powerful but not governed by them, and that our problems are unsolvable" ..."
"... I would argue that the "system" is capitalism grown decadent and corrupt. It is a secular religion that we've given ourselves over to and is exactly as he describes: a massive systemic force that some can manipulate for their own gain, but as a society we've lost the will or ability to control it's macro forces which have the power grind up whole demographics, communities, or crash the whole economy. ..."
"... The reaction and fall out from the financial crisis amounted to everyone shrugging and declaring innocence and ignorance. They seemed to say, how could anyone see such a thing coming or do anything about it? How could anyone control such a huge system? ..."
"... I'm always struck by these posts detailing how everything is coming apart in America. I look around and frankly, life looks pretty good. Maybe it's because I'm a minority female, who grew up poor and now has a solidly middle class life. My mother, God rest her soul, was smarter and worked harder than I ever will but did not have one-quarter of the opportunities (education, housing) I've had. My sons have travelled the globe, and have decent jobs and good friends. I am grateful. ..."
"... I wouldn't say that [neo] Liberalism is "spent" as a force, rather that its credibility is. As a cultural force (covering both politics and the economy, among other things), its strength is and remains vast. It is Leviathan. For all intents and purposes, it defines the culture, and thus dictates the imperatives and methods, of our governing and economic elites. ..."
"... Bush proved that electing an imbecile to the Presidency has real consequences for our standing in the world. ..."
"... Trump starts speaking without knowing how his sentence will end, and then he will go to down fighting to defend whatever it was he said even though he never really meant it in the first place. That mix of arrogance and stupidity is more dangerous than Bush. ..."
"... Totally unconvincing. It couldn't be more obvious that Hillary stands for rule by globalists whereas Trump intends to return control of the federal government to We the People. ..."
"... Which candidate is traveling to Louisiana? Flint? Detroit? Mexico (on behalf of America)? Which candidate calls tens of millions of Americans irredeemable and thus it would be justified in exterminating them? ..."
"... What makes Mr. Cosimano so sure that what America is passing into is anything like a "civilization" at all? We could simple pass into barbarism. Can anyone name the leaders who hope to build any kind of civilization at all? ..."
"... For 70+ years, other than while working on a university degree in history, I never gave a thought to civilizational collapse, so I would have been a poor choice to ask for a definition of the term. But after a few years of reading TAC I think I have a handle on it. It's a situation in which someone or some group sees broad social change they don't like. So probably civilizational collapse is constant and ongoing. ..."
"... I would only point out that there is no clear path to economic safety for working Americans, whether they are white are black. Training and hard work will only take you so far in our demand-constrained economy. Whether black optimism or white pessimism turns out to be empirically justified is far from certain. We are constructing the future as we speak, and our actions will determine the answer to this question. ..."
"... As the WikiLeaks dox show, it wasn't "barrel bombs" or "chemical warfare against his own people" that made the elites hungry to overthrow the government there, it was the 2009 decision by Syria not to allow an oil pipeline through from Qatar to Turkey, whereupon the CIA was directed to start funding jihadists and regime change. ..."
"... I'd note that Popes going back to Leo XIII have written on the destructive effects of capitalism or rather the unmitigated pursuit of wealth. Both Benedict and Francis have eloquently expressed the need for a spiritual conversion to solve the world's problems. A conversion which recognizes our solidarity with one another as well as our obligation to the health of Creation. I rather doubt we will find the impetus for this conversion among our politicians. ..."
"... The problem is not civilization-level, Mr. Dreher. The problem is species -level. Humanity as a whole is discovering that it cannot handle too high a level of technology without losing its ability to get feedback from its environment. Without that feedback, its elite classes drift off into literal insanity. The rest of the society soon follows. ..."
"... James Parker in The Atlantic comes to a similar conclusion from a very different starting place ..."
"... "For Trump to be revealed as a salvational figure, the conditions around him must be dire. Trump_vs_deep_state-like fascism, like a certain kind of smash-it-up punk rock-begins in apprehensions of apocalypse." ..."
"... Classical [neo]liberalism presents itself not as a tentative theory of how society might be organized but as a theory of nature. It claims to lay out the forces of nature and to make these a model for social order. Thus free-market fundamentalism, letting the market function "as nature intended". It's an absurd position when applied dogmatically, and no more "natural" than other economic arrangements humans might come up with. ..."
"... Further, as I suggest, our two camps "left" and "right" are no longer distinctly left and right in any traditional sense. The market forces and self-marketing that lead to the fetishization of identity by the left are the same market forces championed by the capitalist right. In America today, both left and right are merely different bourgeois cults of Self. ..."
"... "Pope Francis (and to a slighly lesser degree, his two predecessors) has spoken frequently about unbridled capitalism as a source of the world ills. But his message hasn't been that well received among American conservatives." ..."
Re: we have yet to hear a cogent description of what "bridled" capitalism
is/looks like
Something along the lines of Sweden, or maybe Germany: the means
of production is left in private hands and the owning class is welcome
to get rich (there are the equivalent of billionaires in both countries)
but there are strict limits as to how much they can screw their workers,
cheat their customers or damage the environment.
Also, basic social welfare matters (healthcare, child care etc.)
are publicly provided, or at least publicly backstopped. The model may
not be perfect but it appears to work quite well all in all.
I think a lot of American capitalists would welcome those bridles.
As for Hanby's critique of the liberal order that (thankfully) prevails
in the West, it is only because of that liberal order that we are freely
discussing these matters here, that we can talk about a Benedict Option
in which we can create an economy within the economy, because in the
non-liberal orders that prevailed through most of history, and that
still prevail in a lot of places, we'd be under threat from the state
for free discussion, and we would have little or no choice of education
or jobs, because we'd be serfs or slaves or forced by government to
go into a certain line of work (like my husband's Mandarin teacher,
a scientist who was forced into the countryside during the Cultural
Revolution and then told that she had to become a language teacher.)
I'd be interested to know what kind of system Hanby would like to
see replace our liberal order. Presumably one where he would be in charge.
[neo]Liberalism is exhausted? What does that even mean, except as a
high-brow insult?
If there is one statistic that disproves this claim, it's that religious
attendance is plummeting and the number of people who are "nones" are
rising rapidly.
What's exhausted is religion as a necessary component of social life.
Since that is indisputably true, I guess the only thing that is left
is for the remaining stalwarts resisting the tide to project this idea
of exhaustion onto the other side.
[NFR: You don't understand his point. He's not talking about liberalism
as the philosophy of the Democratic Party. He's talking about liberalism
as the political culture and system of the West. - RD]
"There is nothing like a good shock of pain for dissolving certain
kinds of magic."
Could be that Trump is God's Hot Foot Angel With The Dirty Face waking
Americans up to the increasingly Godless Agenda of The Washington Establishment
and The Corporate Media.
Talk about cynical. There's a lot to take exception to here, but let's
start with this:
"In other words, the fact that we are in civilizational crisis is
becoming unavoidably apparent, though there is obviously little agreement
as to what this crisis consists in or what its causes are and little
interest from the omnipresent media beyond how perceptions of crisis
affect voter behavior."
Possibly because he's one of the relatively few people who think
we're in such a crisis. A lot of us – Republican and Democrat – still
believe ideas and ideals are important and we support them (and their
torchbearers, however flawed) with all the vigor we can muster.
I do not think that drag queens reading stories, Lionel Shriver's
speech and backlash, or the latest Clinton scandal mean civilizational
death. They are outliers, but serve to remind the vast majority of the
country that there is plenty of room in America for eccentrics of every
description to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I
will admit to thinking this kind of thing much more important on college
campuses, where it can affect the quality of an education.
"We would not see it as a crisis of soul, but a crisis of management…"
Probably true: I'm not so sure that our founding principles really
envision our civilization as having a soul rather than virtues. And
the idea of a national government mucking around with the souls of the
people gives me the heebie-jeebies much as Putin's alliance with the
Orthodox church does you. And if there's anything we can take from the
current election, I think it's that Americans have had enough sociologists,
economists, lawyers, and other "experts" tell them what to do to last
a lifetime. It's part and parcel of the distrust you just posted about.
And I'm not at all sure that Americans are generally despairing,
though it's pretty clear they think our country is on the wrong track.
Hillary ought to be running away with this thing – why isn't she? Because
she's seen as more of the same. Sanders offered the hope of something
new, something transformative: the same thing people see in Trump. Their
hope MAY be misplaced but time will tell. This election cycle ought
to make people a little less confident in their predictions.
"Hope is hard, I admit. But my response is that it is not the pessimist
about liberalism who lacks hope, but the optimist who cannot see beyond
its horizons."
Hope is hard if you're investing in our institutions to carry us
through. They aren't designed to. Our hope is in Christ, Our Redeemer,
and that His will "be done on earth as it is in Heaven." And I will
gladly admit to not being able to see beyond liberalism's horizons –
again, the predictions of experts and philosophers haven't held up too
well over time.
I can say that blithely because my hope is not in liberalism, ultimately.
Do I think some semblance of liberalism can and will survive? Yes, but
the cultural struggles we are going through are part and parcel of the
system. Do I like that? No.
And as much as we need to reinforce communities (through the BenOp)
we also need to recognize that our job isn't always to understand and
prepare. As Christians, it is to obey. It means we repent, fast, and
pray. It means we take the Great Commission seriously even when it's
uncomfortable.
I'm sorry to rip your friend here, I just don't find his piece compelling
at all.
HRC is not really unthinkable. She is just not preferable. A vote for
HRC is an acquiescence to the status quo of corrupt, big money politics.
Voting for the status quo is unthinkable only if you think the apocalypse
is around the next bend. Let's be serious.
Voting for Trump is unthinkable because he is totally clueless about
seemingly he talks about. His arrogance is only surpassed by his ignorance.
Gary Johnson was excoriated because he did not know what Aleppo is.
I bet a paycheck Trump couldn't point to Syria on a map. Trump get's
no serious criticism for insistence that we steal Iraq's oil, his confusion
about why Iran wasn't buying our airplanes, his assertion that Iran
is North Koreas largest trading partner, that South Korea and Japan
ought to have nukes, his threats to extort our NATO allies. There are
dozens of gems like these, but you get the picture. One only needs to
read transcripts from his interviews to understand the limits of his
intellect. Voting for such a profound ignoramus is truly unthinkable.
Teenagers born after 2000 – the so-called 'Generation Z' – are
the most socially conservative generation since the Second World War,
a new study has found.
The youngsters surveyed had more conservative views on gay marriage,
transgender rights and drugs than Baby Boomers, Generation X or Millennials.
The questioned were more prudent than Millennials, Generation X and
Baby Boomers but not quite as cash-savvy as those born in 1945 or before.
…
Only 14 and 15-year-olds were surveyed, by brand consultancy The Gild,
as they were classed as being able to form credible opinions by that
age.
When asked to comment on same-sex marriage, transgender rights and
cannabis legislation, 59 per cent of Generation X teenagers said they
had conservative views.
Around 85 per cent of Millennials and those in Generation X had a
'quite' or 'very liberal' stance overall.
When asked for their specific view on each topic only the Silent
Generation was more conservative that Generation Z.
One in seven – 14% – of the 14 and 15-year-olds took a 'quite conservative'
approach, while only two per cent of Millennials and one per cent of
Generation X.
The Silent Generation had a 'quite conservative' rating of 34
per cent.
I think this was done in Britain but as we know, social trends in
the rest of the West tend to spill over into the States.
Are we looking at another Alex P. Keaton generation? Kids likely
to rebel against the liberalism of their parents?
I can never quite understand the tension between these two concepts:
enlightenment liberalism as a spent force, enervated, listless, barely
able to stir itself even in its own defense, and simultaneously weaponized
SJWism, modern day Jacobins, an army of clenched-jawed fanatics who
will stop at nothing to destroy its enemies.
It seems that one of these perspectives must be less true than the
other.
[NFR: SJWs are a betrayal of classical liberalism. - RD]
I realize that I only comment here when something sets me off, and not
when I agree with you (which is after all why I keep reading you).
So here I am agreeing with this post.
"we are at the mercy of systematic forces, difficult to name, which
can be manipulated by the powerful but not governed by them, and that
our problems are unsolvable"
I would argue that the "system" is capitalism grown decadent and
corrupt. It is a secular religion that we've given ourselves over to
and is exactly as he describes: a massive systemic force that some can
manipulate for their own gain, but as a society we've lost the will
or ability to control it's macro forces which have the power grind up
whole demographics, communities, or crash the whole economy.
The reaction and fall out from the financial crisis amounted to everyone
shrugging and declaring innocence and ignorance. They seemed to say,
how could anyone see such a thing coming or do anything about it? How
could anyone control such a huge system?
As your friend says, even if we want to exert more control over this
system (which we can with the will), this would end up being a technocratic
project, not a spiritual one. Sad because a spiritual argument against
the excesses of capitalism might actually gain more traction at this
point, than tired liberal arguments.
I'm always struck by these posts detailing how everything is coming
apart in America. I look around and frankly, life looks pretty good.
Maybe it's because I'm a minority female, who grew up poor and now has
a solidly middle class life. My mother, God rest her soul, was smarter
and worked harder than I ever will but did not have one-quarter of the
opportunities (education, housing) I've had. My sons have travelled
the globe, and have decent jobs and good friends. I am grateful.
My friends and I went out the other night in Austin, and there were
families, very diverse, walking in the outdoor mall, standing in line
to buy $5 scoops of ice cream for their children. Not hipsters, or God
forbid the elite, just regular middle class folk enjoying an evening
out. The truth is, life has improved immeasurably for many Americans.
Do we have serious problems? Of course, but can we have just a wee bit
of perspective?
You may be right about the problem, but not its nature. Capitalism
is not an impersonal force that can't be controlled, it's what people
do economically if they are left alone to do it. The problem comes when
people are not, simply put, virtuous. When people seek a return on investment
that is not simply reasonable, but rather the most they can possibly
get. We have had a capitalist system for long enough that some people
who are both good at manipulating it and, often, unethical enough to
not care what impact their choices have on others, have accumulated
vast amounts of wealth while others, over generations, have made choices
that have not been profitable, have lost wealth.
There used to be mechanisms for preventing these trends to continue
to their logical conclusion, as they are here. Judea had Jubilee. The
Byzantine Empire had an Emperor whose interests were served by a prosperous
landed middle class to populate the Thematic armies and who would occasionally
step in and return the land his part time soldiers had lost through
bad loans from aristocrats. We have no such mechanism for a farmer to
regain land lost due to foreclosure.
We should not redistribute wealth in such a way that a person has no
incentive to work, but we should never allow a person's means of earning
a livelihood to be taken from them.
I wouldn't say that [neo] Liberalism is "spent" as a force, rather that its
credibility is. As a cultural force (covering both politics and the
economy, among other things), its strength is and remains vast. It is
Leviathan. For all intents and purposes, it defines the culture, and
thus dictates the imperatives and methods, of our governing and economic
elites. The crisis of Western political legitimacy that is manifest
in the nomination of Trump, Brexit and numerous other movements and
incidents is a sign that the legitimacy of this order has been undermined
and is dissolving within the societies it effectively governs; in some
unspoken sense, the unwashed masses of the West (those not part of the
so-called "New Class") have come to understand that they have been betrayed
by the Liberal order, that it has not lived up to its promises, even
that it is becoming or has become a force destructive of their communities
and their ability to thrive as human beings.
The ever-increasing autonomy promised by the Liberal order has turned
out to be a poisoned chalice for many. As it has dissolved the bonds
of families and communities, it has atomized people into individuals
without traditional social supports in an increasingly cutthroat and
uncaring world. People cannot help but understand that they have lost
something or are missing something, even if they are not able to articulate
or identify that loss. It is a sickness of the soul, in the sense that
the ailment is somewhere close to the heart of what it means to be human.
We are what we are, and the Liberal order is pushing us into opposition
to our own natures, as if we can choose to be something other than what
we are.
This idea that Democrats hate Hillary in the same way Republicans despise
Trump is way off base in my opinion. This attempt at equivalency, like
so many others, is false. I voted for Sanders because I liked him better,
but I am not holding my nose to vote for Hillary Clinton. There are
several things I actually admire about her, including her attention
to detail and tenacity. I'll always remember how she sat before Congress
as First Lady, no paper or crib sheet in sight, and presented her detailed
and compelling case for national health care . I thought that was awesome
then, and still do.
Still, as I've noted many times, I never liked the Clintons that
much, mainly because I hated a lot of what Bill Clinton stood for and
what he did. Aside from his embarrassing sexual escapades, most of that
pertained to positions that seemed more Republican than Democratic (on
welfare mothers, mental patients, deregulation of the broadcast industry,
etc.) I also didn't like their position on abortion nor the way their
people treated Gov. Casey at the party convention, nor the dialing back
on Jimmy Carter's uncompromising stand for human rights in the third
world. Some of Hillary's hawkish positions are still a concern, but
what she stands for in general is far and away more humane and within
my understanding of what's good for the country and the world at large
than anything Republicans represent. Their ideas hurt people on too
many fronts to justify voting for them just because I may agree with
them on principle when it comes to matters such abortion. Trump just
adds insult to injury in every regard.
Very well said. What accounts for the relative optimism of minorities
vs. whites?
State of the economy, personal situation, optimism that your kids future
will be better than yours, etc. In all of these surveys, it is the pessimism
of whites, untethered from empirical reality, that stands out as the
outlier.
"Sad because a spiritual argument against the excesses of capitalism
might actually gain more traction at this point, than tired liberal
arguments."
It would gain more traction, and it would be better focused at what
is much larger cause of the current social, economic, and family problems
of the working classes.
But the argument won't be made, because the majority of those that
believe in a societal crisis have pinned the origin of this crisis on
feminism, the sexual revolution, and SJW, and have bought in full the
bootstraps language of the radical capitalism. Even the majority crunchy
cons, that would be sympathetic to the arguments against capitalism,
would rather try to solve the ills of the world via cultural instead
of economic ways.
Pope Francis (and to a slighly lesser degree, his two predecessors)
has spoken frequently about unbridled capitalism as a source of the
world ills. But his message hasn't been that well received among American
conservatives
[NFR: Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict said the same thing.
- RD]
Bush proved that electing an imbecile to the Presidency has real
consequences for our standing in the world. Trump is just as stupid,
but he is far more dangerous. At least Bush wasn't a egomaniac.
Trump starts speaking without knowing how his sentence will end, and
then he will go to down fighting to defend whatever it was he said even
though he never really meant it in the first place. That mix of arrogance
and stupidity is more dangerous than Bush.
"In fact, I doubt we any longer possess enough of a 'civilization' to
understand what a 'civilizational crisis' would really mean."
I think someone has no idea what "civilization" means. None of his
definitions apply.
What we are seeing is the radical change in Western Civilization
from the old Graeco-Roman/Christian model to a yet undefined American
model. (Which is why Islam in Europe is not very important. Europe is
no longer very important.) No one guards the "glory that was Greece"
any more. We've moved out of that. The debate will be when did the transition
occur. Did it begin in the 19th Century with the Age of Invention? Did
it occur in the flash of gunpowder that was WW1? Was it the blasting
to rubble of Monte Cassino when the weapons of the new blew the symbol
of the old to ruin? Was it the moment men stood upon the Moon and nothing
the bronze age pilers of rocks had to say was of any value any more?
The key to understanding the change is that the old values are dead
and we are in the process of creating new ones. No one knows where that
is going to go. It is all too new.
Hanby is wrong. We have a civilization, but it is leaving his in
the dust.
Totally unconvincing. It couldn't be more obvious that Hillary stands
for rule by globalists whereas Trump intends to return control of the
federal government to We the People.
Which candidate is traveling to Louisiana? Flint? Detroit? Mexico
(on behalf of America)? Which candidate calls tens of millions of Americans
irredeemable and thus it would be justified in exterminating them?
Seriously, only one of these two appears interested in leading the
nation.
"What's exhausted is religion as a necessary component of social
life."
This is so hilariously untrue, but also very sad that the secular
Left cannot see its own idols or even read its own headlines.
What does he think is happening in the United States besides the
rise of a revolutionary moral order, ruled by fickle tastemakers who
believe that their own emotions and thoughts have creative power? How
else would history have a "side"? How else could "gender" be entirely
unmoored from sex and any other scientific fact? Progressivism even
has "climate change" as its chosen apocalypse which will visit destruction
if not enough fealty is granted to an ever-more-omnipotent and omniscient
central government? Does he not see how over and over again, this week's
progressive leaders attacks last week's? Amy Schumer, anyone?
Once a culture abolishes the One True God, as ours has, then that
culture begins to find other sources for the attributes of God and for
the definitions of virtues and vices.
What makes Mr. Cosimano so sure that what America is passing into
is anything like a "civilization" at all? We could simple pass into
barbarism. Can anyone name the leaders who hope to build any kind of
civilization at all?
Never forget that there is a real and clear choice before us.
Clinton will deliver amnesty to 40 million illegals. Continue the
1 million legal immigrants per yer all from the Third World. She will
radically upsize the Muslim refugee influx to hundreds of thousands
per year. All terrible things.
Trump will do the opposite. This will make a massive difference to
the future of the country - Trump, good…Clinton, bad - and is what this
election is about.
For 70+ years, other than while working on a university degree in history,
I never gave a thought to civilizational collapse, so I would have been
a poor choice to ask for a definition of the term. But after a few years
of reading TAC I think I have a handle on it. It's a situation in which
someone or some group sees broad social change they don't like. So probably
civilizational collapse is constant and ongoing.
As for me, I'm outside somewhere every day and so far not even a
tiny piece of the sky has fallen on me.
@xrdsmom
Empirical reality depends on where you stand. Younote that your prospects
have improved relative to your mom's. For the working class whites working
at low paying jobs, they have declined. Is their anger simply a response
to loss of white privilege? In the sense that this privilege consisted
of access to well-paying jobs out of high school, the answer is yes.
I would only point out that there is no clear path to economic safety
for working Americans, whether they are white are black. Training and
hard work will only take you so far in our demand-constrained economy.
Whether black optimism or white pessimism turns out to be empirically
justified is far from certain. We are constructing the future as we
speak, and our actions will determine the answer to this question.
It's true a lot of people couldn't point to Syria; because that's how
important it is to most people. So why are we now involved in a full
scale war there, when the American people clearly stated they didn't
want another war?
As the WikiLeaks dox show, it wasn't "barrel bombs" or "chemical
warfare against his own people" that made the elites hungry to overthrow
the government there, it was the 2009 decision by Syria not to allow
an oil pipeline through from Qatar to Turkey, whereupon the CIA was
directed to start funding jihadists and regime change.
Hillary is not as corrupt as some think nor is Trump likely to be able
to enact much of his agenda(most of which he has no commitment to –
it is all a performance). So I do not see either as end times candidates.
However – a civilization must assure certain things – order, cohesion,
safety from invasion and occupation. It also must assure that the resources
we secure from the earth are available – good soil, clean water, sustainable
management of energy sources etc. This is where our civilization is
failing – if you doubt this – spend a moment looking up soil erosion
on Google. Or dead zones Mississippi and Nile deltas. Depletion of fish
stocks. Loss of arable land and potable water all over the planet. Is
this calamitous failure a function of liberalism or capitalism run amok?
Perhaps the two go hand in hand?
I'd note that Popes going back to
Leo XIII have written on the destructive effects of capitalism or rather
the unmitigated pursuit of wealth. Both Benedict and Francis have eloquently
expressed the need for a spiritual conversion to solve the world's problems.
A conversion which recognizes our solidarity with one another as well
as our obligation to the health of Creation. I rather doubt we will
find the impetus for this conversion among our politicians.
But there are certainly all over the earth groups of people who have
experienced this conversion and are seeking to build civilizations which
are just and sustainable. Rod has written about some – his friends in
Italy as an example.
The problem is not civilization-level, Mr. Dreher. The problem is
species -level. Humanity as a whole is discovering that it cannot handle
too high a level of technology without losing its ability to get feedback
from its environment. Without that feedback, its elite classes drift
off into literal insanity. The rest of the society soon follows.
The trick is going to be recovering our connection with the Realities
of existence without bringing technological civilization down or re-engineering
Humanity into something we would not recognize.
Color me less than optimistic about our prospects.
"I really think there is a pervasive, but unarticulated sense that
liberalism is exhausted, that we are at the mercy of systematic forces,
difficult to name, which can be manipulated by the powerful but not
governed by them, and that our problems are unsolvable. The reasons
for this anxiety are manifold and cannot be reduced to politics or economics…"
"For Trump to be revealed as a salvational figure, the conditions
around him must be dire. Trump_vs_deep_state-like fascism, like a certain kind
of smash-it-up punk rock-begins in apprehensions of apocalypse."
Hanky's diagnosis is brilliant. Yes, thanks for posting, Rod.
One of our fundamental problems, along with the conceptual horizons
imposed by liberalism, is the obsolete language of "left" and "right"
that we continue to apply when weighing our options. This too is part
of why we can't construct a politics of hope, and in my reading it explains
the decline of the left into identity politics (our Democratic Party
is not any more "the left" in any meaningful way) and of the right into
"movement conservatism" or Trumpian nationalism.
Classical [neo]liberalism presents itself not as a tentative theory of
how society might be organized but as a theory of nature. It claims
to lay out the forces of nature and to make these a model for social
order. Thus free-market fundamentalism, letting the market function
"as nature intended". It's an absurd position when applied dogmatically,
and no more "natural" than other economic arrangements humans might
come up with.
The only truly rock solid aspect of classical liberalism in my mind
is its theory of individual dignity, the permanent and nonnegotiable
value of each individual in essence and before the law. The left has
taken this and run with it and turned it into a divination of individual
desire and self-definition, which is something different. The capitalist
right has taken it and turned it into a theory of individual responsibility
for one's economic fate, which is helpful in ways, but not decisive
or even fully explanatory as to why people end up where they are. And
a lot of people are not in a good place thanks to the free trade enthusiasts
who believe what they're up to somehow reflects the eternal forces of
nature.
Further, as I suggest, our two camps "left" and "right" are no
longer distinctly left and right in any traditional sense. The market
forces and self-marketing that lead to the fetishization of identity
by the left are the same market forces championed by the capitalist
right. In America today, both left and right are merely different bourgeois
cults of Self.
It should be no surprise that the inalienable dignity of the individual,
that rock solid core of liberal thinking, grew directly from the Christian
soil of Paul's assertion of the equality of all–men, women, Greek, Jew,
freed, slave–in Christ. (Galatians 3:28) The world's current thinking
on "human rights" is merely a universalized version of Paul's thought,
hatched in a Christian Europe by philosophes who didn't recognize
just how Christian they were.
After all the utopian dusts settle, whether the dust of Adam Smith
or the dust of PC Non-Discrimination, we must see that the one thing
holding us together is this recognition that the political order must
respect human rights. The core issue at present is thus that we legislate
in ways that reflect a realistic understanding of these rights. As for
"movement conservatism" or PC progressivism, they each represent pipe
dreams that don't address the economic or legal challenges in coherent
ways, and they each sacrifice true rights at one altar or another.
The obsolete language of "left" and "right" keeps us unwilling to
grapple with the real economic and legal challenges, if only because
we're too busy cheerleading either one version of the capitalist cult
or the other.
I'm looking forward to The Benedict Option mainly as providing
some answers as to how the remnant of faithful Christians in this mayhem
might both hold their faith intact while perhaps simultaneously developing
less utopian modes of thinking about community. The neoliberal order
may very well be shaping up to be for us something like the pagan Roman
Empire was to the early church. We finally have to face that, politically
speaking, we are in the world but not of it.
Re: Clinton will deliver amnesty to 40 million illegals.
Will she be inviting them in from parallel universes? Because we
do not have 40 million illegals. The number is closer to eleven million.
Also the president can't do this on his/her own. Congress has to
act. The House will remain GOP. The Senate may too, or will flip back
to GOP after 2018. As I mentioned Clinton's hands will be tied as much
as Obama's have been since 2010. That includes Supreme Court appointments.
Only the most boring of moderates will get through– sure, they won't
overturn Roe or Oberfell, but they won't rubber stamp much new either.
"Pope Francis (and to a slighly lesser degree, his two predecessors)
has spoken frequently about unbridled capitalism as a source of the world
ills. But his message hasn't been that well received among American conservatives."
[NFR: Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict said the same thing. -
RD]"
It doesn't sit well for two reasons: (a) we have yet to hear a cogent
description of what "bridled" capitalism is/looks like and (b) capitalism
has its faults, but it has raised far more boats than it has swamped.
Until we hear an admission of (b) and an explanation of (a), their statements
will continue to fall on deaf ears. Particularly from Pope Francis, whose
grip on economic ideas seems tenuous at best.
"... If that record is perceived as unacceptable, then again it doesn't much matter who the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent or incumbent party loses. ..."
"... The Clinton email thing does not begin to rise to the level of Watergate or the Monica Lewinsky affair, except perhaps in the fever swamps of Fox News. ..."
"... My guess is that ultimately the two third parties fielding candidates this election will not trigger this key; they are what Lichtman calls "perennial third parties" and not really insurgencies led by well-known political figures, which is when the third party key is generally triggered. ..."
"... Having said all that, I congratulate the author for recognizing and engaging with Lichtman's work. It's a very substantial theory with a great track record that, for reasons I don't fully understand, is generally overlooked by journalists who write about such things. ..."
"... Right now, polling composite scores put Hillary Clinton at +5 or more over Trump in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Virginia. Add in the safely blue states and her floor is 272 electoral votes, even assuming she underperforms relative to her polling by 5 points across the board. Hillary wins even on a bad night. ..."
"... We elected Obama in large part to repudiate Bush, who was a total disaster. Now, if your hypothesis holds, we may elect Trump over Hillary as a repudiation of Obama who is becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute. In 4 or 8 years, which loser will the Democrats trot out to repudiate Trump, who is virtually guaranteed to be a total disaster? Most sane Americans just want this roller coaster to be over. ..."
"... Trump has the momentum right now, as Hillary Clinton stumbles. ..."
"... The overall national numbers show a slight and late recovery from recession. However, the average and median numbers conceal a split, in which a majority of voters did not participate in the recovery, especially in key swing states. ..."
"... Trump is actively drawing support from this sense of failure to recover, so it is not just theoretical. I'd score the recovery against the incumbent too, because key voting segments would. ..."
"... We are seeing a good example of the preference cascade. For well over a year Clinton has been capped at 45%, usually in the low 40's. As it becomes more respectable to vote for Trump, the more people are willing to move from the undecided/third party column to the Trump column. ..."
"... If I recall correctly, Lichtman also scores both the foreign policy/military success and failure keys differently. ISIS is a foreign policy failure, but not on the public perception of Pearl Harbor, the fall of Vietnam, or the Iran hostage crisis. And the Iran deal is a foreign policy success, but not on the level of, say, winning WWII. ..."
"... Polls, by themselves, don't predict much, and certainly not long-term – although I agree that Clinton remains the likely winner this year. ..."
"... Obama (I did not vote for him in '08 or '12) has succeeded and some areas, and failed in others – such is the nature of the job. ..."
"... As a student of history, I suspect his presidency will be graded somewhere between B- and C+; slightly above average. Whereas, by your assessment, his predecessor was "can't miss" disasters (D- leaning toward F). ..."
"... we may elect Trump over Hillary as a repudiation of Obama who is becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute ..."
"... At the end of the day, though, Lichtman's model, like most models of voting behavior, is not intended so much as a predictive system as an attempt to explain how voters make decisions. The Lichtman theory does a remarkable job of modeling such decision-making, and demonstrates clearly his hypothesis that presidential elections are mostly referenda on the performance of the incumbent party. That doesn't mean it will always be so, but he makes a compelling case that it's been that way since the Civil War. ..."
"... Obama's economy isn't gonna help Hillary Clinton. Government data show that the economy only grew by 1.2 percent in the second quarter. First quarter growth was also revised down from 1.1 percent to 0.8 percent. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton addressed the sluggish economy in her speech last night, admitting that Americans "feel like the economy just isn't working." Although she cited economic growth under president Obama, she insisted that "none of us can be satisfied with the status quo." ..."
In 1976, Washington insider Averell Harriman famously said of Georgia peanut
farmer Jimmy Carter, the one-term governor and presidential aspirant, "He can't
be nominated, I don't know him and I don't know anyone who does.'' Within months
Jimmy Carter was president. Harriman's predictive folly serves as an allegory
of democratic politics. The unthinkable can happen, and when it does it becomes
not only thinkable but natural, even commonplace. The many compelling elements
of Carter's unusual presidential quest remained shrouded from Harriman's vision
because they didn't track with his particular experiences and political perceptions.
Call it the Harriman syndrome.
The Harriman syndrome has been on full display during the presidential candidacy
of Donald Trump. He couldn't possibly get the Republican nomination. Too boorish.
A political neophyte. No organization. No intellectual depth. A divisive character
out of sync with Republicans' true sensibilities. Then he got the nomination,
and now those same perceptions are being trotted out to bolster the view that
he can't possibly become president. Besides, goes the conventional wisdom, demographic
trends are impinging upon the Electoral College in ways that pretty much preclude
any Republican from winning the presidency in our time.
But Trump actually can win, despite his gaffe-prone ways and his poor standing
in the polls as the general-election campaign gets under way. I say this based
upon my thesis, explored in my latest book ( Where They Stand: The American
Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians ), that presidential elections
are largely referendums on the incumbent or incumbent party. If the incumbent's
record is adjudged by the electorate to be exemplary, it doesn't matter who
the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent wins. If
that record is perceived as unacceptable, then again it doesn't much matter
who the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent or incumbent
party loses.
Worth noting is that Lichtman himself scores the keys differently than does
the author of this post. As the inventor of the system, his analysis deserves
considerable weight. In particular, he scores the nomination contest key,
the scandal key, and the challenger charisma key as all favorable to Democrats.
I'm not sure I agree with him about the nomination contest key, but I
think that, by the criteria he used in analyzing past elections, he's right
about the other two. The Clinton email thing does not begin to rise
to the level of Watergate or the Monica Lewinsky affair, except perhaps
in the fever swamps of Fox News. As far as charisma, Lichtman identified
four 20th-century candidates as charismatic: the two Roosevelts, Kennedy,
and Reagan. Trump is not in that league.
The third-party key is, as the author states, not really possible to
call at this point. My guess is that ultimately the two third parties
fielding candidates this election will not trigger this key; they are what
Lichtman calls "perennial third parties" and not really insurgencies led
by well-known political figures, which is when the third party key is generally
triggered.
One other point is worth mentioning. Lichtman's first key, the incumbent
mandate key, changed during the development of his theory. It was originally
based on whether the incumbent party had received an absolute majority of
the popular vote in the previous election (which, in this case, would have
favored the Democrats). But, because that led to the system predicting an
incorrect outcome in one particular election (I don't remember which one),
he changed it to the current comparison of seats won in the previous two
mid-terms. I think there's a case to be made that the advanced state of
the gerrymandering art may have rendered this key useless; it is now entirely
possible for a party to gain seats from one mid-term to the next while actually
doing less well in the popular vote. In fact, that's exactly what happened
from 2010 to 2014; the percentage of the vote that Republican house members
received was lower in 2014 than it was in 2010, even though they gained
more seats in 2014. In any case, I don't think that it really favors Trump
in the way the author of the OP thinks it does.
Having said all that, I congratulate the author for recognizing and
engaging with Lichtman's work. It's a very substantial theory with a great
track record that, for reasons I don't fully understand, is generally overlooked
by journalists who write about such things.
I'm highly skeptical of this kind of historic analysis. It's the sort of
thing that works until it doesn't, and even then only sort of works because
the idea's proponents wind up explaining away the exceptions.
What I trust is polling. It's quite well refined, and averaging the results
of multiple polls tends to smooth out errors.
Right now, polling composite scores put Hillary Clinton at +5 or
more over Trump in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, Colorado, Wisconsin,
and Virginia. Add in the safely blue states and her floor is 272 electoral
votes, even assuming she underperforms relative to her polling by 5 points
across the board. Hillary wins even on a bad night.
Of course Trump might close some of that gap in the next seven weeks.
We'll see.
"If the incumbent's record is adjudged by the electorate to be exemplary,
it doesn't matter who the challenger is or what he or she says or does.
The incumbent wins. If that record is perceived as unacceptable, then
again it doesn't much matter who the challenger is or what he or she
says or does. The incumbent or incumbent party loses."
That is a compelling hypothesis which I find very plausible. As our two
parties drift farther apart and become incapable of giving us any representatives
whom we find exemplary, what happens to us? We elected Obama in large
part to repudiate Bush, who was a total disaster. Now, if your hypothesis
holds, we may elect Trump over Hillary as a repudiation of Obama who is
becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute. In 4 or 8 years, which
loser will the Democrats trot out to repudiate Trump, who is virtually guaranteed
to be a total disaster? Most sane Americans just want this roller coaster
to be over.
I'm highly skeptical of this kind of historic analysis. It's the
sort of thing that works until it doesn't, and even then only sort of
works because the idea's proponents wind up explaining away the exceptions.
This, in spades. Plus, many of these keys are so subjective (at least
prospectively) as to render them meaningless for anything but fun predictive
parlor games.
What I trust is polling. It's quite well refined, and averaging
the results of multiple polls tends to smooth out errors.
Yes and no. Gallup thought this, too, when it predicted Dewey would defeat
Truman. Nate Silver was absolutely positive that Trump could never ever
ever win the Republican nomination, until he did.
My analysis is that under the old, pre-Big Data-driven elections (i.e.
micro-targeting your likely voters, registering them if they are unregistered,
and stopping at nothing (probably not even the election laws) in getting
them to the polls), Trump would win rather handily, but under the new Big
Data-driven campaigns that the initial Obama campaign was the first to master,
Clinton is a huge favorite, baggage and all. Organization and ground game
trumps a lot – not everything, but a lot.
The overall national numbers show a slight and late recovery from recession.
However, the average and median numbers conceal a split, in which a majority
of voters did not participate in the recovery, especially in key swing states.
Trump is actively drawing support from this sense of failure to recover,
so it is not just theoretical. I'd score the recovery against the incumbent
too, because key voting segments would.
Averaging polls is the sort of thing people not good at math like to say,
believing it makes them sound good at math.
We are seeing a good example of the preference cascade. For well
over a year Clinton has been capped at 45%, usually in the low 40's. As
it becomes more respectable to vote for Trump, the more people are willing
to move from the undecided/third party column to the Trump column.
If I recall correctly, Lichtman also scores both the foreign policy/military
success and failure keys differently. ISIS is a foreign policy failure,
but not on the public perception of Pearl Harbor, the fall of Vietnam, or
the Iran hostage crisis. And the Iran deal is a foreign policy success,
but not on the level of, say, winning WWII.
I'm highly skeptical of this kind of historic analysis. It's
the sort of thing that works until it doesn't, and even then only sort
of works because the idea's proponents wind up explaining away the exceptions.
What I trust is polling. It's quite well refined, and averaging
the results of multiple polls tends to smooth out errors.
Lichtman has been able to predict successfully the popular-vote winner
for the last 7 or 8 elections, in many cases many months in advance – which,
by standards of electoral prediction models, is pretty remarkable. Polls,
by themselves, don't predict much, and certainly not long-term – although
I agree that Clinton remains the likely winner this year.
@Tim, How has/is Obama "becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute."?
The consensus might be on the Foreign Policy side of the equation, but truthfully,
he's spent 8 years cleaning up the mess handed him by the "total disaster"
who preceded him. If you want the rollercoaster to be over, get off the
rollercoaster. That is to say, most of the excitement offered by the rollercoaster
lies in its design (partisan/tribal/echo chamber nonsense).
See: Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, emails, Parkinson's, etc., etc. be
legitimate concerns for a John Q. Public, the hyperbolic birther indignation
does a disservice to critical thinking, rational Americans. Make no mistake,
the GOP candidate has literally made a career (TV/Pro Wrestling) trading
in this currency, but in the end, such hyperbole is a distraction. Obama
(I did not vote for him in '08 or '12) has succeeded and some areas, and
failed in others – such is the nature of the job.
As a student of history, I suspect his presidency will be graded
somewhere between B- and C+; slightly above average. Whereas, by your assessment,
his predecessor was "can't miss" disasters (D- leaning toward F).
I also fail to see how President Obama, a veritable reincarnation of Bill
Clinton, but without the scandals, is "becoming more of a disaster each
passing minute." We have less (visible) war, we have more jobs, and we have
better pay. Yes, the small segment of the population that was paying peanuts
for narrowly-defined healthcare 'plans' is paying more now for healthcare
than they were 6 years ago, but a large segment now has healthcare that
previously did not. This will take decades to unfold but the savings will
be immense over the long run. Our international prestige is as high or higher
than it was at its peak in 2002 (before Bush started the stupider of his
two wars).
It's barely an exaggeration to say that, outside of the echo chamber,
none of partisan concerns of the right wing are shared by the electorate
at large. The plight of the underclass (of any color) is not being addressed
regardless of which candidate you choose in this election. Immigration is
a red herring issue, designed to hide the fact that your boss hasn't given
you a raise in 20 years.
I'm sure it makes Obama haters and Republican partisans feel good to think
that Obama's Presidency is the cause for Hillary Clinton's loss (if she
does indeed lose). Economic indicators along with Presidential approval
ratings however suggest that if Hillary does lose it will be in spite of
the electorates feelings on Obama not because of it.
many of these keys are so subjective (at least prospectively) as to render
them meaningless for anything but fun predictive parlor games.
That is the usual objection to Lichtman's theory. But his work gives
pretty clear examples of what he considers the kind of events that drive
his predictors. For example, "foreign policy/military success" looks like
winning WWII and not like the Iran nuclear deal; "foreign policy/military
failure" looks like Pearl Harbor and not ISIS' (temporary) success in gaining
territory. "Scandal" looks like Watergate, and not like Clinton's email
(or, interestingly, Iran/Contra, if memory serves). "Social unrest" looks
like the summer of 1968, and not like the shootings in Orlando, Dallas,
and San Bernadino.
In short, events that drive his predictors are things that are the main
(or even sole) subject of national conversation for weeks. Deciding what
events are such drivers is not completely objective, perhaps, but it's also
not hard to figure out what the author of the system would consider a given
event. A system like his only works if one scores things as honestly as
possible, and not as one might wish them to be. Then it can work very well.
At the end of the day, though, Lichtman's model, like most models
of voting behavior, is not intended so much as a predictive system as an
attempt to explain how voters make decisions. The Lichtman theory does a
remarkable job of modeling such decision-making, and demonstrates clearly
his hypothesis that presidential elections are mostly referenda on the performance
of the incumbent party. That doesn't mean it will always be so, but he makes
a compelling case that it's been that way since the Civil War.
With the chance that Donald will be President, and his followers rejecting
outright the Washington establishment and corporate media as enemies; if
he does come to power, who are We, the People, supposed to respect and trust?
How can you be loyal to, and obey the laws of, a country governed by "Washington
insiders"? How can you trust the liberal, coastal, educated, elite media
reporting government malfeasance? In who or what should we place our trust?
Dark days ahead, dark days.
The hope must be in a reinvigorated Republican Party in 2018 and 2020. As
Trump again raises his birther conspiracy, the strongman will give voters
plenty of reasons to reject his incoherent campaign. Total waste, when 2016
should have firmly been in Republican hands. I understand why he demolished
the Republican field and realigned the issues that galvanize Republican
voters, but in the end his pathological narcissism will be his downfall.
If he wins, it will be the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic
Party. They will control government from 2018 to the end of our lives.
Obama's economy isn't gonna help Hillary Clinton. Government data show
that the economy only grew by 1.2 percent in the second quarter. First quarter
growth was also revised down from 1.1 percent to 0.8 percent.
Hillary Clinton addressed the sluggish economy in her speech last
night, admitting that Americans "feel like the economy just isn't working."
Although she cited economic growth under president Obama, she insisted that
"none of us can be satisfied with the status quo."
"... "Trump must hold all 24 states carried by Mitt Romney in 2012 and add Ohio and Florida to the tally. A loss in Florida, Ohio or in increasingly competitive North Carolina – which Romney carried by just 2.2 percentage points over President Barack Obama – would hand Clinton the presidency"" [ US News ]. ..."
"... Voters in mid-September do not swing between Clinton and Trump (my colleagues and I have dubbed that The Mythical Swing Voter), but between undecided and/or third-party support and Clinton or Trump ..."
"... The Republican establishment doesn't trust Trump. But they need him, and are in the process of supplying the efficient field organization ..."
"... Hillary represents despair in the form of cynicism and resignation, as evidenced by the fact that neither she, nor her surrogates, nor even her flacks in the press really pretend to believe in what she is selling. ..."
"... Trump represents despair in the form of anger and desperation, the willingness to embrace a strongman and a charlatan in the (false) hopes of regaining some kind of control over 'the system', whatever it is (which is a fascinating question, by the way.) ..."
"... He's the one who convinced these folks that Clinton was in the pocket of Wall Street. ..."
"... He's the one who convinced them she was a tool of wealthy elites. ..."
"... He's the one who convinced them she was a corporate shill. She supported the TPP! ..."
"... most of it can be laid at the feet of Bernie Sanders. He convinced young voters that Hillary Clinton was a shifty, corrupt, lying shill who cared nothing for real progressive values-despite a literal lifetime of fighting for them. Sadly, that stuck. ..."
"... To date, we hear Bernie did it, Colin did it, Bush did it, Trump (or his baby-sized foundation) did it, Goldman Sachs offered it, or pneumonia caused it. ..."
"... re: The Despair Election " Both are absolutely awful, indeed unthinkable, albeit in different ways, and yet this is what liberal neoliberal order has come to." There, fixed it. ..."
"... Pennsylvania is often cited as a model of the country as a whole with Philidelphia, on one end, Pittsburgh on the other, and the south in between. In reality it is a good model in some ways but not that way. ..."
"... The Philidelphia area has the new shipping facilities and is poised to gain logistics jobs especially under any new trade deal with Europe. ..."
"... Pittsburgh has rusting steel factories, decaying infrastructure, industrial pollution that is scary, and is now serving as a testbed for driverless uber. ..."
"... And Central Pennsylvania has farming families that are unsure what will happen. Rural towns that have been transformed, and in some cases irretrievably polluted, by fracking. And factories that may or may not stay in business. ..."
"... Some percentage (say 1 or so) of those people have won in the new economy. Others such as the educated in Pittsburgh may be poised to take advantage of high speed rail to build a new tech hub, or they may be too late. And many others are simply shut out of real power or decisionmaking. ..."
"... I expect that Clinton will carry the cities and Trump will carry the rural areas. The deciding vote will lie in the suburbs which have swung both ways. ..."
"... She is an abominable candidate, a wooden speaker, a cynical triangulator, and-to put it kindly-ethically challenged." ..."
"... Is anyone asking Kevin Drum, why blame Bernie Sanders when the Democratic Party tied one of their hands behind their back by overwhelming supporting the candidate that almost half of America already hated? ..."
"... When every poll showed that Clinton had barely fifty percent of America that didn't dislike her at the start, ..."
"... Still the party elite, for reasons that had nothing to do with what was best for the country decided to game the system and nominate Clinton despite her flaws, her well noted campaign problems (as in she is terrible at it) ..."
"... Clearly the only people to blame if Clinton loses, are the people who insisted that she was the only candidate from the beginning – the Clintons, their donors, the Democratic Party which they have corrupted so completely. ..."
"... 'Hillary Clinton was a shifty, corrupt, lying shill who cared nothing for real progressive values…' ..."
"Trump must hold all 24 states carried by Mitt Romney in 2012 and
add Ohio and Florida to the tally. A loss in Florida, Ohio or in increasingly
competitive North Carolina – which Romney carried by just 2.2 percentage
points over President Barack Obama – would hand Clinton the presidency""
[
US News ].
UPDATE "Why the Whole Trump-Clinton Election Could Probably Just Be Held
in Pennsylvania" [
New York Times ]. This is a very interesting article, well worth a read.
It caught my eye because Pennsylvania is also part of the shipping story,
with new warehousing and infrastructure. So I'd be interested in what our
Pennsylvania readers think. Another tidbit: "Voters in mid-September
do not swing between Clinton and Trump (my colleagues and I have dubbed
that The Mythical Swing Voter), but between undecided and/or third-party
support and Clinton or Trump. So the larger that pool, the larger the
potential swing." And one more: "Voting is a major cost for many Americans
with hourly wage jobs." So I could have filed this under Class Warfare.
"The Republican establishment doesn't trust Trump. But they need
him, and are in the process of supplying the efficient field organization
he's never shown any interest in building" [
Bloomberg ]. "
... ... ...
UPDATE "Clinton and Trump's demographic tug of war" (handy charts) [
WaPo ]. I knew before I looked at this they wouldn't slice by income.
UPDATE "The Despair Election" [
The American Conservative ]. Quoting Michael Hanby, a Catholic philosopher:
"hat we have in this election is fundamentally a contest between two forms
of despair: Hillary represents despair in the form of cynicism and resignation,
as evidenced by the fact that neither she, nor her surrogates, nor even
her flacks in the press really pretend to believe in what she is selling.
There is obvious cynicism within Trump_vs_deep_state as well; his supporters, on those
rare occasions when he makes sense, seem to know that he is lying to them.
But Trump represents despair in the form of anger and desperation, the
willingness to embrace a strongman and a charlatan in the (false) hopes
of regaining some kind of control over 'the system', whatever it is (which
is a fascinating question, by the way.) Both are absolutely awful,
indeed unthinkable, albeit in different ways, and yet this is what liberal
order has come to."
UPDATE "A Reuters survey found local governments in nearly a dozen, mostly
Republican-dominated counties in Georgia have adopted plans to reduce the
number of voting stations, citing cost savings and efficiency" [
Reuters ]. Don't they always.
* * *
A Scott Adams roundup. Chronologically: "It turns out that Trump's base
personality is 'winning.' Everything else he does is designed to get that
result. He needed to be loud and outrageous in the primaries, so he was.
He needs to be presidential in this phase of the election cycle, so he is"
[
Scott Adams ].
"Sometimes you need a 'fake because' to rationalize whatever you are
doing. … When Clinton collapsed at the 9-11 site, that was enough to end
her chances of winning. But adding the 'fake because' to her 'deplorable'
comment will super-charge whatever was going to happen anyway" [
Scott Adams ].
"Checking My Predictions About Clinton's Health" [
Scott Adams ].
"The Race for President is (Probably) Over" [
Scott Adams ]. "If humans were rational creatures, the time and place
of Clinton's 'overheating' wouldn't matter at all. But when it comes to
American psychology, there is no more powerful symbol of terrorism and fear
than 9-11 . When a would-be Commander-in-Chief withers – literally – in
front of our most emotional reminder of an attack on the homeland, we feel
unsafe. And safety is our first priority."
* * *
As soon as the race tightened, there was a rash of stories about Millenials
[ugh] not voting for Clinton. And now various Democrat apparatchiks
have started to browbeat them, apparently believing that's the best
strategy. Here's one such: "Blame Millennials for President Trump" [
Daily Beast ]. I'm sure you've seen others.
UPDATE Other Democrat operatives are preparing the way to pin the blame
on anybody but the Democrat establishment and the candidate it chose. Here,
Kevin Drum squanders the good will on his balance sheet from his story on
lead and crime: "Don't Hate Millennials. Save It For Bernie Sanders" [Kevin
Drum,
Mother Jones ].
I reserve most of my frustration for Bernie Sanders. He's the one
who convinced these folks that Clinton was in the pocket of Wall Street.
She gave a speech to Goldman Sachs! He's the one who convinced them
she was a tool of wealthy elites. She's raising money from rich
people! He's the one who convinced them she was a corporate shill.
She supported the TPP! He's the one who, when he finally endorsed
her, did it so grudgingly that he sounded like a guy being held hostage.
He's the one who did next to nothing to get his supporters to stop booing
her from the convention floor. He's the one who promised he'd campaign
his heart out to defeat Donald Trump, but has done hardly anything since-despite
finding plenty of time to campaign against Debbie Wasserman Schultz
and set up an anti-TPP movement.
There's a reason that very young millennials are strongly anti-Clinton
even though the same age group supported Obama energetically during
his elections-and it's not because their policy views are very different.
A small part of it is probably just that Clinton is 68 years old (though
Sanders was older). Part of it is probably that she isn't the inspirational
speaker Obama was. But most of it can be laid at the feet of Bernie
Sanders. He convinced young voters that Hillary Clinton was a shifty,
corrupt, lying shill who cared nothing for real progressive values-despite
a literal lifetime of fighting for them. Sadly, that stuck.
In other words, these young (i.e., silly, unlike wise old farts like
Drum) didn't
"do their own research." And so apparently the demonic Sanders found
it very easy to deceive them. Sad! Oh, and it's also interesting to see
liberal Drum explicitly legitimizing hate. Again, this election has been
wonderfully clarifying.
"Don't Hate Millennials. Save It For Bernie Sanders" [Kevin Drum,
Mother Jones].
Shouldn't we blame Hillary Clinton for people's perception that she is
in the pocket of Wall Street, that she is tool of wealthy elites, that she
is a corporate shill, and that she supports the TPP? Because she is in the
pocket of Wall Street, she is tool of wealthy elites, she is a corporate
shill, and she does support the TPP (few people really believe her recent
claims to oppose it).
Wow. Read that for a ride on the blame train. When are HRC and her buddies
going to start offering something instead of pointing the finger at others?
To date, we hear Bernie did it, Colin did it, Bush did it, Trump
(or his baby-sized foundation) did it, Goldman Sachs offered it, or pneumonia
caused it.
re: The Despair Election " Both are absolutely awful, indeed unthinkable,
albeit in different ways, and yet this is what liberal neoliberal order
has come to." There, fixed it.
Indeed, the Democrat freakout about millennials is hilarious. They're
trotting out Al Gore and the discredited notion that votes for Nader spoiled
the election, rather than, say, a defective candidate.
UPDATE "Why the Whole Trump-Clinton Election Could Probably Just
Be Held in Pennsylvania" [New York Times]. This is a very interesting
article, well worth a read. It caught my eye because Pennsylvania is
also part of the shipping story, with new warehousing and infrastructure.
So I'd be interested in what our Pennsylvania readers think.
I strongly suspect that will depend upon which Pennsylvania voter you
ask. Pennsylvania is often cited as a model of the country as a whole
with Philidelphia, on one end, Pittsburgh on the other, and the south in
between. In reality it is a good model in some ways but not that way.
The Philidelphia area has the new shipping facilities and is poised
to gain logistics jobs especially under any new trade deal with Europe.
Pittsburgh has rusting steel factories, decaying infrastructure,
industrial pollution that is scary, and is now serving as a testbed for
driverless uber.
And Central Pennsylvania has farming families that are unsure what
will happen. Rural towns that have been transformed, and in some cases irretrievably
polluted, by fracking. And factories that may or may not stay in business.
Some percentage (say 1 or so) of those people have won in the new
economy. Others such as the educated in Pittsburgh may be poised to take
advantage of high speed rail to build a new tech hub, or they may be too
late. And many others are simply shut out of real power or decisionmaking.
I expect that Clinton will carry the cities and Trump will carry
the rural areas. The deciding vote will lie in the suburbs which have swung
both ways.
At the beginning, the author says about Clinton, "She is an abominable
candidate, a wooden speaker, a cynical triangulator, and-to put it kindly-ethically
challenged."
Then, he spends the rest of the article asking why Millenials don't
want to vote for her.
I have no words.
And the best part is the last line: "If Trump wins, we'll get what we
deserve"
Is anyone asking Kevin Drum, why blame Bernie Sanders when the Democratic
Party tied one of their hands behind their back by overwhelming supporting
the candidate that almost half of America already hated?
When every poll showed that Clinton had barely fifty percent of America
that didn't dislike her at the start, when all the polls after Trump
had pretty much cinched the nomination made it clear that Sanders was the
stronger candidate, the only logical choice if you wanted a Democratic President
was to nominate Sanders. Still the party elite, for reasons that had
nothing to do with what was best for the country decided to game the system
and nominate Clinton despite her flaws, her well noted campaign problems
(as in she is terrible at it), and the fact that no matter how many
times she reintroduces herself a huge percentage of people do not like her
and largely do not trust her (and didn't before Sanders even entered the
race) and pretend she could wipe the floor with Trump.
Clearly the only people to blame if Clinton loses, are the people
who insisted that she was the only candidate from the beginning – the Clintons,
their donors, the Democratic Party which they have corrupted so completely.
This coupled with media idiots like Drum who either are paid to be
oblivious and chose that life OR are so divorced from the reality of life
for the majority of Americans they cannot comprehend why anyone could despise
the status quo they would be willing to roll the dice with the unknown quantity.
I might have tried taking it on, but there will be no convincing him
(or the readers stupid enough to blame Sanders or the millenials). He cannot
blame the candidate herself and her machine, because that would admit that
the Empress not only has no clothes, is a physical wreck, and has more strings
attached than a marionette is a fast route to oblivion in a dying industry
even if he has already realized it.
"... This phenomenon has been termed the "resource curse." It consists of multiple elements, all bad. ..."
"... The curse is mostly the result of having powerful and rapacious neighbors with no compunction but to use whatever means necessary to install a 'friendly' government willing to repress its own people in order to allow the theft of their 'resources'. ..."
"... As for Chile's governing elite, they wore the comfortable version of the "copper collar', the one made of money as opposed to chains, and so paid-off, lived in wealth and comfort so long as they kept their countrymen from doing anything that Anaconda copper didn't like. ..."
"... Superb stuff, especially "monopolistic control of commodity markets", supply and demand pressures on wheat and oil and copper have mostly faded to insignificance with hyper-leveraged commodities markets and supine (complicit) regulators. ..."
"... See: oil going to $140 not so many years ago despite building supply and weak demand. Goldman famously decided commodities were an "asset class" in 2003 and completely f*cked up these critical price signals for the world economy. ..."
"... Oh, right, our precious middlemen call it "sequestration" and "arbitrage". There's a million pounds of aluminum in the Mexican desert that calls bullshit on your claim. Any more self-absorbed theology you would like to discuss this fine Monday? ..."
"... The terrible legacy of the Pinochet years were also done by the "Chicago boys" who were hired to run the government. In their hate of the people and the embrace of neoliberal capitalism, they did something much worse: they changed the Constitution of the country so that undoing all their hateful legislation would be near impossible to override. When you hear of Student Protests in Chile – they are still fighting to undo the terrible legacy. ..."
"... What was Allende's Socialist party's policies, were they Nordic-style Social Democracy? I still am not sure if there is a meaningful ideological difference between Nordic Social Democracy, & Latin American "Socialism of the 21st Century" in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia. ..."
"... Perhaps the Nordics have a special secret deal with Murica & the US Imperial MIC: go along with the US Imperial foreign policy, & don't loudly promote your Social Democratic system, to anyone but especially not to nonwhite nations; & in turn we won't falsely slander you as Commie Dictators as we do any other nation attempting Social Democracy. ..."
The story of Chile's popular, and democratic rejection of government by oligarchs is today's must-read, and provides unsettling
similarities to current events, most strikingly in my estimation, recently in Venezuela.
The Popular Unity government enjoyed promising successes during its first year in power. Domestic production spiked in 1971,
leading to a GDP growth rate of almost 9 percent. Unemployment fell from 7 percent to below 3 percent, and wages increased dramatically,
particularly for the lowest earners. Allende's land reform program - along with intensified popular attacks on large, unproductive
landholdings - led to near record harvests and a new abundance of food for the poor.
Of course no good deed goes unpunished by oligarchs.
On the other hand, Chilean elites also pursued a more top-down strategy in their effort to bring the economy to its knees.
Objecting to government-mandated price controls and export restrictions, powerful business interests took to hoarding consumer
essentials, secretly warehousing enormous quantities of basic goods only to let them spoil as avoidable food shortages rocked
the nation.
And of course there's the USA's never-ending efforts to spread peace and democracy.
Meanwhile, in Washington, President Nixon was making good on his promise to "make Chile's economy scream." He called for an
end to all US assistance to the Allende government, and instructed US officials to use their "predominant position in international
financial institutions to dry up the flow" of international credit to Chile.
And finally a sobering reminder, that in the end, if they can't beat you at the polls, they are not above putting and end to you
altogether.
Deeply committed to maintaining the legality of the revolutionary process, the UP government sought to slow the pace of radical
democratic reforms at the grassroots in a misguided effort to avoid a putsch, or the outbreak of open civil war. In the end, this
error proved fatal - an armed popular base, exercising direct control over its communities and workplaces, could have been an
invaluable line of defense for the Allende administration, as well as for its broader goal of total societal transformation.
When Henry Kissinger began secretly taping all of his phone conversations in 1969, little did he know that he was giving history
the gift that keeps on giving. Now, on the 35th anniversary of the September 11, 1973, CIA-backed military coup in Chile, phone
transcripts that Kissinger made of his talks with President Nixon and the CIA chief among other top government officials reveal
in the most candid of language the imperial mindset of the Nixon administration as it began plotting to overthrow President Salvador
Allende, the world's first democratically elected Socialist. "We will not let Chile go down the drain," Kissinger told CIA director
Richard Helms in a phone call following Allende's narrow election on September 4, 1970, according to a recently declassified transcript.
"I am with you," Helms responded.
The comparison with Venezuela is hugely important, especially with regard to the suppliers boycot, where the Venezuelan opposition
seem to be directly copying the Chilean playbook. Even so, there is another aspect that should be of greater concern. Chile stands
out for its reliance on mining, especially copper. By failing in his bid to diversify the Chilean economy, Allende left his country
vulnerable to the fluctuations of the global economy and the whims of first world importers.
If memory serves, in 1973 mining represented around ~25% of the Chilean economy. Venezuela, by contrast, now has 45% of its
GDP tied up in oil exports. The only fact that should be surprising, then, is that the Bolivarian governments have lasted as long
as they have; perhaps a testament to the sweeping social improvements that have won them a mass-supported bulwark against constant
right wing assaults. Even so, with the economy undiversified, that bulwark will only hold out for so long.
This phenomenon has been termed the "resource curse." It consists of multiple elements, all bad.
For one, the ability to produce a commodity at the world's lowest price reduces the incentive to diversify one's economy. In
an extreme case like Saudi Arabia, even the workers hired to produce the oil are mostly foreign, leaving domestic workers unskilled
and idle.
Second, contrary to the belief early in the industrial revolution that commodity prices would be driven up by scarcity, in
fact technological improvement has more than counterbalanced scarcity to keep commodity prices flat to down in real terms.
Finally, as every commodity trader knows, the stylized secular chart pattern of any commodity is a sharp spike owing to a shortage,
followed by a long (as in decades) bowl produced by excessive capacity brought online in the wake of the shortage.
Governments, not adept at realizing that commodity price spikes are not sustainable, accumulate fixed costs during the boom
years and then get crunched in the subsequent price crash.
Is this suppose to explain what happened in Chile in 1973? Catallactics, ushered in AND imposed via a brutal military dictatorship,
yet fail to recognize the contradiction in the so-called "effects of violent intervention with the market"
This phenomenon has been termed the "resource curse." It consists of multiple elements, all bad.
The curse is mostly the result of having powerful and rapacious neighbors with no compunction but to use whatever means
necessary to install a 'friendly' government willing to repress its own people in order to allow the theft of their 'resources'.
For one, the ability to produce a commodity at the world's lowest price reduces the incentive to diversify one's economy.
It was not the people of Chile, who profited by the "ability to produce a commodity at the world's lowest price" and so cannot
be blamed for the inability to diversify their economy.
As for Chile's governing elite, they wore the comfortable version of the "copper collar', the one made of money as opposed
to chains, and so paid-off, lived in wealth and comfort so long as they kept their countrymen from doing anything that Anaconda
copper didn't like.
In an extreme case like Saudi Arabia, even the workers hired to produce the oil are mostly foreign, leaving domestic
workers unskilled and idle.
The extreme case of Saudi Arabia is a direct result of the hegemonic tactics just described, install a government 'friendly'
to American 'interests' in this case the House of Saud, and make them so fabulously wealthy that there is no questioning their
loyalty, until it becomes questionable
Second, contrary to the belief early in the industrial revolution that commodity prices would be driven up by scarcity,
in fact technological improvement has more than counterbalanced scarcity to keep commodity prices flat to down in real terms.
Finally, as every commodity trader knows, the stylized secular chart pattern of any commodity is a sharp spike owing
to a shortage, followed by a long (as in decades) bowl produced by excessive capacity brought online in the wake of the shortage.
Until finally, after the inevitable effect of monopolistic control of commodity 'markets' and the corrupting influence of corporate
power destroy the working man's earning potential, and by extension his purchasing power, and so extinguishes 'demand'.
Governments, not adept at realizing that commodity price spikes are not sustainable, accumulate fixed costs during the
boom years and then get crunched in the subsequent price crash.
It was not the Chilean government who concerned themselves with sustainability, as they were paid not to, and the corporations
who made all the money didn't give a damn either.
It should be easy to understand the logic, and necessity of voting out the ruling elite who were very good at lining their
own pockets, but not so good at planning for their people's well-being.
The Chilean people grew tired of rule by greedy people bought-off by American corporations, and elected a socialist government
in an effort to remedy the situation.
For their troubles, they were treated to a violent coup with thousands killed, tortured and disappeared.
And finally, it appears that you think this is all the 'natural' operation of 'markets'?
Superb stuff, especially "monopolistic control of commodity markets", supply and demand pressures on wheat and oil and
copper have mostly faded to insignificance with hyper-leveraged commodities markets and supine (complicit) regulators.
See: oil going to $140 not so many years ago despite building supply and weak demand. Goldman famously decided commodities
were an "asset class" in 2003 and completely f*cked up these critical price signals for the world economy.
" . an armed popular base, exercising direct control over its communities and workplaces, could have been an invaluable
line of defense for the Allende administration, as well as for its broader goal of total societal transformation."
"Those who do not learn history" are condemned to being exploited and controlled by those who do.
'Objecting to government-mandated price controls and export restrictions, powerful business interests took to hoarding
consumer essentials.'
Businesses don't exist for the purpose of "hoarding." But if mandated prices are set below cost, of course goods will
not be sold at a loss. Blaming the victims instead of the price controllers is like blaming a murder victim for "getting in the
way of my bullet."
Goods perhaps, but not labor. If mandated prices (for labor) are set below cost, serfs will still sell their labor. For example,
any soldier who never came back from Iraq obviously under-priced his labor.
Businesses don't exist for the purpose of "hoarding."
Oh, right, our precious middlemen call it "sequestration" and "arbitrage". There's a million pounds of aluminum in the
Mexican desert that calls bullshit on your claim. Any more self-absorbed theology you would like to discuss this fine Monday?
The terrible legacy of the Pinochet years were also done by the "Chicago boys" who were hired to run the government. In
their hate of the people and the embrace of neoliberal capitalism, they did something much worse: they changed the Constitution
of the country so that undoing all their hateful legislation would be near impossible to override. When you hear of Student Protests
in Chile – they are still fighting to undo the terrible legacy.
Sidenote: US has one of the Chicago Boys, entrenched at the Cato Institute.
yeah the chicago austerity mongers, and kissinger. guess who takes advice from kissinger, and pushes neoliberal economic policies.
the democrats used to be opposed to that sort of thing, at least in public.
What was Allende's Socialist party's policies, were they Nordic-style Social Democracy? I still am not sure if there is
a meaningful ideological difference between Nordic Social Democracy, & Latin American "Socialism of the 21st Century" in Venezuela,
Ecuador, Bolivia.
Norway & Venezuela both have a state-owned oil company, the profits of which are actually used to help their citizens, specifically
in education & health funding. Yet the likes of 0bama/Bush43 praise Norway & slam Venezuela.
Allende was even a full White Guy TM like the Nordics, albeit not blond-hair blue eyes like some Nordics. I suspected this
was perhaps an important reason the likes of 0bama/Bush43 praises the Nordic nations while labeling the part-Native American &/or
Black Venezuelan/Ecuador/Bolivian Presidents as being "Commie" "Dictators".
Perhaps the Nordics have a special secret deal with Murica & the US Imperial MIC: go along with the US Imperial foreign
policy, & don't loudly promote your Social Democratic system, to anyone but especially not to nonwhite nations; & in turn we won't
falsely slander you as Commie Dictators as we do any other nation attempting Social Democracy.
"... Perhaps the most dramatic revelation, or mention, is the bitter hatred of democracy that is revealed both by the U.S. Government -- Hillary Clinton, others -- and also by the diplomatic service. ..."
"... How representative this is of what they say, we don't know, because we do not know what the filtering is. But that's a minor point. But the major point is that the population is irrelevant. ..."
"... The Tea Party movement itself is, maybe 15% or 20% of the electorate. It's relatively affluent, white, nativist, you know, it has rather traditional nativist streaks to it. But what is much more important, I think, is the outrage. Over half the population says they more or less supported it, or support its message. What people are thinking is extremely interesting. I mean, overwhelmingly polls reveal that people are extremely bitter, angry, hostile, opposed to everything. ..."
"... The primary cause undoubtedly is the economic disaster. It's not just the financial catastrophe, it's an economic disaster. I mean, in the manufacturing industry, for example, unemployment levels are at the level of the Great Depression. And unlike the Great Depression, those jobs are not coming back. U.S. owners and managers have long ago made the decision that they can make more profit with complicated financial deals than by production. So finance -- this goes back to the 1970s, mainly Reagan escalated it, and onward -- Clinton, too. The economy has been financialized. ..."
"... Financial institutions have grown enormously in their share of corporate profits. It may be something like a third, or something like that today. At the same time, correspondingly, production has been exported. So you buy some electronic device from China. China is an assembly plant for a Northeast Asian production center. The parts and components come from the more advanced countries and from the United States, and the technology . So yes, that's a cheap place to assemble things and sell them back here. Rather similar in Mexico, now Vietnam, and so on. That is the way to make profits. ..."
"... The antagonism to everyone is extremely high -- actually antagonism -- the population doesn't like Democrats, but they hate Republicans even more. They're against big business. They're against government. They're against Congress. ..."
AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Noam Chomsky, world-renowned dissident, author of more than 100 books,
speaking to us from Boston. Noam, you wrote a piece after the midterm elections called Outrage Misguided.
I want to read for you now what Sarah Palin tweeted Ð the former Alaskan governor, of course, and
Republication vice presidential nominee. This is what she tweeted about WikiLeaks. Rather, she put
it on Facebook. She said, "First and foremost, what steps were taken to stop WikiLeaks' director
Julian Assange from distributing this highly-sensitive classified material, especially after he had
already published material not once but twice in the previous months? Assange is not a journalist
any more than the editor of the Al Qaeda's new English-language magazine ÒInspire,Ó is a journalist.
He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents
revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with
the same urgency we pursue Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders? Noam Chomsky, your response?
NOAM CHOMSKY: That's pretty much what I would expect Sarah Palin to say. I don't know how much
she understands, but I think we should pay attention to what we learn from the leaks. What we learned,
for example, is kinds of things I've said. Perhaps the most dramatic revelation, or mention,
is the bitter hatred of democracy that is revealed both by the U.S. Government -- Hillary Clinton,
others -- and also by the diplomatic service.
To tell the world well, they're talking to each other -- to pretend to each other that the Arab
world regards Iran as the major threat and wants the U.S. to bomb Iran, is extremely revealing, when
they know that approximately 80% of Arab opinion regards the U.S. and Israel as the major threat,
10% regard Iran as the major threat, and a majority, 57%, think the region would be better off with
Iranian nuclear weapons as a kind of deterrent. That is does not even enter. All that enters is what
they claim has been said by Arab dictators -- brutal Arab dictators. That is what counts.
How representative this is of what they say, we don't know, because we do not know what the filtering
is. But that's a minor point. But the major point is that the population is irrelevant. All that matters is the opinions of the dictators that we support. If they were to back us, that
is the Arab world. That is a very revealing picture of the mentality of U.S. political leadership
and, presumably, the lead opinion, judging by the commentary that's appeared here, that's the way
it has been presented in the press as well. It does not matter with the Arabs believe.
AMY GOODMAN: Your piece, Outrage Misguided. Back to the midterm elections and what we're going
to see now. Can you talk about the tea party movement?
NOAM CHOMSKY:The Tea Party movement itself is, maybe 15% or 20% of the electorate. It's
relatively affluent, white, nativist, you know, it has rather traditional nativist streaks
to it. But what is much more important, I think, is the outrage. Over half the population says they
more or less supported it, or support its message. What people are thinking is extremely interesting.
I mean, overwhelmingly polls reveal that people are extremely bitter, angry, hostile, opposed
to everything.
The primary cause undoubtedly is the economic disaster. It's not just the financial catastrophe,
it's an economic disaster. I mean, in the manufacturing industry, for example, unemployment
levels are at the level of the Great Depression. And unlike the Great Depression, those jobs are
not coming back. U.S. owners and managers have long ago made the decision that they can make more
profit with complicated financial deals than by production. So finance -- this goes back to the 1970s,
mainly Reagan escalated it, and onward -- Clinton, too. The economy has been financialized.
Financial institutions have grown enormously in their share of corporate profits. It may
be something like a third, or something like that today. At the same time, correspondingly, production
has been exported. So you buy some electronic device from China. China is an assembly plant
for a Northeast Asian production center. The parts and components come from the more advanced countries
and from the United States, and the technology . So yes, that's a cheap place to assemble things
and sell them back here. Rather similar in Mexico, now Vietnam, and so on. That is the way to make
profits.
It destroys the society here, but that's not the concern of the ownership class and the
managerial class. Their concern is profit. That is what drives the economy. The rest of it
is a fallout. People are extremely bitter about it, but don't seem to understand it. So the
same people who are a majority, who say that Wall Street is to blame for the current crisis, are
voting Republican. Both parties are deep in the pockets of Wall Street, but the Republicans much
more so than the Democrats.
The same is true on issue after issue. The antagonism to everyone is extremely high -- actually
antagonism -- the population doesn't like Democrats, but they hate Republicans even more.
They're against big business. They're against government. They're against Congress.
They're against
science
The article is from July 2015. It is interesting to compare views expressed a year ago with the
current situation. Who would predict the her health bacome No.1 issue in September 2016?
Now we start to see dirty MSM games and tricks with election polls. It is well known that the key
idea of polls is to influence electorate. Desirable result that conditions those who did not yet decided
to vote "for the winner" can be achieved in a very subtle way. For example if electorate of one candidate
is younger, you can run poll using landline phones. Gaius Publius provide a good analysis of now MSM
sell establishment candidate to lemmings in his July 10, 2015 post in Naked capitalism blog (The
Clinton Campaign Notices the Sanders Campaign, or How to Read the Media)
.
"...I don't think the Clinton herders care who actually votes, only who funds."
.
"...HRC is the biggest threat to the Democrats winning the White House. She is so far to the right
on almost every issue, she is the most unelectable of them all. I basically view her campaign as a front
for Jeb!"
.
"...I will take at face value the statement that Sanders' personal views are a threat to the capitalists
who control both major parties. But his strategy is not. In spite of his best intentions, he will end
up being the sheepdog that makes sure the progressive movement stays in the Democratic Party (for the
term "sheepdog" and supporting analysis see http://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary)."
Notable quotes:
"... A second example involves Wall Street banks, in particular, a policy of breaking them up, reinstating Glass-Steagall, and prosecuting Wall Street fraud. Can you imagine any announced candidate doing any of these things, save Bernie Sanders? ..."
"... If a 25 year old woman in 2008 didn't vote for Hillary, what has Hillary done to change her mind or attract the 17 year old from 2008? ..."
"... I don't think the Clinton herders care who actually votes, only who funds. ..."
"... If Hillary feels she can control primary voters through local Democratic party machines, that might explain her standpoint. ..."
"... Now organized money has too much economic power ..."
"... HRC is the biggest threat to the Democrats winning the White House. She is so far to the right on almost every issue, she is the most unelectable of them all. I basically view her campaign as a front for Jeb! ..."
"... I will take at face value the statement that Sanders' personal views are a threat to the capitalists who control both major parties. But his strategy is not. In spite of his best intentions, he will end up being the sheepdog that makes sure the progressive movement stays in the Democratic Party (for the term "sheepdog" and supporting analysis see http://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary). ..."
"... They also need enduring organizations, which are called political parties. ..."
The most important thing to consider when thinking about the Sanders campaign is this. Everyone
else who's running, on both sides, is an insider playing within - and supporting - the "insider game,"
the one that keeps insiders wealthy and outsiders struggling, the one where the wealthy and their
retainers operate government for their benefit only. What sets Sanders apart is his determination
to dismantle that game, to take it apart and send its players home (back to the private sector) or
to jail.
Two examples should make this clear. One is Fast Track and the "trade" agreements being forced
upon us. The pressure to pass these agreements is coming equally from mainstream Democrats like Barack
Obama, a "liberal," and from mainstream Republicans, supposed "conservatives." They may differ on
"rights" policy, like abortion rights, but not on money matters. Trade agreements are wealth-serving
policies promoted by people in both parties who serve wealth, which means most of them. People like
Sanders, Warren and others, by contrast, would neuter these agreement as job-killing profit protection
schemes and turn them into something else.
A second example involves Wall Street banks, in particular, a policy of breaking them up,
reinstating Glass-Steagall, and prosecuting Wall Street fraud. Can you imagine any announced candidate
doing any of these things, save Bernie Sanders?
In both of these cases, Sanders would aggressively challenge the insider profit-protection racket,
not just give lip service to challenging it. Which tells you why he is so popular. Many of us in
the bleachers have noticed the insider game - after all, it's been happening in front of us for decades-
and most of us are done with it. Ask any Tea Party Republican voter, for example, what she thinks
of the bank bailout of 2008-09. She'll tell you she hated it, whether she explains it in our terms
or not.
And that's why Sanders, like Warren before him, draws such enthusiastic crowds. The pendulum has
swung so far in the direction of wealth that the nation may well change permanently, and people know
it. People are ready, just as they were in 2008, prior to eight years of betrayal. People have been
discouraged about the chance for change lately, but they're ready for the real thing if they see
it.
The Clinton Campaign Notices Sanders
There's been an attempt to downplay the Sanders candidacy since the beginning, to sink his campaign
beneath a
wave of silence. That ended a bit ago, and the press has begun to take notice, if
snippily. Now the Clinton campaign is noticing, if the New York Times is to be believed.
I found the following fascinating, for a number of reasons.
The
piece first along with some news, then a little exegesis (my emphasis):
Hillary Clinton's Team Is Wary as Bernie Sanders Finds Footing in Iowa
The ample crowds and unexpectedly strong showing by Senator Bernie Sanders are setting off
worry among advisers and allies of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who believe the Vermont senator
could overtake her in Iowa polls by the fall and even defeat her in the nation's first nominating
contest there.
The enthusiasm that Mr. Sanders has generated - including a rally attended by 2,500 people
in Council Bluffs, Iowa, on Friday - has called into question Mrs. Clinton's early strategy of
focusing on a listening tour of small group gatherings and wooing big donors in private settings.
In May, Mrs. Clinton led with 60 percent support to Mr. Sanders' 15 percent in a Quinnipiac
poll. Last week the same poll showed Mrs. Clinton at 52 percent to Mr. Sanders's 33 percent.
"We are worried about him, sure. He will be a serious force for the campaign, and I don't think
that will diminish," Jennifer Palmieri, the Clinton campaign's communications director, said Monday
in an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
Some of Mrs. Clinton's advisers acknowledged that they were surprised by Mr. Sanders' momentum
and said there were enough liberal voters in Iowa, including many who supported Barack Obama or
John Edwards in 2008, to create problems for her there.
"I think we underestimated that Sanders would quickly attract so many Democrats in Iowa who
weren't likely to support Hillary," said one Clinton adviser, who like several others spoke on
the condition of anonymity to candidly share views about the race. "It's too early to change strategy
because no one knows if Sanders will be able to hold on to these voters in the months ahead. We're
working hard to win them over, but yeah, it's a real competition there."
I don't want to quote the whole thing (well, I do, but I can't). So I encourage you to
read it. There's much there worth noticing.
What to Look at When the Times Reports on Clinton
Now, some exegesis, meta-reading of the media, especially corporate media like the Times.
My three main points are bulleted below.
First, when you expose yourself to any of the "liberal" U.S. outlets (as opposed to, say,
The Guardian) be aware that because they are owned by establishment corporations they're
already pro-Clinton. Subtly, not blatantly, but certainly.
That sounds like prejudice, so let me explain. For one thing, neither the outlets nor their
owning corporation can afford not to prepare their seat at the Clinton White House table. It's
just a fact. Media want access and corporations want government to smile on their profit schemes.
At this point, currying favor with Sanders is on no one's mind, and the Clintons are known to
"have long memories they punish their enemies and help their friends" (quoted
here). The incentives are all aligned.
But also, mainstream insider corporations are completely aligned with the insider game for
the obvious reason - they're part of it. No one inside the game wants to see it damaged. Hayes
and Maddow, as people, may or may not prefer Sanders over Clinton, but MSNBC has a clear favorite
and if you listen carefully and consistently, it shows. Their owners, and all of the other big
media owners, can't afford (literally afford, as in, there's major money at stake) to play this
one straight. You may find some unskewed reporting, but not a lot of it.
In the present instance, for example, I read the story above (click through for
all of it) as being pro-Clinton, and in fact, most stories like these will be painted that
way, with a light brush or a heavy one, for some time to come. If you don't spot this bias where
present, you're not reading the story as written.
In the same way that every New York Times story I read in the last two months, literally
every one, used the inaccurate and propagandistic phrase "pro-trade Democrats" to describe Ron
Wyden, Earl Blumenauer and the small handful of other Dems who defied their voters to support
the White House and the wealthy - in that same way you'll have a hard time finding mainstream
Sanders or Clinton coverage that doesn't in some way sell Clinton. If that's not a fact, I'll
be eager to be proven wrong.
Second, be aware that much so-called reporting is the result of "placement," a term
from advertising. Ad placement is when you buy space in a publication or media program into which
you can put your message. Campaigns, among other entities, frequently do the same with reporters.
The reporter offers space, a container, into which the campaign can put its message. (The reward
is usually "access.")
It's certainly true that many reporters and writers openly advocate; I'm often one of
them and I'm not alone. But no one suspects open advocates of trickery. It's much more subtle,
and dangerous for readers, when the advocacy is hidden, as it is in supposed "straight news" articles.
In cases like these - certainly not all cases of reporting, but far too many - the reporter
doesn't "get" the news. The news "gets" the reporter. A campaign's messenger comes to the reporter,
offers the message, and the reporter builds a genuine and frequently interesting news story around
it, including research from other sources, but always starting with the seed provided by the campaign
or public official.
In the present instance, the article above, you should therefore ask:
Is it really true that the Clinton campaign just now discovered Sanders' popularity and
that he may be a threat?
Or could the following be true? That the Clinton campaign always knew a Warren-like opponent
could gain ground but were publicly ignoring it; now, however, it's time to appear to be noticing,
so they approached a reporter with their take on the Sanders surge.
In other words, is the bolded part of the first sentence of the article its seed? Who approached
whom? That first sentence again:
The ample crowds and unexpectedly strong showing by Senator Bernie Sanders are setting off
worry among advisers and allies of Hillary Rodham Clinton
I don't have an answer to the bulleted questions above. Either could be correct. I'm a little
suspicious though. First, by the obvious but subtle bias in the story - similar to the constant
bias in all of the Times Fast Track reporting. Second, by the plurals above: "among
advisers and allies of Hillary Rodham Clinton." This isn't one person speaking, but
a coordinated effort by staffers and surrogates ("allies") to say a coordinated single thing to
the Times reporters.
Third, I'm made suspicious by this, a little further down:
"I think we underestimated that Sanders would quickly attract so many Democrats in Iowa
who weren't likely to support Hillary," said one Clinton adviser, who like several others
spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly share views about the race. "It's too early
to change strategy because no one knows if Sanders will be able to hold on to these voters
in the months ahead. We're working hard to win them over, but yeah, it's a real competition
there."
There's obvious messaging, especially in the last part of the paragraph. But look at the bolded
part. Of those in the campaign, the only ones quoted in the article by name are Clinton herself
and Jennifer Palmieri, who spoke, not to the reporters, but to "Morning Joe." Everyone else is
off the record, speaking to these reporters "on the condition of anonymity to candidly
share views about the race."
"Candidly" implies leaking, not messaging or spin, and here's where the deception seems more
clear. Have these reporters really found a minor army of leakers? If these are truly leakers,
expect them to be fired soon.
So, scenario one: Sanders is surging, the Clinton campaign is caught by surprise, and
two Times reporters find a bunch of anonymous campaign leakers who say (paraphrasing),
"Sure, Sanders caught us by surprise. We're aiming for one type of Democrat and he's getting the
other type. It's too early to change strategy - the man could trip and fall - but yes, there's
now competition."
(Did you notice that part about two kinds of Democrat? The actual quote says: "We underestimated
that Sanders would quickly attract so many Democrats in Iowa who weren't likely to support Hillary."
I think the campaign knows exactly what kind of Democrat they were ignoring, and if you think
about it carefully, you will too.)
Or, scenario two: The Clinton campaign is ignoring the Warren wing, giving them nothing
but platitudes and (as in the case of Fast Track) avoidance. Now the "Sanders surge" is in the
news and the campaign has to respond. They get their message together - "Yes, we're surprised,
and we have to admit that out loud. But it's early days, and if we keep getting reporters to say
'socialist' and 'anathema,' we won't have to counter his specifics with our specifics. So let's
round up some reporters and get 'Morning Joe' on the phone."
Did the reference to "socialist" and "anathema" surprise you? Read on.
Finally, because of the two points above, you'll find that in many cases the story supports
the campaign, while justifying itself as "reporting." Both bolded pieces are important.
Let's look at each element above. First, "the story supports the campaign":
Those who see Mrs. Clinton as being at risk in Iowa say she is still far better positioned
to win the nomination than Mr. Sanders, who lags by double digits in Iowa polling. He also
has far less money than she does, and his socialist leanings are anathema to many
Americans.
In the first sentence the campaign is being subtly and indirectly quoted. But the bolded phrases
above are pretty strong language in a sentence that isn't necessarily an indirect quote, and echoes
open Clinton surrogates like Claire McCaskill. Even "leanings" lends an unsavory color, since
it echoes the phrase "communist leanings."
(The alternative to the last sentence above, by the way, and much more honestly sourced, would
be something like this: "The anonymous campaign adviser also said, 'Frankly, we think if we just
keep saying 'socialist' whenever we can, we won't have to change our strategy of being vague on
the economic issues. At least we're sticking with that for now.'" I would buy that as excellent
honest reporting.)
Second, "justifying itself as reporting": Once you present the core message as provided by
the messengers, the reporter can then call around for other, non-Clinton-sourced comment. Thus
the quotes, much further down from Joe Trippi, Carter Eskew and the Sanders campaign.
Add in a little of the reporters' own analysis, much of it good:
"The enthusiasm that Mr. Sanders has generated - including a rally attended by 2,500 people
in Council Bluffs, Iowa, on Friday - has called into question Mrs. Clinton's early strategy
of focusing on a listening tour of small group gatherings and wooing big donors in private
settings."
and you have the makings of a news story friendly to Clinton built around a news hook and potentially
"placed" elements. The hook, the "placed" elements (if they were placed), and some original analysis
go at the top, and the rest of the story is built to follow that.
Bottom Line
If you like this exercise in reading behind the media, please read
the article again with the above thoughts in mind. Is this original reporting (i.e., reporters
starting a conversation), or did the campaign make the first approach? Does the article carry Clinton
water, subtly support the campaign? Are any opposing viewpoints featured at the top, or are they
buried below the point where most people stop reading?
This Times story may be a completely honest exercise in independent journalism. There certainly
is a Sanders phenomenon, and it's detailed honestly and factually, so there's value in reading it.
But there's an obvious bias toward Clinton messaging in the reporters' own prose, so I'm suspicious,
and you should be as well.
I'll also say that most stories about campaigns operate this way, as do many other news stories
involving public figures. What will make reporting the Sanders campaign different is what I wrote
above - Sanders wants to take apart the insider game. What major media outlet will help Sanders do
that, will shut the door to corporate favors, media access and other prizes from a future Clinton
administration, in order to be even-handed?
My guess is few or none.
Reader note: Gaius asked for me to allow comments on this post, so please have at it!
AJ, July 10, 2015 at 8:14 am
I was that Sanders rally in Council Bluffs. I follow politics especially on the left very closely
so I didn't really come home with any thing new (besides some extra Bernie stickers). However,
the crowd was huge and engaged. It almost had the feel of a big tent revival.
One issue that I've been thinking about lately that I haven't seen publicly addressed (except
for in the comments on the 538 article Lambert posted yesterday) is how reliable do we think sine
of these polling numbers are? Given that Sanders support definitely skews younger, would these
people even be captured in telephone polls? I tend to think this is why the Greek vote was as
big of a surprise as it was. I think there is a large going progressive part of the population
(both on the US and abroad) that doesn't get picked up in the polling. If true, Sanders could
be a lot closer to Clinton than these numbers suggest.
NotTimothyGeithner, July 10, 2015 at 9:06 am
Pollsters know this, but there are three kinds: the national subscription polls who just want
to be relevant, paid polls, and the local reputation polls. Because of the distance to the election,
there won't be good responses, and cell phone users have grown reliant on texting and are less
likely to respond. The pollsters know this. Needless to say, the Quinnipiac poll should be disconcerting
for the Clinton camp and the Democrats who thought Hillary would shower them with cash and appearances.
That result means they see enough to make this claim even though they aren't quite on the ground
the way a Roanoke College poll is in Virginia. The local reputation poll has a sense of the electorate
because they've polled every local election while CNN was trying to interview Nessie.
There is dissatisfaction within Team Blue that Hillary Clinton can't bridge. There is a myth
about Bill's magical campaign touch Democrats have internalized despite a lack of evidence, and
I think Team Blue elites feel Obama failed them and want to bring Hillary in as a savior. Obviously,
they weren't around in '94.
pat b, July 10, 2015 at 8:15 pm
Bill and Al ran a magical campaign in 92, but that was a long time ago, and they spent two
decades
triangulating against the Base. Bill signed NAFTA and HRC spent 23 years defending it.
In 92 the clinton's were selling the dream of the 90's. Now, they are selling Windows 98.
Nick, July 10, 2015 at 10:26 am
Too bad young people have a horrible track record actually voting. Clinton knows the game well
enough.
NotTimothyGeithner, July 10, 2015 at 11:11 am
Hillary is 8 years older, so are her core nostalgia supporters. Without a message for the now
under 45 crowd, Hillary has lost 8 years worth of supporters to relative infirmity or death.
She didn't rally the crowds for Grimes, Landrieu, or Hagan. Shaheen was the incumbent she saved,
but she was running against an unremarkable Massachusetts carpet bagger. I'm not certain the Democrats
have ever left the Spring of '94.
vidimi, July 10, 2015 at 11:33 am
don't underestimate the number of young, white females voting clinton. it will be somewhere
near all of them.
mn, July 10, 2015 at 11:43 am
What about college debt and the fact that there are no jobs. Gender seems to be a selling point,
like race the last time. Not all younger females will be that stupid again.
NotTimothyGeithner, July 10, 2015 at 12:50 pm
Actually, Obama won younger females. Credit where credit is due. Gender may have affected older
voters who come from an obviously more repressive era, but I suspect brand loyalty and legitimacy
(it's her turn messaging), racism, and nostalgia played a hand in Clinton's 2008 support more
than gender. If a 25 year old woman in 2008 didn't vote for Hillary, what has Hillary done
to change her mind or attract the 17 year old from 2008? In many ways, Hillary has to replace
8 years of death to her base.
mn, July 10, 2015 at 1:01 pm
At that time people were saying to vote for Hillary because she would prop up destroyed 401ks
(to me the mindless young voter). I fell for the hope and change b.s., I won't do that again.
Long time Bernie fan.
As for my friends they are voting for Hillary because they don't think Bernie can win, others
that hate her are sitting out. Yes, many females really do not like her. Love Ann Richards! RIP.
pat b, July 10, 2015 at 8:34 pm
The Silent Generation anchored Reagan and was much more conservative and risk averse then the
Boomers of which Hillary is one. However, the issue isn't Hillary vs the GOP's aging angry silent
generation types, it's more Hillary's aging Boomer female base vs the millenials who think the
Boomers shafted them. It was the Boomers who benefited from cheap college tuition then voted in
Reagan to cut taxes and dump these costs onto Gen X, GenY and the Millenials.
Paul Tioxon, July 10, 2015 at 11:14 pm
My point is that of the passing of an era. And not only in terms of voters,the army of the
silent majority which saw the blue collar conservatives, the hard hats, the cops, leave the democrats
en mass and the democrats having little to replace them. The defection of the dixiecrats from
the dems to the republicans, as witnessed in the complete turnover of Texas to the republicans
amalgamated what was a coalition into a choke hold from 1968 until 2008, with only 12 years dems
in the WH only 2 dem presidents over 40 years. And of course, Clinton may as well have been George
Bush for all that it mattered for domestic policies.
So Hillary and the dems do not have the army of voters against them that they used to have
plus what ever momentarily disaffected Millenials seeking payback or another group to reinforce
numbers making the republicans a majority party. They are not.
The point is that as your opposition declines in numbers as far as the ballot box goes, and your
likely supporters increase, the odds favor your party as a majority.
Millenials, according to Pew Polls, the 18-33 year olds, are 51% democrat/ leaning democrat
vs 35% republican/leaning republican. Even though independent is now the largest of the 3 categories,
leaning is the place to go when there is no alternative choice, apparently.
I am not sure the younger group is following the republican strategist wedge issue that the
old people are stealing from the young with college debt, social security, Medicare being blamed
for the diminished prosperity of the young. Trying to turn their grandparents who are retired
after a lifetime of hard work into the new welfare queens is not getting the traction you would
think. Apparently holding onto ritual Thanksgiving Day dinners and baking cookies around the holidays
is more of a social bond than fabricated grievances by political consultants can even rend asunder.
And of course, blood is thicker than water. Don't expect granny and pop pop to pushed off on an
iceberg anytime soon because of college debt.
Praedor, July 10, 2015 at 11:07 am
What I see in this is the potential for a low turnout election. POTENTIAL. Those enthusiastic
young voters, or the previously disgusted sideline sitters who have come out anew for Sanders
(or previously for Warren) are NOT likely to shrug their shoulders and vote for Hillary if she
ends up pulling in the pre-anointed crown. It's hard to get all fired up and enthusiastic about
candidate A only to be stuck with candidate B who you weren't interested in before. This has the
potential to really change things or gut the process of any participants except the true believer
core of the Democrats.
Uahsenaa, July 10, 2015 at 8:51 am
I found this sentence to be rather curious: "Mrs. Clinton's advisers, meanwhile, have deep
experience pulling off upsets and comeback political victories, and Mrs. Clinton often performs
best when she is under pressure from rivals." The first part is unsubstantiated vaguery, but the
second part is demonstrably untrue. Or, if not "untrue," then it implies that Sec. Clinton's "best"
is still "loses." Also there's the earlier bit about Sanders being "untested" nationally, yet,
when you parse that, you realize Ms. Clinton's "testedness" amounts to "lost to an insurgent candidate
who had been in national politics for all of a few minutes."
Since I'm still somewhat skeptical of what a Sanders candidacy means, I am quite happy to see
how, along with Bernie, others in various facets of government seem to be emboldened to fight
back. TPA may have been a loss in the short term, but the administration was clearly taken aback
by having to fight resistance at all. My hope is the Sanders campaign, at a bare minimum, will
demonstrate how popular fighting back really is and stiffen the spines of those in government
who want to do something but fear genuine reprisal.
Did you see the date? This article could be about 2014. There is a dangerous myth about the
Clinton touch.
Uahsenaa, July 10, 2015 at 9:53 am
It's been surprising to me how willing Sec. Clinton has been to alienate core constituencies
of the Democratic party. When O'Malley and Sanders came to Iowa City, they both reached out to
local unions for support/attendance/whatever, but when Clinton came here on Tuesday, I found out
about it when I showed up with my daughter for reading time at the library.
I hear again and again about the Clintons' political savvy, yet in practice I just don't see
it.
They may be ruthless, but ruthless only gets you so far. She cannot take Democratic stalwarts
for granted this election cycle, especially when the AFL-CIO went into open war with the administration
over TPA.
Who does she think shows up for the polls in primary elections?
redleg, July 10, 2015 at 10:16 am
Hubris. I don't think the Clinton herders care who actually votes, only who funds.
DolleyMadison, July 10, 2015 at 11:22 am
EXACTLY.
flora, July 10, 2015 at 2:33 pm
Bill and Hill's speaking fees give a whole new meaning to "the Clinton touch."
TheCatSaid, July 10, 2015 at 2:09 pm
"Who does she think shows up for the polls in primary elections?"
This seems like the key question.
It's one thing to motivate people to vote for a presidential election, but motivating people
to turnout for a primary might be different entirely. For example, do as many young voters and
minority voters turn out for a primary? If not, what would it take to change this?
If Hillary feels she can control primary voters through local Democratic party machines,
that might explain her standpoint.
Lambert Strether, July 10, 2015 at 2:24 pm
I wonder how effective the local Democratic party machines are, or whether Obama's reverse
Midas touch destroyed them. (Certainly my own local machine is ineffectual, and the state party
is corrupt (landfills)).
I wonder if there's a comparison to be made between ObamaCare signups and GOTV (I mean a literal
one, in that the same apparatchiks would get walking around money for both, and the data might
even be/have been dual-purposed). My first impulse is to say, if so, "Good luck, and let me know
how that works out!" but I don't know how directly the metrics translate.
Jeremy Grimm, July 10, 2015 at 9:22 pm
For the last few years I have been a lowly member of the local Democratic Party machine, a
volunteer co-precinct leader (though hardly similar to what a precinct leader used to be). The
local party leadership and membership is old, late boomer, steadfast and immobile. Republican
party opposition in this area is virtually non-existent so I have no idea how effective our local
organization is as opposed to how skewed the demographics of my area. With little or no efforts,
we consistently turn out a substantial Democratic vote. I believe the corruption of politics in
my state, New Jersey, is justly famous. I have no idea what corruption might exist in my local
township, though I am starting to wonder. As for President Obama's reverse Midas touch I live
near the headquarters of several big pharmaceutical corporations. I am sure they have wide-open
purses for both parties.
As of late last year, our organization has had few meetings and poor attendance at the one
meeting I showed up for. I learned at that meeting, about a month ago, that several of the other
precinct leads have resigned, though I don't know why. I am moving away and will also resign as
of the end of this month.
I suspect our local organization will come out strongly in favor of Hillary Clinton though
provide little in the way of support. When I raised concern about the TPA and TPP at the last
meeting I attended and urged the other members of this supposedly political organization to call
or write to our Representative few of the members knew what I was talking about. The chair tried
to rule my concern out of order though all other business was done and our Democratic Mayor, who
is a member of the organization, suggested we should each hear views from both sides before deciding
our individual stance on the TPA or TPP since there were arguments for both sides (even though
the TPA was coming up for a vote in a few days). I should add a little context this meeting
consisted of the eleven or so people who showed up. In my experience this close watch over all
dissent from local, state or national party line typified our organization. All questions other
than very specific procedural questions and discussions were NOT welcome.
I can only speak of my own alienation from the Democratic Party, local, state and national.
I voted for Obama with enthusiasm in 2008 but with disgust in 2012. I have been a Democrat since
Adlai Stevenson II (though I was too young to vote for him). I will continue to register as a
Democrat but I doubt many Democrats will receive my vote and certainly no Republicans. I have
no plans to further participate in Party politics. I will vote for candidates I like but never
again vote for the "lesser of two evils." I cannot gauge the extent to which my alienation typifies
other Democrats since political discussions are generally considered impolite except among close
friends.
Pissed Younger baby boomer, July 11, 2015 at 2:59 am
I am too disillusioned with the democratic party .where i live in Oregon ,my congressman is
a blue dog dem. i called his a least five times to voice my opposition to TPP. A few months ago
I signed up for phone town hall meeting .i never received an e-mail invitation .YES talking about
suppressing dissent.i am considering switch to the greens or a socialist party. My fear i hope
we do not become fascist country and three out of four congressmen vote for TPA and senator Wyden
voted for it too.I also lost faith in the phony liberal media.
NotTimothyGeithner, July 11, 2015 at 9:33 am
The GOP organizes through churches and other outfits. Ted aren't as noticeable wherever one
is, but the GOP isn't interested in turnout as much as making sure their people vote. They have
minders who phish for potential voters. Why do women ever vote Republican? Because they have a
club that demands it. Your area may be skewed but half of Dean's 50 state strategy was lifted
from GOP election approaches.
Uahsenaa, July 10, 2015 at 4:30 pm
With the exception of Illinois, because Chicago, the state democratic parties in most midwestern
states are in shambles, so the likelihood of the "machine" squeaking out a win is quite low. In
the absence of that, what you have left are the institutions traditionally loyal to the D party
who have been thrown under the bus so many times over the past 8 years, it's bewildering. I mentioned
the AFL-CIO break with the administration over "trade," (scare quotes don't quite seem big enough)
precisely because it seems to indicate a willingness to break from tradition, if an opportunity
presents itself.
Now, I have no idea what things are like in the South, and those states plus NY/IL/CA might
be enough to push Hillary through to the nomination. However, if she continues the way she has
so far, the apparatus in a large number of states is not going to be enough to buttress her against
popular grumbling.
John Zelnicker, July 10, 2015 at 8:45 pm
In Alabama the Democratic Party apparatus is a total mess and completely ineffectual. The party
"leaders" spend most of their time protecting their little fiefdoms and fighting efforts to expand
and diversify the membership of the statewide committees and local affiliates. In fact, it has
gotten so bad that some activists are trying to set up independent Party committees to recruit
candidates for local and state elections and run GOTV efforts.
C. dentata, July 10, 2015 at 10:49 am
I think it may not be pro-Clinton as much as anti-Sanders bias. The corporate media are certainly
happy to ridiculously hype any of the nonstories about Hillary that Trey Gowdy feeds them.
anonymous123, July 10, 2015 at 11:07 am
It was really nice to see someone deconstruct this article. When I read it the other day I
had the same thoughts go through my head about the overt messaging going on.
vidimi, July 10, 2015 at 11:29 am
pro-trade reminds me of pro-russian rebels. seems very likely that the chamber of commerce
or state department or somesuch approached all editors and ordered them to use these two terms
for their respective designees. classic propaganda tactic.
Vatch, July 10, 2015 at 12:14 pm
I expect to vote for Sanders in the primary, and for an as yet unknown third party candidate
in the election. Obama and Bill Clinton have taught me that main stream Democratic politicians
only differ from Republican politicians on a few social issues; on everything else they are the
same. I refuse to knowingly vote for a voluntary agent of the oligarchs, which is what Hillary
Clinton is.
flora , July 10, 2015 at 2:31 pm
Yes. Both the GOP and the DLC Dems agree on all major economic issues. The electioneering so
far has been personality oriented. Jeb!, The Donald, Hillary!, etc.
Except for Sanders, who isn't running a personality campaign. He's talking about important
economic issues in a way the others won't.
In the late '70s conventional wisdom solidified around the idea that economic stagnation was
due to organized labor having too much economic power (true or not, my point isn't to re-argue
that case). The 'Reagan revolution' promised to re-balance and right the economy by reining in
organized labor.
Now organized money has too much economic power. It's harming the whole economy. Bernie
is talking about reining in organized money. How do the other candidates deal with this without
bursting their ideological bubble for the audience? The NYTimes article is a case in point.
Cano Doncha Know, July 11, 2015 at 5:31 am
HRC is the biggest threat to the Democrats winning the White House. She is so far to the
right on almost every issue, she is the most unelectable of them all. I basically view her campaign
as a front for Jeb!
cm, July 10, 2015 at 12:38 pm
Some laughable NY Times articles about their inability to write articles without relying on anonymous
sources, despite their own (ignored) policies:
If Sanders wins a few primaries, I would expect a moderate-bot to be trundled in. The Webb, for
instance, has already been turned on and is humming, ready to go. (The O'Malley seems to have
already burned through its batteries.)
NotTimothyGeithner, July 10, 2015 at 2:00 pm
The Webb? No, no, no, no, no. As a Webb primary voter, I can assure you the man has 0 personality
and isn't a big campaigner. If the young Hillary supporters in NYC found Hillary uninspiring,
they might collapse into a blob and just stop after listening to Webb. I just assumed he is running
because he likes Iowa.
O'Malley has already attacked Sanders and doesn't pick up the Hillary experience narrative
as well as having to roll out during the Baltimore protests.
Bob Richard, July 10, 2015 at 5:55 pm
Nothing GP is says about the Times article or reporting in general is wrong. But the MSM, including
the Times reporter, is completely missing the real story of the Sanders campaign.
I will take at face value the statement that Sanders' personal views are a threat to the
capitalists who control both major parties. But his strategy is not. In spite of his best intentions,
he will end up being the sheepdog that makes sure the progressive movement stays in the Democratic
Party (for the term "sheepdog" and supporting analysis see http://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary).
Like Ralph Nader before him, Sanders has a completely wrong approach to political parties.
Nader understood that he needed to work outside the major party framework but did not understand
that social movements don't just need popular candidates. They also need enduring organizations,
which are called political parties. For most of his career, Sanders has been able work both
sides of this fence, helping to create a state-level organization (the Progressive Party) in Vermont
but also running with Democratic Party endorsements. This spring was a moment of truth for him.
He has (or until now had) the stature to create a new political party, perhaps from scratch or
perhaps by joining and helping build the Green Party. He chose to turn his back on the left.
The left needs a political party. Yes, I know, we have a two party system. But that is the
problem. Believing that the two party system is an immutable law of nature is not part of any
solution.
RPY, July 10, 2015 at 6:06 pm
Bernie I believe because of his message, is attracting people from both sides of the aisle.
Everyday people who are tired of partisan politics and are just glad to hear someone willing to
speak the truth of how screwed things are. From the corruption of wall street to the corruption
of Washington, DC politics.
Lambert Strether, July 10, 2015 at 7:50 pm
Some of us on the left would rather deal with a straightforward reactionary who's honest about
their intentions than backstabbing "Join the conversation" Democrats. I wonder if there's a similar
dynamic on the right: They'd rather deal with an honest-to-gawd Socialist than McConnnell and
Boehner (Exhibit A: TPP).
RPY, July 10, 2015 at 6:06 pm
Bernie I believe because of his message, is attracting people from both sides of the aisle.
Everyday people who are tired of partisan politics and are just glad to hear someone willing to
speak the truth of how screwed things are. From the corruption of wall street to the corruption
of Washington, DC politics.
Lambert Strether, July 10, 2015 at 7:50 pm
Some of us on the left would rather deal with a straightforward reactionary who's honest about
their intentions than backstabbing "Join the conversation" Democrats. I wonder if there's a similar
dynamic on the right: They'd rather deal with an honest-to-gawd Socialist than McConnnell and
Boehner (Exhibit A: TPP).
oho, July 11, 2015 at 2:36 pm
*** First, when you expose yourself to any of the "liberal" U.S. outlets (as opposed to, say,
The Guardian) be aware that because they are owned by establishment corporations they're already
pro-Clinton. ***
While the Guardian is nominally independent, it ain't much better at being "liberal" that the
NYT.
Guardian editors like access to Westminster, their fellow Oxbridge alums and invites to cocktail
parties in Kensington too.
"... "Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign raised an eye-popping $143 million in August for her candidacy and the Democratic Party, the best showing of her campaign, her team said Thursday" ..."
"... And yet my spam folder yesterday contained 46 (count 'em) pleas for donations from HillaryClinton.com, sent over the last ten days, including the one I read that said "Just send us a dollar." ..."
"... I'm sure they were just trying to make sure that 'eye-popping' amount isn't from the fewest donors in history. By about the fourth one of those I finally determined they really didn't need me to donate money they just needed to be able to count me as a donor ..."
"... But the Democrats don't even want those kinds of victories. They want the Executive Branch and no other branch of government so they can blame what they don't (or worse, do) do – haha, if you read that right you get "dodo" – on the other side. ..."
"... Ms Clinton has an insane amount of money. And what she spends it on (herself) and what she doesn't (anybody else) is what tells you what you need to know. ..."
"Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign raised an eye-popping $143
million in August for her candidacy and the Democratic Party, the best showing
of her campaign, her team said Thursday"
And yet my spam folder yesterday contained 46 (count 'em) pleas for
donations from HillaryClinton.com, sent over the last ten days, including
the one I read that said "Just send us a dollar."
And yes, since there was absolutely NO "unsubscribe" link on the emails
I initially received from the Clinton Cult, I did consign all further communication
to spam, thank you very much.
I'm sure they were just trying to make sure that 'eye-popping' amount
isn't from the fewest donors in history. By about the fourth one of those
I finally determined they really didn't need me to donate money they just
needed to be able to count me as a donor
Following right after that link is the withdrawal of $$$ for airtime
from Ted Strickland's campaign. Not some House race, not even a unlikely
Senate attempt, but they don't have enough money to hammer on somebody who
not only is chasing a big prize but actually already won the damn
race once already.
And you can convince me that it is 100% likely Strickland will lose.
But if you don't support him, you don't allow an alternative view to be
developed and used to hammer the winner during his term. Isn't that how
you play politics? You don't just show up around election, play nice, and
if polls – yeech, polls – don't go your way you just go home.
But the Democrats don't even want those kinds of victories. They want
the Executive Branch and no other branch of government so they can blame what they don't (or
worse, do) do – haha, if you read that right you get "dodo" – on the other
side.
Ms Clinton has an insane amount of money. And what she spends it
on (herself) and what she doesn't (anybody else) is what tells you what
you need to know.
Neo: I can't go back, can I?
Morpheus: No. But if you could, would you really want to? ...We never free a mind
once it's reached a certain age. It's dangerous, the mind has trouble letting go...
As long as the Matrix exists, the human race will never be free.
~ The Matrix
While this is a satire on an extreme polarization of electorate who now
behave like sport fans rooting for "their" team, Neoliberalism is the Other side ideology and will not abolish it without a fight.
Notable quotes:
"... Let's face it: The Other Side is held hostage by a radical, failed ideology. I have been doing some research on the Internet, and I have learned this ideology was developed by a very obscure but nonetheless profoundly influential writer with a strange-sounding name who enjoyed brief celebrity several decades ago. If you look carefully, you can trace nearly all the Other Side's policies for the past half-century back to the writings of this one person. ..."
"... To be sure, the Other Side also has been influenced by its powerful supporters. These include a reclusive billionaire who has funded a number of organizations far outside the political mainstream; several politicians who have said outrageous things over the years; and an alarmingly large number of completely clueless ordinary Americans who are being used as tools and don't even know it. ..."
"... It's ridiculous to talk about freedom in a society dominated by huge corporations. ..."
"... Wasn't it Voltaire who said "If you want to understand infinity look at people's stupidity"? ..."
The past several weeks have made one thing crystal-clear: Our country faces
unmitigated disaster if the Other Side wins.
No reasonably intelligent person can deny this. All you have to do is look
at the way the Other Side has been running its campaign. Instead of focusing
on the big issues that are important to the American People, it has fired a
relentlessly negative barrage of distortions, misrepresentations, and flat-out
lies.
Just look at the Other Side's latest commercial, which take a perfectly reasonable
statement by the candidate for My Side completely out of context to make it
seem as if he is saying something nefarious. This just shows you how desperate
the Other Side is and how willing it is to mislead the American People.
The Other Side also has been hammering away at My Side to release certain
documents that have nothing to do with anything, and making all sorts of outrageous
accusations about what might be in them. Meanwhile, the Other Side has stonewalled
perfectly reasonable requests to release its own documents that would expose
some very embarrassing details if anybody ever found out what was in them. This
just shows you what a bunch of hypocrites they are.
Naturally, the media won't report any of this. Major newspapers and cable
networks jump all over anything they think will make My Side look bad. Yet they
completely ignore critically important and incredibly relevant information that
would be devastating to the Other Side if it could ever be verified.
I will admit the candidates for My Side do make occasional blunders. These
usually happen at the end of exhausting 19-hour days and are perfectly understandable.
Our leaders are only human, after all. Nevertheless, the Other Side inevitably
makes a big fat deal out of these trivial gaffes, while completely ignoring
its own candidates' incredibly thoughtless and stupid remarks – remarks that
reveal the Other Side's true nature, which is genuinely frightening.
My Side has produced a visionary program that will get the economy moving,
put the American People back to work, strengthen national security, return fiscal
integrity to Washington, and restore our standing in the international community.
What does the Other Side have to offer? Nothing but the same old disproven,
discredited policies that got us into our current mess in the first place.
Don't take my word for it, though. I recently read about an analysis by an
independent, nonpartisan organization that supports My Side. It proves beyond
the shadow of a doubt that everything I have been saying about the Other Side
was true all along. Of course, the Other Side refuses to acknowledge any of
this. It is too busy cranking out so-called studies by so-called experts who
are actually nothing but partisan hacks. This just shows you that the Other
Side lives in its own little echo chamber and refuses to listen to anyone who
has not already drunk its Kool-Aid.
Let's face it: The Other Side is held hostage by a radical, failed ideology.
I have been doing some research on the Internet, and I have learned this ideology
was developed by a very obscure but nonetheless profoundly influential writer
with a strange-sounding name who enjoyed brief celebrity several decades ago.
If you look carefully, you can trace nearly all the Other Side's policies for
the past half-century back to the writings of this one person.
To be sure, the Other Side also has been influenced by its powerful supporters.
These include a reclusive billionaire who has funded a number of organizations
far outside the political mainstream; several politicians who have said outrageous
things over the years; and an alarmingly large number of completely clueless
ordinary Americans who are being used as tools and don't even know it.
These people are really pathetic, too. The other day I saw a YouTube video
in which My Side sent an investigator and a cameraman to a rally being held
by the Other Side, where the investigator proceeded to ask some real zingers.
It was hilarious! First off, the people at the rally wore T-shirts with all
kinds of lame messages that they actually thought were really clever. Plus,
many of the people who were interviewed were overweight, sweaty, flushed, and
generally not very attractive. But what was really funny was how stupid they
were. There is no way anyone could watch that video and not come away convinced
the people on My Side are smarter, and that My Side is therefore right about
everything.
Besides, it's clear that the people on the Other Side are driven by mindless
anger – unlike My Side, which is filled with passionate idealism and righteous
indignation. That indignation, I hasten to add, is entirely justified. I have
read several articles in publications that support My Side that expose what
a truly dangerous group the Other Side is, and how thoroughly committed it is
to imposing its radical, failed agenda on the rest of us.
That is why I believe [2016] is, without a doubt, the defining election of
our lifetime. The difference between My Side and the Other Side could not be
greater. That is why it absolutely must win [in 2016].
Sad sad Americans just figured this out? You idiots should have been
reading Chomsky, he just said it so well: "It's ridiculous to talk about
freedom in a society dominated by huge corporations." -Chomsky
Chomsky has been saying this for years. I guess you have been too busy
"making money" to pay attention.
The average American sheeple never fail to amuse me how stupid they
really are. Wasn't it Voltaire who said "If you want to understand infinity
look at people's stupidity"?
"... I said from the very beginning of Sanders campaign, that an old, lefty, New York Jew is going to have a really tough time connecting with older, black voters in the south. ..."
"... I don't think most Americans realize just how conservative southern blacks really are, particularly the ones old enough to remember the bad old days of segregation and before. ..."
"... the social climate in the south would reward and penalize behaviors by both whites and blacks in a manner very different from cultures found in the north and the west. ..."
"... Radical personalities and those who are quick to embrace new ideas don't fare very well in those parts of the country. Slow, steady, quite and modest is your best bet for survival. ..."
"... Almost like Clinton's "slow incremental change" campaign theme. ..."
I really liked Charles Blow's insightful comment about two Black Americas and the great migration.
I am white but I like to think that I know a little about Black America. I've travelled and lived
all over the US now, but I grew up in the eighties in a small, racially divided southern town.
I attended a public school that was 60% black and every black teacher of mine in elementary school
was formerly employed by the "separate but equal" black school system prior to desegregation.
I didn't realize how close I was to the bad ole' segregated south growing up, but it boggles my
mind and certain things make more sense to me now looking back. I was raised by my working mother
and two different black nannies. They were surrogate moms to me. I would play with their nieces,
nephews and grand-children at their house sometimes and other times at my parents. I even attended
church with them on a couple of different occasions. I left the south after graduating college
but I didn't forget the lessons of my youth. I said from the very beginning of Sanders campaign,
that an old, lefty, New York Jew is going to have a really tough time connecting with older, black
voters in the south.
I don't think most Americans realize just how conservative southern blacks really are,
particularly the ones old enough to remember the bad old days of segregation and before.
The cultural DNA of the diaspora blacks of the north and the blacks that stayed behind is very
different. Besides the attitudes and personality types that may have been more likely to migrate
north or west, it's important to remember that the social climate in the south would reward
and penalize behaviors by both whites and blacks in a manner very different from cultures found
in the north and the west.
There are still plenty of strong pockets of racism today outside of the south, particularly
in the northeast, appalachia, and the midwest but nowhere I've visited can compare to racism found
in the deep southern states of the Gulf and Mississippi delta region.
Radical personalities and those who are quick to embrace new ideas don't fare very well
in those parts of the country. Slow, steady, quite and modest is your best bet for survival.
Almost like Clinton's "slow incremental change" campaign theme. Clinton keeps running
up the delegate score with the support of southern black grannies like the ones who raised me,
but she is running out of deep south. Meanwhile Sanders is forging new coalitions and crushing
the under-forty vote, so even if he can't win the DNC's rigged primary this year the future looks
bright for leaders that want to pick up Sanders mantle in the near future.
Besides the attitudes and personality types that may have been more likely to migrate north
or west, it's important to remember that the social climate in the south would reward and penalize
behaviors by both whites and blacks in a manner very different from cultures found in the north
and the west.
Very true & excellent point. I grew up in small town Alabama & permanently moved away in January
1990. It is a very pro-establishment place, where, at least back then, people who were willing
to be noticeably different had to be very exceptional in some way or willing & able to fend for
themselves, otherwise they would be ostracized or bullied. Birmingham & Tuscaloosa were better,
at least in pockets, but outside of the university system you were still expected to behave in
a very conservative manner. Going home to visit over the years & seeing giant billboards–in cities!–saying
things like "Go to church or go to Hell" (that is an exact quote; I shall never forget it; horribly
wrongheaded and asinine even from a fundamentalist Christian perspective) or "praise be the glory
of the fetus, may those who harm it suffer eternal torment" (not an exact quote but pretty much
an exact sentiment on a large # of signs) did not make me change my thoughts a whole hella lot,
or–and this is kinda funny in light of my current politics–talking with a group of business owners
in an airport who suddenly turned their backs on me & excluded me from conversation when they
were trashing Hillary and I said "I like Hillary" & after a shocked silence one of them said "You
need to listen to Rush Limbaugh son, learn some things" followed by "I've heard Rush. Not really
a fan." That ended that conversation abruptly. Among other things.
And I have (or rather had, kinda lost touch) friends from Alabama involved in state & national
democratic politics, and whatever their private inclinations they were just as conservative as
the Republicans (among whom I had an equal # of friends) on most things in public, and kept very
quiet about issues where they were not with the growing conservative majority there (it should
be noted that this is a HORRIBLE long term strategy, if you have actual principles in opposition
to the spreading & solidifying right-wing belief system). I had nonetheless expected better from
the South, and am still disappointed/horrified at the voting there, but this reminder does explain
a lot. With a lot of help from the DNC & MSM, they were convinced Bernie would not win, and might
even lose by an amount they would find embarrassing, & knowingly fighting a lost cause is (or
was) generally derided back there, and no one wants to be an object of derision. Also, a lot of
Southerners just don't like people from the Northeast. End stop. I for some reason thought that
would have changed by now, and/or that Bernie was sufficiently atypical for this to be a non-factor
anyway. But maybe not. Plus it may be people still consider Hillary a Southerner from her time
in Arkansas, and she's getting the "one of us" vote.
but she is running out of deep south.
Indeed. Temperaments out west are very, very different. =)
"... My own take away is that in order for the investment in electronic election fraud to pay off, polls must be discredited. ..."
"... It used to be that exit polling was the best, most reliable defense against election fraud, and was used all over the globe to access the legitimacy of election results. ..."
"... The decline in polling accuracy will lead to more audacious efforts, probably successful, to steal elections as the people are trained not to believe poll results. ..."
"... Most pollsters now days are actually trying to influence as opposed to measure the mood of the electorate, this hasn't helped matters, and probably accounts for most of the negative sentiment held by the people as concerns pollsters. ..."
"... Interesting point, Watt4Bob. The golden age of polling happened when most households had a landline. Before then, access was a problem. Now there are too many alternative communication channels, and each has its demographic bias (more old people on landlines, etc.). ..."
"... The polls in MI were not exit polls. Exit polling is more accurate. The MI polls were phone calls to land lines, which left out millennials completely, as maybe 1% of them own a land line telephone. ..."
My own take away is that in order for the investment in electronic
election fraud to pay off, polls must be discredited.
It used to be that exit polling was the best, most reliable defense
against election fraud, and was used all over the globe to access the legitimacy
of election results.
So far the history of electronic manipulation has overlapped the
history of effective polling, which means the manipulators have only felt
safe changing votes when the margin is very close.
The decline in polling accuracy will lead to more audacious efforts,
probably successful, to steal elections as the people are trained not to
believe poll results.
Most pollsters now days are actually trying to influence as opposed
to measure the mood of the electorate, this hasn't helped matters, and probably
accounts for most of the negative sentiment held by the people as concerns
pollsters.
Looks like this could be the last election cycle where anyone pays attention
to the polls, and that isn't good for us, it would be sad to think that
the Republican technical team might be all that stands between our future
and President Trump.
Interesting point, Watt4Bob. The golden age of polling happened when
most households had a landline. Before then, access was a problem. Now there
are too many alternative communication channels, and each has its demographic
bias (more old people on landlines, etc.).
However, all this can be offset in politics by focusing on exit polls.
In this age of personal broadcasting, people may be more willing to be open
about their opinions in public.
The polls in MI were not exit polls. Exit polling is more accurate. The
MI polls were phone calls to land lines, which left out millennials completely,
as maybe 1% of them own a land line telephone.
Now in view of recent Hillary health problems actions of Wasserman Schultz need
to be revisited. She somehow avoided criminal prosecution for interfering with the
election process under Obama administration. That's clearly wrong. The court
should investigate and determine the level of her guilt.
Moor did his duty, moor can go. This is fully applicable to Wasserman Schultz.
BTW it was king of "bait and switch" Obama who installed her in this position. And
after that some try to say that Obama is not a neocon. Essentially leaks mean is
that Sander's run was defeated by the Democratic Party's establishment dirty tricks
and Hillary is not a legitimate candidate. It's Mission Accomplished, once again.
"Clinton is a life-long Republican. She grew up in an all-white Republican suburb,
she supported Goldwater, and she supported Wall Street banking, then became a DINO
dildo to ride her husband's coattails to WH, until the NYC Mob traded her a NY Senator
seat for her husband's perfidy. She never said one word about re-regulating the
banks."
How could this anti-Russian hysteria/bashing go on in a normal country -- the
level of paranoia and disinformation about Russia and Putin is plain crazy even
for proto-fascist regimes.
Notable quotes:
"... Wasserman Schultz reluctantly agreed to relinquish her speaking role at the convention here, a sign of her politically fragile standing. ..."
"... Democratic leaders are scrambling to keep the party united, but two officials familiar with the discussions said Wasserman Schultz was digging in and not eager to vacate her post after the November elections. ..."
"... Sanders on Sunday told CNN's Jake Tapper the release of DNC emails that show its staffers working against him underscore the position he's held for months: Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to go. ..."
"... "I don't think she is qualified to be the chair of the DNC not only for these awful emails, which revealed the prejudice of the DNC, but also because we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people, and I don't think her leadership style is doing that," Sanders told Tapper ..."
"... But again, we discussed this many, many months ago, on this show, so what is revealed now is not a shock to me." ..."
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz will not
have a major speaking role or preside over daily convention proceedings this
week, a decision reached by party officials Saturday after emails surfaced raising
questions about the committee's impartiality during the Democratic primary.
The DNC Rules Committee on Saturday named Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, as permanent
chair of the convention, according to a DNC source. She will gavel each session
to order and will gavel each session closed.
"She's been quarantined," another top Democrat said of Wasserman Schultz,
following a meeting Saturday night. Wasserman Schultz faced intense pressure
Sunday to resign her post as head of the Democratic National Committee, several
party leaders told CNN, urging her to quell a growing controversy threatening
to disrupt Hillary Clinton's nominating convention.
Wasserman Schultz reluctantly agreed to relinquish her speaking role
at the convention here, a sign of her politically fragile standing. But
party leaders are now urging the Florida congresswoman to vacate her position
as head of the party entirely in the wake of leaked emails suggesting the DNC
favored Clinton during the primary and tried to take down Bernie Sanders by
questioning his religion. Democratic leaders are scrambling to keep the
party united, but two officials familiar with the discussions said Wasserman
Schultz was digging in and not eager to vacate her post after the November elections.
... ... ...
One email appears to show DNC staffers asking how they can reference Bernie
Sanders' faith to weaken him in the eyes of Southern voters. Another seems to
depict an attorney advising the committee on how to defend Hillary Clinton against
an accusation by the Sanders campaign of not living up to a joint fundraising
agreement.
Sanders on Sunday told CNN's Jake Tapper the release of DNC emails that
show its staffers working against him underscore the position he's held for
months: Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to go.
"I don't think she is qualified to be the chair of the DNC not only for
these awful emails, which revealed the prejudice of the DNC, but also because
we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people, and I don't
think her leadership style is doing that," Sanders told Tapper on "State
of the Union," on the eve of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.
"I am not an atheist," he said. "But aside from all of that, it is an outrage
and sad that you would have people in important positions in the DNC trying
to undermine my campaign. It goes without saying, the function of the DNC is
to represent all of the candidates -- to be fair and even-minded."
He added: "But again, we discussed this many, many months ago, on this
show, so what is revealed now is not a shock to me."
... ... ...
Several Democratic sources told CNN that the leaked emails are a big source
of contention and may incite tensions between the Clinton and Sanders camps
heading into the Democratic convention's Rules Committee meeting this weekend.
"It could threaten their agreement," one Democrat said, referring to the
deal reached between Clinton and Sanders about the convention, delegates and
the DNC. The party had agreed to include more progressive principles in its
official platform, and as part of the agreement, Sanders dropped his fight to
contest Wasserman Schultz as the head of the DNC.
"It's gas meets flame," the Democrat said.
Michael Briggs, a Sanders spokesman, had no comment Friday.
The issue surfaced on Saturday at Clinton's first campaign event with Tim
Kaine as her running mate, when a protester was escorted out of Florida International
University in Miami. The protester shouted "DNC leaks" soon after Clinton thanked
Wasserman Schultz for her leadership at the DNC.
"... millions of people in the Islamic world have reached their own conclusion about responsibility. ..."
"... Deeply distrusting anything coming from Washington, many are buying into a theory based not on facts or evidence but the assumption that the West and Israel are capable of anything. ..."
"... When I was in Iraq in 2004 I had a Turkish contractor I worked with there (he owned a generator maintenance/repair shop) tell me it was unfortunate that Bush did not understand that the Israelis paid for and helped to execute the WTC blowup. ..."
"... To be perfectly frank, I told him it would not have surprised me in the least if it were true. ..."
While Western leaders declare they have incontrovertible, if
not yet public, proof that Saudi fugitive Osama bin Laden was behind
the attacks, millions of people in the Islamic world have
reached their own conclusion about responsibility.
Deeply distrusting anything coming
from Washington, many are buying into a theory based not on facts or
evidence but the assumption that the West and Israel are capable of
anything.
It's only a conspiracy theory if you have a deerstalker turban.
This story has been circulating in various forms over there for years.
When I was in Iraq in 2004 I had a Turkish contractor I worked with there
(he owned a generator maintenance/repair shop) tell me it was unfortunate
that Bush did not understand that the Israelis paid for and helped to execute
the WTC blowup.
To be perfectly frank, I told him it would not have surprised me in the
least if it were true.
"... To hear the mainstream news media retell the story of the contentious 2000 presidential election, one would think that it all boils down to Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court decision created huge controversy and poisons public life to this day. But this focus on the decision serves to obscure an act of great duplicity on the part of the media that dwarfs the impact of that case: namely, that if it hadn't been for actions they took on television on Election Night, November 7, 2000, there never would have been a Bush v. Gore or a Florida recount in the first place. ..."
"... by 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Election Night, a cover-up had already begun. ..."
To hear the mainstream news media retell the story of the contentious
2000 presidential election, one would think that it all boils down to Bush v.
Gore. The Supreme Court decision created huge controversy and poisons public
life to this day. But this focus on the decision serves to obscure an act of
great duplicity on the part of the media that dwarfs the impact of that case:
namely, that if it hadn't been for actions they took on television on Election
Night, November 7, 2000, there never would have been a Bush v. Gore or a Florida
recount in the first place.
It is a story of voter suppression. As it turns out, most of what we think
was important about that election-hanging chads, butterfly ballots, 36 days
of legal jousting-is unimportant. And by 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Election
Night, a cover-up had already begun.
It's not over until it's over. The accuracy of those figures are probably
pretty low as phones no loner represent a reliable medium for such opinion surveys.
Times changed ;-).
I will be surprised if rust belt and similar states not support Trump.
You should understand that this is a referendum on neoliberal globalization,
so Hillary is with all her crimes and warts is generally immaterial.
All this smoke screen of Trump demonization, that MSM use to save Hillary
might not work at all.
The real question is: Does the anger of the US population at neoliberal globalization
reached the boiling point or not.
Please also think about what Assange might still have on Hillary and when
he will release those emails.
DNC is just a cesspool of neocon sharks. No decency whatsoever. What a bottom
feeders. Will Sanders supporters walk out ?
Notable quotes:
"... They made Craigslist posts on fake Trump jobs talking about women needing to be hot for the job and "maintain hotness" https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803 ..."
"... DNC and Hillary moles inside the Bernie campaign https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4776 ..."
"Hey Josh, since the Sanders camp keeps pushing stories about the money
laundering, we're prepping a Medium post from either our CFO or our CEO
we want to run by you. It will sharply state that the criticisms are wrong,
etc.. basically our talking points in a Medium post format with some extra
detail."
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4091
DWS on Bernie staying in the race in April: "Spoken like someone who
has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding
of what to do"
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5477 )
Calling someone a Bernie Bro for wanting to interview DWS about money
laundering, which they call "a shit topic". Asks for an interview next week
on another topic.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13319
Media Collaboration
"I think the best reporter to give the news to ahead of time is Greg
Sargent at the Washington Post. But, the specific reporter is not as important
as getting it to an outlet before the news breaks so we can help control
the narrative on the front"
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11242
More media collusion (Politico) "Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before
it goes to his editors as long as I didn't share it. Let me know if you
see anything that's missing and I'll push back." Thanks to
/u/PM_ME_OR_PM_ME
"-- Last night, Hillary attended two high-dollar fundraisers in New
York City. The first, from 6:15 p.m. to 7:45 p.m., was at the home of Maureen
White and Steven Rattner. Approximately 15 attendees contributed $100,000+
to attend. Then, from 8:15 p.m. to 9:45 p.m., she went to the home of Lynn
Forester de Rothschild. Another 15 people ponied up more than 100K to attend."
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/1238
"less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort has stayed
in the state parties' coffers, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest
Federal Election Commission filing"
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/1724
Targeting Wall Street donors. Thanks
/u/Cygnus_X
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/998
More info: "One big Clinton donor on Wall Street said that Bush donors
are prime targets and that 'we're a big tent.' Potential sources of support
for Clinton could include people like Jack Oliver, who also served as a
top fundraiser for Jeb Bush. Both Johnson and Oliver did not respond to
requests for comment.The race for Wall Street cash will be intense."-
/u/Cygnus_X
Personal note: honestly this feels like browsing a bunch of high school
girls' emails. "Is there a fuck you emoji", "bahahaha", someone links to
round of applause by lady gaga.
Tons of media manipulation.
Also, kinda feel bad for Bernie supporters now. The system, like trump
mentioned in his speech, was against you completely.
This short article contains several very deep observations. Highly
recommended...
Notable quotes:
"... There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen, under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George W. Bush carried out. ..."
"... This has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over. ..."
"... First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country. Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education, public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know, they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form. ..."
"... So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they want us to focus on. ..."
"... I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party -- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70 percent of the original recipients were children. ..."
"... Trump is not the phenomenon. Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile ..."
CHRIS HEDGES : Well, reducing the election to personalities
is kind of infantile at this point. The fact is, we live in a system that Sheldon
Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism. It's a system where corporate power has
seized all of the levers of control. There is no way to vote against the interests
of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen,
under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George
W. Bush carried out. We've seen the executive branch misinterpret the 2001 Authorization
to Use Military Force Act as giving itself the right to assassinate American
citizens, including children. I speak of Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son.
We have bailed out the banks, pushed through programs of austerity. This
has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate
power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate
coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over.
I just came back from Poland, which is a kind of case study of how
neoliberal poison destroys a society and creates figures like Trump. Poland
has gone, I think we can argue, into a neofascism.
First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country.
Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education,
public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now
watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know,
they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political
system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form.
So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that
in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But
the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they
want us to focus on. We've got to break away from political personalities
and understand and examine and critique the structures of power. And, in fact,
the Democratic Party, especially beginning under Bill Clinton, has carried water
for corporate entities as assiduously as the Republican Party. This is something
that Ralph Nader understood long before the rest of us, and stepped out very
courageously in 2000. And I think we will look back on that period and find
Ralph to be an amazingly prophetic figure. Nobody understands corporate power
better than Ralph. And I think now people have caught up with Ralph.
And this is, of course, why I support Dr. Stein and the Green Party. We have
to remember that 10 years ago, Syriza, which controls the Greek government,
was polling at exactly the same spot that the Green Party is polling now-about
4 percent. We've got to break out of this idea that we can create systematic
change within a particular election cycle. We've got to be willing to step out
into the political wilderness, perhaps, for a decade. But on the issues of climate
change, on the issue of the destruction of civil liberties, including our right
to privacy-and I speak as a former investigative journalist, which doesn't exist
anymore because of wholesale government surveillance-we have no ability, except
for hackers.
I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've
printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never
exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And
the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're
appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes
the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party
-- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus
in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into
the Clinton campaign.
The fact is, Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned
children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70
percent of the original recipients were children.
This debate over -- I don't like Trump, but Trump is not the phenomenon.
Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get
rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile, maybe Ted Cruz.
Neo: I can't go back, can I?
Morpheus: No. But if you could, would you really want to? ...We never free a mind
once it's reached a certain age. It's dangerous, the mind has trouble letting go...
As long as the Matrix exists, the human race will never be free.
~ The Matrix
While this is a satire on an extreme polarization of electorate who now
behave like sport fans rooting for "their" team, Neoliberalism is the Other side ideology and will not abolish it without a fight.
Notable quotes:
"... Let's face it: The Other Side is held hostage by a radical, failed ideology. I have been doing some research on the Internet, and I have learned this ideology was developed by a very obscure but nonetheless profoundly influential writer with a strange-sounding name who enjoyed brief celebrity several decades ago. If you look carefully, you can trace nearly all the Other Side's policies for the past half-century back to the writings of this one person. ..."
"... To be sure, the Other Side also has been influenced by its powerful supporters. These include a reclusive billionaire who has funded a number of organizations far outside the political mainstream; several politicians who have said outrageous things over the years; and an alarmingly large number of completely clueless ordinary Americans who are being used as tools and don't even know it. ..."
"... It's ridiculous to talk about freedom in a society dominated by huge corporations. ..."
"... Wasn't it Voltaire who said "If you want to understand infinity look at people's stupidity"? ..."
The past several weeks have made one thing crystal-clear: Our country faces
unmitigated disaster if the Other Side wins.
No reasonably intelligent person can deny this. All you have to do is look
at the way the Other Side has been running its campaign. Instead of focusing
on the big issues that are important to the American People, it has fired a
relentlessly negative barrage of distortions, misrepresentations, and flat-out
lies.
Just look at the Other Side's latest commercial, which take a perfectly reasonable
statement by the candidate for My Side completely out of context to make it
seem as if he is saying something nefarious. This just shows you how desperate
the Other Side is and how willing it is to mislead the American People.
The Other Side also has been hammering away at My Side to release certain
documents that have nothing to do with anything, and making all sorts of outrageous
accusations about what might be in them. Meanwhile, the Other Side has stonewalled
perfectly reasonable requests to release its own documents that would expose
some very embarrassing details if anybody ever found out what was in them. This
just shows you what a bunch of hypocrites they are.
Naturally, the media won't report any of this. Major newspapers and cable
networks jump all over anything they think will make My Side look bad. Yet they
completely ignore critically important and incredibly relevant information that
would be devastating to the Other Side if it could ever be verified.
I will admit the candidates for My Side do make occasional blunders. These
usually happen at the end of exhausting 19-hour days and are perfectly understandable.
Our leaders are only human, after all. Nevertheless, the Other Side inevitably
makes a big fat deal out of these trivial gaffes, while completely ignoring
its own candidates' incredibly thoughtless and stupid remarks – remarks that
reveal the Other Side's true nature, which is genuinely frightening.
My Side has produced a visionary program that will get the economy moving,
put the American People back to work, strengthen national security, return fiscal
integrity to Washington, and restore our standing in the international community.
What does the Other Side have to offer? Nothing but the same old disproven,
discredited policies that got us into our current mess in the first place.
Don't take my word for it, though. I recently read about an analysis by an
independent, nonpartisan organization that supports My Side. It proves beyond
the shadow of a doubt that everything I have been saying about the Other Side
was true all along. Of course, the Other Side refuses to acknowledge any of
this. It is too busy cranking out so-called studies by so-called experts who
are actually nothing but partisan hacks. This just shows you that the Other
Side lives in its own little echo chamber and refuses to listen to anyone who
has not already drunk its Kool-Aid.
Let's face it: The Other Side is held hostage by a radical, failed ideology.
I have been doing some research on the Internet, and I have learned this ideology
was developed by a very obscure but nonetheless profoundly influential writer
with a strange-sounding name who enjoyed brief celebrity several decades ago.
If you look carefully, you can trace nearly all the Other Side's policies for
the past half-century back to the writings of this one person.
To be sure, the Other Side also has been influenced by its powerful supporters.
These include a reclusive billionaire who has funded a number of organizations
far outside the political mainstream; several politicians who have said outrageous
things over the years; and an alarmingly large number of completely clueless
ordinary Americans who are being used as tools and don't even know it.
These people are really pathetic, too. The other day I saw a YouTube video
in which My Side sent an investigator and a cameraman to a rally being held
by the Other Side, where the investigator proceeded to ask some real zingers.
It was hilarious! First off, the people at the rally wore T-shirts with all
kinds of lame messages that they actually thought were really clever. Plus,
many of the people who were interviewed were overweight, sweaty, flushed, and
generally not very attractive. But what was really funny was how stupid they
were. There is no way anyone could watch that video and not come away convinced
the people on My Side are smarter, and that My Side is therefore right about
everything.
Besides, it's clear that the people on the Other Side are driven by mindless
anger – unlike My Side, which is filled with passionate idealism and righteous
indignation. That indignation, I hasten to add, is entirely justified. I have
read several articles in publications that support My Side that expose what
a truly dangerous group the Other Side is, and how thoroughly committed it is
to imposing its radical, failed agenda on the rest of us.
That is why I believe [2016] is, without a doubt, the defining election of
our lifetime. The difference between My Side and the Other Side could not be
greater. That is why it absolutely must win [in 2016].
Sad sad Americans just figured this out? You idiots should have been
reading Chomsky, he just said it so well: "It's ridiculous to talk about
freedom in a society dominated by huge corporations." -Chomsky
Chomsky has been saying this for years. I guess you have been too busy
"making money" to pay attention.
The average American sheeple never fail to amuse me how stupid they
really are. Wasn't it Voltaire who said "If you want to understand infinity
look at people's stupidity"?
...the dystopia of the Wachowski Brothers' Matrix trilogy is already here: the
technological-industrial 'machine' is already running the world, a world where individual
humans are but insignificant little cogs with barely any autonomy. No single human
being - neither the most powerful politician, nor the most powerful businessman
- has the power to rein in the system. They necessarily have to follow the inexorable
logic of what has been unleashed.
~ G Sampath on John Zerzan
Neo: I can't go back, can I?
Morpheus: No. But if you could, would you really want to? ...We never free a mind
once it's reached a certain age. It's dangerous, the mind has trouble letting go...
As long as the Matrix exists, the human race will never be free.
~ The Matrix
Notable quotes:
"... And if they (Pentagon, DoD, etc…) resist new guidance, what is going to be done about it? ..."
"... It seems to me like the major sovereignty-violating actions of the US Gov't happen with the approval of the executive branch. The military and intelligence services generally don't speak out or publicly act against the president's policies. They do leak a bunch of shit everywhere (the mysterious "high-ranking anonymous Obama official" who seems to pop up whenever the president's policies need to be opposed), but that you can live with. ..."
Are we assuming that the Pentagon, DoD, etc… are just going to accept
new guidance from the top? (That sounds like wishful thinking to me.)
And if they (Pentagon, DoD, etc…) resist new guidance, what is going
to be done about it? Currently more Americans trust the military than any
institution or politician. I highly doubt anyone could swing public opinion
against the Deep State at this point in time.
Daryl
It seems to me like the major sovereignty-violating actions of the US
Gov't happen with the approval of the executive branch. The military and
intelligence services generally don't speak out or publicly act against
the president's policies. They do leak a bunch of shit everywhere (the mysterious
"high-ranking anonymous Obama official" who seems to pop up whenever the
president's policies need to be opposed), but that you can live with.
JKF? I didn't know that the historian John King Fairbank was assassinated.
roadrider
Then I guess you have solid evidence to account for the actions of Allen
Dulles, David Atlee Phillips, William Harvey, David Morales, E. Howard Hunt,
Richard Helms, James Angleton and other CIA personnel and assets who had
perhaps the strongest motives to murder Kennedy
the means to carry out the crime, namely, their executive action
(assassination) capability and blackmail the government into aiding their
cover up and
the opportunity to carry out such a plan given their complete
lack of accountability to the rest of the government and their unmatched
expertise in lying, deceit, secrecy, fraud.
Because if you actually took the time to research or at least read about
their actions in this matter instead of just spouting bald assertions that
you decline to back up with any facts you would find their behavior nearly
impossible to explain other than having at, the very least, guilty knowledge
of the crime.
The concept of the unbiased political reporter is difficult to accept
today. The financial and commercial systems require us all to be economic
animals responding to self-advantage. It is only that handful of people
with more loot than they can spend who can step off the treadmill and act
honestly.
Can any of the political reporters be financially qualified in that way?
Seems highly unlikely.
The only thing that might produce an honest pollster is the fear of the
owners of the polling company that their venality will be exposed and they
will have to start another biz.
Congrats to Lambert for focusing his attention where it matters and not
on the prima donnas.
"... Sanders is a touchy subject with me. The man was offered a spot on the Green party ticket, and obviously didn't take it. Considering the public disgust with the two slimeballs we're stuck with now, I believe he'd have had a real shot at the presidency. Despite my rating him as a C- at best, I'd have voted for the man. It's my opinion he'd have gotten a whole lot of Trump's base too. The poorer members of the GOP know they're getting the shaft, and I suspect a great many of them would have defected too. ..."
"... There was a theory early-on that Sanders never was really serious, but instead was running as a "sheepdog" to lead the dirty hippy lefties to Clinton. ..."
Sanders is a touchy subject with me. The man was offered a spot on
the Green party ticket, and obviously didn't take it. Considering the public
disgust with the two slimeballs we're stuck with now, I believe he'd have
had a real shot at the presidency. Despite my rating him as a C- at best,
I'd have voted for the man. It's my opinion he'd have gotten a whole lot
of Trump's base too. The poorer members of the GOP know they're getting
the shaft, and I suspect a great many of them would have defected too.
There was a theory early-on that Sanders never was really serious,
but instead was running as a "sheepdog" to lead the dirty hippy lefties
to Clinton. That theory looks more plausible now than it did earlier.
"... 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. ..."
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…….
Sanders as a pupil of the king of "bait and switch" Obama
Notable quotes:
"... I think he will come to deeply regret what he has done. He has betrayed these people who believed in this political revolution. We heard this same kind of rhetoric, by the way, in 2008 around Obama. ..."
CHRIS HEDGES : Well, I didn't back Bernie Sanders because-and
Kshama Sawant and I had had a discussion with him before-because he said that
he would work within the Democratic structures and support the nominee.
And
I think we have now watched Bernie Sanders walk away from his political moment.
You know, he - I think he will come to deeply regret what he has done. He
has betrayed these people who believed in this political revolution. We heard
this same kind of rhetoric, by the way, in 2008 around Obama.
"... That means backing Wall Street, the neocons and the TPP. Shame on him! He told his followers to think of pie in the sky in the decades it will take to take over the Democratic Party from below, from school boards, etc. ..."
"... What on earth is revolution if it doesn't include either remove the rot in the Democratic Party, the Wall Street control, or start another party? It had to be one or the other. Here was his chance. I think he missed it. ..."
"... He did miss his chance. Some people were suggesting that he should walk and form his own party. Particularly how the party treated him. ..."
"... The Democrats and the Republicans together have made it almost impossible for a third party to get registered in every state. To run in every state. To get just all of the mechanics you need because of all the lawsuits against them. The Green Party is the only party that had already solved that. Apart from the Libertarian Party. ..."
"... The oligarchs have joined the Republicans and the Democrats are now seen to be the same party, called the Democratic Party. Here was his chance to make an alternative. ..."
"... I believe Hillary's the greater evil, not Trump, because Trump is incompetent and doesn't have the staff around him, or the political support that Hilary has. ..."
"... I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care. ..."
"... I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight! ..."
"... Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life. ..."
"... I agree with Hudson that HRC is the greater threat. I also agree with him that Bernie makes no sense. What the hell did Bernie have to lose? He could have accepted the prez nomination with the Greens. In fact, he should have run third party from the git-go. By sucking up to the dems that politically raped him, Bernie is exhibiting a variation of Stockholm syndrome. ..."
"... Bernie's problem in the end is that he couldn't see that in order to gain power in the Democratic Party (i.e., in order to dislodge the Clintons), the Left might (probably would) have to lose an election. ..."
"... The Democratic PoC (Party of Clinton) had to be shown as a party that could not win an election without its left half. He wrongly saw the powerless Trump as the greater threat, something that could only be done if he still at least marginally trusted Hillary to ever keep her word on anything. He will come to see that as his greatest mistake of all. ..."
"... Bernie reminds me of Gorbachev. Both clearly saw what the problem was with their respective societies, but still thought that things could be fixed by changing their respective parties. Bernie it seems, like Gorbachev before him, can not intellectually accept that effective reforms require radical action on the existing power structures. Gorbachev could not break with the Communist system and Bernie can not break with the Democratic party. ..."
"... I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care. ..."
"... I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight! ..."
"... Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life. ..."
PERIES: Let's turn to Sanders's strategy here. Now, Sanders is, of course,
asking people to support Hillary. And if you buy into the idea that she is the
lesser of two evils candidate, then we also have to look at Bernie's other strategy
– which is to vote as many people as we possibly can at various other levels
of the elections that are going on at congressional levels, Senate level, at
municipal levels. Is that the way to go, so that we can avoid some of these
choices we are offered?
HUDSON: Well, this is what I don't understand about Sanders's strategy. He
says we need a revolution. He's absolutely right. But then, everything he said
in terms of the election is about Trump. I can guarantee you that the revolution
isn't really about Trump. The way Sanders has described things, you have to
take over the Democratic Party and pry away the leadership, away from Wall Street,
away from the corporations.
Democrats pretend to be a party of the working class, a party of the people.
But it's teetering with Hillary as it's candidate. If ever there was a time
to split it, this was the year. But Bernie missed his chance. He knuckled under
and said okay, the election's going to be about Trump. Forget the revolution
that I've talked about. Forget reforming the Democratic Party, I'm sorry. Forget
that I said Hillary is not fit to be President. I'm sorry, she is fit to be
President. We've got to back her.
That means backing Wall Street, the neocons and the TPP. Shame on him!
He told his followers to think of pie in the sky in the decades it will take
to take over the Democratic Party from below, from school boards, etc.
Labor unions said this half a century ago. It didn't work. Bernie gave up
on everything to back the TPP candidate, the neocon candidate.
What on earth is revolution if it doesn't include either remove the rot
in the Democratic Party, the Wall Street control, or start another party? It
had to be one or the other. Here was his chance. I think he missed it.
PERIES: I think there's a lot of people out there that agree with
that analysis, Michael. He did miss his chance. Some people were suggesting
that he should walk and form his own party. Particularly how the party treated
him. But there is another choice out there. In fact, we at the Real News
is out there covering the Green Party election as we are speaking here, Michael.
Is that an option?
HUDSON: It would have been the only option for him. He had decided
that you can't really mount a third party, because it's so hard. The Democrats
and the Republicans together have made it almost impossible for a third party
to get registered in every state. To run in every state. To get just all of
the mechanics you need because of all the lawsuits against them. The Green Party
is the only party that had already solved that. Apart from the Libertarian Party.
So here you have the only possible third party he could have run on this
time, and he avoided it. I'm sure he must of thought about it. He was offered
the presidency on it. He could of used that and brought his revolution into
that party and then expanded it as a real alternative to both the Democrats
and the Republicans. Because the Republican Party is already split, by the fact
that the Tea Party's pretty much destroyed it. The oligarchs have joined
the Republicans and the Democrats are now seen to be the same party, called
the Democratic Party. Here was his chance to make an alternative.
I don't think there will be a chance like this again soon. I believe
Hillary's the greater evil, not Trump, because Trump is incompetent and doesn't
have the staff around him, or the political support that Hilary has. I
think Bernie missed his chance to take this party and develop it very quickly,
just like George Wallace could have done back in the 1960s when he had a chance.
I think Chris Hedges and other people have made this point with you. I have
no idea what Bernie's idea of a revolution is, if he's going to try to do it
within the Democratic Party that's just stamped on him again and again, you're
simply not going to have a revolution within the Democratic party.
I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as
you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role
that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight
for universal health care.
I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce
advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled.
Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud
to stand with her tonight!
Sanders' campaign was premised on exactly the opposite. How can anyone
now take Bernie seriously?
Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful
human being I've ever known in my life.
Okay. I know this comment will bring forth much backlash, but I'm gonna
put it out there anyway since my 'give-a-shitter' was severely cracked over
4 yrs ago (when 2 sheriff's deputies evicted me from my home while I had
been current on my pymts when the bank foreclosed and the response from
EVERY govt agency I contacted told me to "hire a lawyer", which I couldn't
afford, with one costing much more than I owed on my home of 20 yrs). I
had bought my first house by the time I graduated h.s. and had owned one
ever since until now.
My 'give-a-shitter' completely shattered this year with the election,
so here goes:
So it seems we are offered 3 choices when we vote. Trump, Hillary or
Green.
To someone who is among the 8-10 MILLION (depending on whose figures
you believe) whose home was illegally taken from them by the banksters,
I would welcome a 4th choice since none of the 3 offered will improve my
life before I die.
The consensus seems to be that it'll take decades to create change through
voting.
I'm a divorced woman turning 65. I don't feel I have decades to wait,
while I am forced to live in a place that doesn't even have a flush toilet
because it's all I can afford. To someone my age with no degrees or special
skills, the job market is nonexistent, even if I lived in a big city (where
I couldn't afford the rent).
When I see reports of an increase in new homes being built, I'd love
to see a breakdown showing exactly how many of those homes will be primary
residences and how many are second (or third, or fourth) homes.
There are 4 new custom homes being built within a half mile of me.
None will be primary residences. All will be 'vacation' homes.
Yet if we're to believe the latest figures, "the housing market is improving!"
For whom?
Yes, I'm extremely disappointed that Bernie bailed on us. I doubt either
of us will live long enough to see the change required to change this govt
and save the planet with our current choices this election.
I fear the only thing that this election has given me was initially great
hope for my future, before being plunged into the darkness of the same ol',
same ol' as my only choices.
I was never radical or oppositional in my life but I would now welcome
a revolution. I don't see me living long enough to welcome that change by
voting. Especially with the blatant voter suppression and all else that
transpired this election.
While the govt and political oligarchs may fear Russia & ISIS, if they
met 8-10 million of us victims of the banksters, they would come to realize
real fear, from those within their homeland.
Most are horrified when I offer this view, saying I'd be thrown in prison.
Hmmm…considering that…I'd be fed, clothed, housed-and I'd have a flush toilet!
Gads, I'd love to see millions of us march on Washington & literally
throw those in power out of their seats onto the lawn, saying "enough is
enough"!
So I guess my question is, does anyone else feel as 'at the end of their
rope' as I do?
Can you even truly imagine being in my position and what you would do or
how you would feel?
Yes. I screamed, cried, and wrote Bernie's campaign before his endorsement
speech was even completed, expressing my disappointment, after foregoing
meals to send him my meager contributions.
My hopes were shattered and I'm growing impatient for change.
crittermom/Bullwinkle – here's one of the articles by Chris Hedges on
Bernie Sanders:
"Because the party is completely captive to corporate power," Hedges
said. "And Bernie has cut a Faustian deal with the Democrats. And that's
not even speculation. I did an event with him and Bill McKibben, Naomi Klein
and Kshama Sawant in New York the day before the Climate March. And Kshama
Sawant ,the Socialist City Councilwoman from Seattle and I asked Sanders
why he wanted to run as a Democrat. And he said - because I don't want to
end up like Nader."
"He didn't want to end up pushed out of the establishment," Hedges said.
"He wanted to keep his committee chairmanships, he wanted to keep his Senate
seat. And he knew the forms of retribution, punishment that would be visited
upon him if he applied his critique to the Democratic establishment. So
he won't."
Fair enough. I don't know enough about Nader to care. To me, it was just
the about-face that Bernie did, going from denouncing Hillary (albeit not
very strongly) to embracing her. I think if I had been one of his supporters
who cheered him on, sent him money, got my hopes raised that he would go
all the way, I would have been very disappointed. Almost like a tease.
I'd wanted Bernie to run as an Independent more than anything, but I
can understand him wanting to keep his Senate seat and chairs. Without them,
he has no power to bring change.
I had believed he had a good chance to win, whipping a big Bernie Bird to
both parties and changing things in my lifetime, running Independent.
I now realize just how completely corrupt our political system is. Far
worse than I ever could have imagined. Wow, have my eyes been opened!
I'm beginning to think this election may just come down to who has the
bigger thugs, Trump or HRC.
I agree with Hudson that HRC is the greater threat. I also agree
with him that Bernie makes no sense. What the hell did Bernie have to lose?
He could have accepted the prez nomination with the Greens. In fact, he
should have run third party from the git-go. By sucking up to the dems that
politically raped him, Bernie is exhibiting a variation of Stockholm syndrome.
Bernie's problem in the end is that he couldn't see that in order
to gain power in the Democratic Party (i.e., in order to dislodge the Clintons),
the Left might (probably would) have to lose an election.
The Democratic PoC (Party of Clinton) had to be shown as a party
that could not win an election without its left half. He wrongly saw the
powerless Trump as the greater threat, something that could only be done
if he still at least marginally trusted Hillary to ever keep her word on
anything. He will come to see that as his greatest mistake of all.
Bernie reminds me of Gorbachev. Both clearly saw what the problem
was with their respective societies, but still thought that things could
be fixed by changing their respective parties. Bernie it seems, like Gorbachev
before him, can not intellectually accept that effective reforms require
radical action on the existing power structures. Gorbachev could not break
with the Communist system and Bernie can not break with the Democratic party.
Bernie is too nice for his own good. He should have used the DNC machinations
as an excuse to go back on his promise to endorse. "I made that promise
on the assumption that we would all be acting in good faith. Sadly, that
has proved not to be the case."
But no, he's too much of a politician, or too nice, or has too much sense
of personal pride…or had his life and his family threatened if he didn't
toe the line (not that I'm foily). Whatever his motivations, we don't get
a "Get out of Responsibility Free" card just because one dude
made some mis-steps. If that's all it takes to derail us, we're
so, so screwed.
I also agree with Hudson and EndOfTheWorld that HRC is the greater threat
and that Sanders makes no sense.
Sure, the Dems probably threatened to kick him off of Congressional Committees
and to back a rival in Vermont.
So what! With his tenure and at his age, what's really to lose? If he
couldn't face off someone in his home state, it's probably time to retire
anyway. And it's not like he was ever in it for the money.
The best he gets now is mild tolerance from his masters. "Give me your
followers and lick my boots." What a coward, could have made history, now
he's a goat.
It's actually not so surprising given his long history of working within
the mainstream system, simply along its fringes. I think many may have been
falling into the '08 Obama trap of seeing what they wanted to see in him.
As a senator he's had plenty of opportunities to grandstand, gum up the
works, etc, and he really never does. Even his "filibuster" a few years
back wasn't all that disruptive.
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 have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as
you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role
that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight
for universal health care.
I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce
advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled.
Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud
to stand with her tonight!
Sanders' campaign was premised on exactly the opposite. How can anyone
now take Bernie seriously?
Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful
human being I've ever known in my life.
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."
"... Bernie had cashed in on the Revolution that he had betrayed, citing as evidence the purchase of a third ..."
"... I said there might be more to the story, like the fact that Bernie had signed a book deal (ala the Clintons) where he would tell the story of his Glorious Revolution (which ended up with him dumping his foot soldiers into the vaults of the very machine they were warring against.) And guess what? I was right. ..."
On Tuesday afternoon, my friend Michael Colby, the fearless environmental
activist in Vermont,
sent me news that Bernie Sanders had just purchased a new waterfront house
on in North Hero, Vermont. I linked to the story on my Facebook page, quipping
that Bernie had cashed in on the Revolution that he had betrayed, citing
as evidence the purchase of a third house for the Sanders family, a
lakefront summer dacha for $600,000.
This ignited a firestorm on Zuckerburg's internet playpen. People noted that
Bernie and Jane lived a penurious existence, surviving on coupons and the kindness
of strangers, and the house was just a cramped four-bedroom fishing shack on
a cold icy lake with hardly any heat–a place so forsaken even the Iroquois of
old wouldn't camp there–which they were only able to afford because Jane sold
her dead parents' house.
I said there might be more to the story, like the fact that Bernie had
signed a book deal (ala the Clintons) where he would tell the story of his Glorious
Revolution (which ended up with him dumping his foot soldiers into the vaults
of the very machine they were warring against.) And guess what? I was right.
Coming in November to a bookstore near you….Our
Revolution by Thomas Dunne Books.
The love for Bernie is truly blind. It's also touching. I've never seen Leftists
defend the purchase of $600,000 lakefront summer homes with such tenacity!
... ... ...
By the way, the median cost of homes sold in North Hero, Vermont so far this
year is $189,000.
... ... ...
Fulfilling his pledge to Hillary, Bernie Sanders took to the pages of the
Los Angeles Times to plead with his followers to get behind Clinton
as the one person who could "unite the country" against Trump.
In the wake
of this pathetic capitulation to the Queen of Chaos, our Australian Shepard,
Boomer, drafted an Open Letter on behalf of all sheepdogs renouncing any association
with Bernie Sanders. One of the signatories (a Blue Healer from Brentwood) swore,
however, that she saw Sander's head popping out of Paris Hilton's handbag…
A friend lamented the fact that all of the fun and spirit had gone out of
the election campaign since Sanders was "neutralized." Was Bernie neutralized?
I thought that Bernie neutralized himself. And it was hard to watch. Like an
x-rated episode of Nip/Tuck.
All candidates with the possible exception of Trump, are either neocons or neocon stooges: "Most revealing are their policies concerning
war and peace. Despite minor differences, all three (and those to come) want more military spending.
Each thinks the United States can and should manage stability in the Middle East, on Russia's border,
etc. All three demonize Russia and Iran, countries that do not threaten us. Thus they would risk war,
which would bolster government power while harming the American people and others."
Notable quotes:
"... "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence-it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master." ..."
"... "The state - or, to make matters more concrete, the government - consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting 'A' to satisfy 'B'. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advanced auction on stolen goods." ..."
"... Do the four declared candidates really fit this picture? You can judge for yourself. Hillary Clinton, the sole Democrat so far, is long associated with activist government across the range of issues domestic and foreign. Her newfound rhetorical populism can't obscure her association with elitist social engineering. ..."
"... What about Republicans Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio? Are they "men of system"? Despite their talk about reining in government, I think the answer is yes. ..."
"... Most revealing are their policies concerning war and peace. Despite minor differences, all three (and those to come) want more military spending. Each thinks the United States can and should manage stability in the Middle East, on Russia's border, etc. All three demonize Russia and Iran, countries that do not threaten us. Thus they would risk war, which would bolster government power while harming the American people and others. ..."
Posted to Politics
As you may have heard, the 2016 presidential campaign is underway. Let's not miss the forest for
the trees. While the candidates will make promises to help the middle class or this or that subgroup,
remember this: each aspirant wants to govern, that is, rule, you – even those whose rhetoric
might suggest otherwise.
George Washington supposedly said:
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence-it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous
servant, and a fearful master."
Although no evidence links the quotation to the first president, its truth is indisputable. Like
it or not, government's distinguishing feature, beginning with its power to tax, is its legal authority
to use force against even peaceful individuals minding their own business. Ultimately, that's what
rule means, even in a democratic republic, where each adult gets a vote in choosing who
will rule.
As that keen observer of the American political scene, H. L. Mencken, put it years ago,
"The state - or, to make matters more concrete, the government - consists of a gang of
men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business
of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device
to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get, and to promise
to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is
made good by looting 'A' to satisfy 'B'. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and
every election is a sort of advanced auction on stolen goods."
If you keep that perspective during the coming campaign, you'll be in a much better position to
judge the candidates than if you take their solemn pronouncements at face value.
Do the four declared candidates really fit this picture? You can judge for yourself. Hillary Clinton,
the sole Democrat so far, is long associated with activist government across the range of issues
domestic and foreign. Her newfound rhetorical populism can't obscure her association with elitist
social engineering.
In The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), Adam Smith described such a politician as
"the man of system [who] seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great
society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does
not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that
which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every
single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature
might choose to impress upon it."
Has Clinton ever considered that we're not chess pieces in her grand schemes? We might like to
make our own decisions.
What about Republicans Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio? Are they "men of system"? Despite
their talk about reining in government, I think the answer is yes. At best they propose only
to tinker with the welfare-regulatory-warfare state without challenging the institutional privileges
that enrich the well-connected or the institutional barriers that impede the marginalized in improving
their lives.
One can see their obeisance toward government power in their support for the "war on drugs," the
presumption that government should monitor what we ingest and punish us for violating its prohibitions.
Another sign is the candidates' views on immigration. If people have natural rights, why do they
need the government's permission to live and work here? A third indicator is their position on world
trade. Can you imagine any of them advocating a laissez-faire trade policy with no role for government?
Most revealing are their policies concerning war and peace. Despite minor differences, all three
(and those to come) want more military spending. Each thinks the United States can and should manage
stability in the Middle East, on Russia's border, etc. All three demonize Russia and Iran, countries
that do not threaten us. Thus they would risk war, which would bolster government power while harming
the American people and others.
Appearances can deceive: they're persons of system all.
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.
"... 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.
"... Lesse evilism that Bill Clinton used for moving Democratic Party into neoliberal camp (as in "those f*ckers from trade unions will vote for Dems anyway, they have nowhere to go") no longer works. ..."
@111 The obvious explanation for union endorsements of Clinton is that they expected her to win
the Democratic nomination, as she did. And of course they would endorse her against any Republican.
What else could they do>
The most obvious test case is the teachers unions. Obama's administration was clearly hostile
to the (think of Rahm Emanuel!), but they nonetheless endorsed him, as the lesser evil.
likbez 09.04.16 at 7:29 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
John,
@112
"The most obvious test case is the teachers unions. Obama's administration was clearly hostile
to the (think of Rahm Emanuel!), but they nonetheless endorsed him, as the lesser evil."
Lesse evilism that Bill Clinton used for moving Democratic Party into neoliberal camp (as in
"those f*ckers from trade unions will vote for Dems anyway, they have nowhere to go") no longer
works.
Far right will absorb those working class and lower white collar votes. And they became a political
force to recon with, which disposed neocons from the Republican establishment (all those Jeb!,
Kasich, Cruz, and Rubio crowd ) despite all efforts of the party brass. Welcome to the second
reincarnation of Weimar republic.
Trade union management, which endorsed Hillary, now expects that more than half of union members
will probably vote against Hillary. In some cases up to 2/3.
So Dem neolibs became a party that is not supported by the working class and if identity politics
tricks fail to work, they might get a a blowback in November. They can rely only on a few voting
blocks that benefitted from globalization, such as "network hamsters" (programmers, system administrators,
some part of FIRE low level staff, and such) and few other mass professionals. That's it.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) won her primary Tuesday, a positive development for the
congresswoman after a tumultuous past few months.
Wasserman Schultz beat progressive law professor Tim Canova, who
drew on the same anti-corporate momentum that fueled the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie
Sanders (I-Vt.), earning him national attention and
significant contributions from Sanders supporters. The political novice was even
raising more money than Wasserman Schultz during the campaign.
With
98 percent of the votes counted, Wasserman Schultz had 57 percent, to Canova's 43 percent, according
to The Associated Press.
Not that long ago, even talking about a possible Wasserman Schultz defeat would have been outlandish.
She ran the Democratic National Committee, held a
safe blue seat and had never had a competitive primary.
But
furor at Wasserman Schultz grew during the presidential primary as many progressives criticized
her for seeming to tip the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton, and lingering frustrations over her
management of the party spilled into the open. Canova campaigned against her as the "quintessential
corporate machine politician." In March, President Barack Obama
endorsed Wasserman Schultz, an early indication that the congresswoman needed some help in retaining
her seat.
Wasserman Schultz
resigned as DNC chair on the eve of the convention last month as Sanders supporters gathered
in Philadelphia
took to the streets and protested her. The catalyst was
a leak of DNC staffers' emails that seemed to show the party working to help get Clinton elected
― even though it was supposed to be neutral in the primary. The congresswoman wanted to keep her
speaking spot at the convention, but ultimately, she was
forced to give that up as well.
Wasserman Schultz also faced
outrage from progressives for co-sponsoring legislation to
gut new rules put forward by the Obama administration intended to rein in predatory payday lending.
The activist group Allied Progressive
released an ad in Florida, hitting the DNC chair for teaming up with Republicans to defeat the
policy.
For Sanders supporters, the race became a fight against corporate interests and a way to eke out
a victory after the senator's loss in the Democratic presidential primary.
Yet despite this dissatisfaction, Canova's candidacy lagged. Sanders sent out
fundraising emails on his behalf, but he never went to Florida and campaigned in person.
"There are a lot of people who
feel disappointed," Canova told The Atlantic. "There are a lot of people in South Florida who
wanted Bernie Sanders to come down."
Clinton, meanwhile,
paid a surprise visit to a Wasserman Schultz field office and praised the congresswoman when
she was in Miami last month. She also
won the district against Sanders by a landslide.
Being tied to Sanders could also have been a double-edged sword, as Canova told NBC News.
"Bernie ran
a lousy campaign in Florida," he said. "Bernie had his problems with certain constituencies that
I don't have problems with."
The 23rd district is heavily Democratic, and Wasserman Schultz is expected to win in November.
"... For much of the last century the illusion of social progress sold through the New Deal, the Great Society and more recently through capitalist enterprise 'freed' from the bind of social accountability, ..."
"... The Clinton's special gift to the people -- citizens, workers; the human condition as conceived through a filter of manufactured wants to serve the interests of an intellectually, morally and spiritually bankrupt 'leadership' class, lies in the social truths revealed by their actions. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump, poses the greater-evilism of an ossified political class against the facts of its own creation now in dire need of resolution- wars to end wars, environmental crisis to end environmental crises, economic predation to end economic predation and manufactured social misery to end social misery. Hillary Clinton's roster of donors is the neoliberal innovation on Richard Nixon's enemies list- government as a shakedown racket where friend or foe and policies promoted or buried, are determined by 'donation' status rather than personal animus. ..."
"... That is most ways conservative Republican Richard Nixon's actual policies were far Left of those of contemporary Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, is testament to the ideological mobility of political pragmatism freed from principle. ..."
"... That Hillary Clinton is the candidate of officialdom links her service to Wall Street to America's wars of choice to dedicated environmental irresolution as the candidate who 'gets things done.' ..."
"... As historical analog, the West has seen recurrent episodes of economic imperialism backed by state power; in the parlance, neoliberal globalization, over the last several centuries. ..."
"... Left unstated in the competitive lesser-evilism of Party politics is the incapacity for political resolution in any relevant dimension. Donald Trump is 'dangerous' only by overlooking how dangerous the American political leadership has been for the last one and one-half centuries. So the question becomes: dangerous to whom? Without the most murderous military in the world, public institutions like the IMF dedicated to economic subjugation and predatory corporations that wield the 'free-choices' of mandated consumption, how dangerous would any politicians really be? And with them, how not-dangerous have liberal Democrats actually been? Candidates for political office are but manifestations of class interests put forward as systemic intent. ..."
"... The liberals and progressives in the managerial class who support the status quo and are acting as enforcers to elect Hillary Clinton are but one recession away from being tossed overboard by those they serve within the existing economic order. ..."
into political power. The structure of economic distribution seen through Foundation 'contributors;'
oil and gas magnates, pharmaceutical and technology entrepreneurs of public largesse, the murder-for-hire
industry (military) and various and sundry managers of social decline, makes evident the dissociation
of social production from those that produced it.
For much of the last century the illusion of social progress sold through the New Deal, the
Great Society and more recently through capitalist enterprise 'freed' from the bind of social accountability,
if not exactly from the need for regular and robust public support, served to hold at bay the perpetual
tomorrow of lives lived for the theorized greater good of accumulated self-interest. The Clinton's
special gift to the people -- citizens, workers; the human condition as conceived through a filter
of manufactured wants to serve the interests of an intellectually, morally and spiritually bankrupt
'leadership' class, lies in the social truths revealed by their actions.
Being three or more decades in the making, the current political season was never about the candidates
except inasmuch as they embody the grotesquely disfigured and depraved condition of the body politic.
The 'consumer choice' politics of Democrat versus Republican, Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump,
poses the greater-evilism of an ossified political class against the facts of its own creation now
in dire need of resolution- wars to end wars, environmental crisis to end environmental crises, economic
predation to end economic predation and manufactured social misery to end social misery. Hillary
Clinton's roster of donors is the neoliberal innovation on Richard Nixon's enemies list- government
as a shakedown racket where friend or foe and policies promoted or buried, are determined by 'donation'
status rather than personal animus.
That is most ways conservative Republican Richard Nixon's actual policies were far Left of
those of contemporary Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, is testament to the ideological mobility
of political pragmatism freed from principle. The absurd misdirection that we, the people, are
driving this migration is belied by the economic power that correlates 1:1 with the policies put
forward and enacted by 'the people's representatives', by the answers that actual human beings give
to pollsters when asked and by the ever more conspicuous hold that economic power has over political
considerations as evidenced by the roster of pleaders and opportunists granted official sees by the
political class in Washington.
To state the obvious, dysfunctional ideology- principles that don't 'work' in the sense of promoting
broadly conceived public wellbeing, should be dispensable. But this very formulation takes at face
value the implausible conceits of unfettered intentions mediated through functional political representation
that are so well disproved by entities like the Clinton Foundation. Political 'pragmatism' as it
is put forward by national Democrats quite closely resembles the principled opposition of Conservative
Republicans through unified service to the economic powers-that-be. That Hillary Clinton is the
candidate of officialdom links her service to Wall Street to America's wars of choice to dedicated
environmental irresolution as the candidate who 'gets things done.'
As historical analog, the West has seen recurrent episodes of economic imperialism backed
by state power; in the parlance, neoliberal globalization, over the last several centuries.
The result, in addition to making connected insiders rich as they wield social power over less existentially
alienated peoples, has been the not-so-great wars, devastations, impositions and crimes-against-humanity
that were the regular occurrences of the twentieth century. The 'innovation' of corporatized militarization
to this proud tradition is as old as Western imperialism in its conception and as new as nuclear
and robotic weapons, mass surveillance and apparently unstoppable environmental devastation in its
facts.
Left unstated in the competitive lesser-evilism of Party politics is the incapacity for political
resolution in any relevant dimension. Donald Trump is 'dangerous' only by overlooking how dangerous
the American political leadership has been for the last one and one-half centuries. So the question
becomes: dangerous to whom? Without the most murderous military in the world, public institutions
like the IMF dedicated to economic subjugation and predatory corporations that wield the 'free-choices'
of mandated consumption, how dangerous would any politicians really be? And with them, how not-dangerous
have liberal Democrats actually been? Candidates for political office are but manifestations of class
interests put forward as systemic intent.
The complaint that the Greens- Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka, don't have an effective political
program approximates the claim that existing political and economic arrangements are open to challenge
through the electoral process when the process exists to assure that effective challenges don't arise.
The Democrats could have precluded the likelihood of a revolutionary movement, Left or Right, for
the next half-century by electing Bernie Sanders and then undermining him to 'prove' that challenges
to prevailing political economy don't work. The lack of imagination in running 'dirty Hillary' is
testament to how large- and fragile, the perceived stakes are. But as how unviable Hillary Clinton
and Donald Trump are as political leaders becomes apparent- think George W. Bush had he run for office
after the economic collapse of 2009 and without the cover of '9/11,' the political possibilities
begin to open up.
The liberals and progressives in the managerial class who support the status quo and are acting
as enforcers to elect Hillary Clinton are but one recession away from being tossed overboard by those
they serve within the existing economic order. The premise that the ruling class will always
need dedicated servants grants coherent logic and aggregated self-interest that history has disproven
time and again. A crude metaphor would be the unintended consequences of capitalist production now
aggregating to environmental crisis.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both such conspicuously corrupt tools of an intellectually
and spiritually bankrupt social order that granting tactical brilliance to their ascendance, or even
pragmatism given the point in history and available choices, seems wildly generous. For those looking
for a political moment, one is on the way.
"... Though Democrats were happy to take their votes on election day, lower-income Americans were increasingly faced with a party that had taken on a managerial posture, one characterized by both a growing commitment to market principles and an abandonment of the notion - fostered by the New Deal period - that government could play a significant role in improving the material conditions of the population. ..."
"... Because they eschew any honest critique of capitalism, these are the absurdities to which Democrats are confined: They must justify the economic order and insist that there are good and bad economic elites, those who, out of the kindness of their hearts, share the spoils with their workers and those who, like Trump, don't. ..."
"... The elite anger the Sanders insurgency provoked was telling: It made clear the opposition within the political establishment to " even mild social democracy ." It teased out the distinctions between those who believe corporate money is inherently corrupting and those who don't, those who support single-payer health care and those who don't, those who support a radical approach to both redistributing income and wealth and addressing the crisis of poverty and those who don't. ..."
"... With Hillary Clinton at the helm, though, it is unlikely that the Democrats' drift toward becoming " the cosmopolitan elite party " will slow, particularly if Trump_vs_deep_state becomes the dominant current within the GOP. Also, given Clinton's "embrace of amoral billionaires," notes Nathan Robinson, it is "highly unlikely that the party will follow through on any meaningful attempt to reduce American economic inequality." ..."
"... The problem is, ultimately, systemic: It is about who writes the rules, and how these rules act in the real world to create extraordinary gains for some while leaving others to compete, endlessly and ruthlessly, for the rest. ..."
"... The problem is no longer, as it was prior to the publication of Michael Harrington's famous study The Other America, that the poor are invisible, unseen by the political class and by those enjoying the gains of an " affluent society ." ..."
"... "No other advanced nation," writes Eduardo Porter, "tolerates this depth of deprivation." ..."
When Democrats
began their rightward lurch in the late 1960's, they were not content to merely broaden their
coalition in order to quell the rise of the ultra-reactionary right; they have been concerned, also,
with preventing
left-wing insurgencies that could spook their patrons and push the party left.
After Ronald Reagan's decisive victories - first in 1980 against an incumbent president whose
administration had, in many ways,
fueled the neoliberal turn , and again in 1984 - the efforts of Democrats eager to transform
the party, both superficially and ideologically, intensified.
... ... ...
Though it was often framed as a tactical move necessary to undercut movement conservatives, Democrats'
shift to the right was accompanied by lucrative material advantages, advantages that organized labor,
even at its peak, could not provide.
But the Democratic Leadership Council's takeover of the party didn't just have the effect of bringing
over business interests previously wary of Democrats' ostensible commitment to labor's causes - key
DLC advisers, noted Robert
Dreyfuss in an analysis of the Third Way's rise, included such corporate giants as Enron, Aetna,
British Petroleum, Chevron, and Philip Morris.
It also had a significant, and often
devastating , impact on the poorest Americans.
Though Democrats were happy to take their votes on election day, lower-income Americans were increasingly
faced with a party that had taken on a managerial posture, one characterized by both a growing commitment
to
market principles and an abandonment of the notion - fostered by the New Deal period - that government
could play a significant role in improving the material conditions of the population.
This message of business friendly "moderation" resonated with rich Americans.
.... ... ...
"The 1992 election marked an inflection point of sorts,"
notes Lee Drutman. The year in which "Democrats changed their policies, with Bill Clinton as
the standard bearer for a new pro-business, neoliberal centrism that sought to win over the growing
professional classes," the very rich began to find comfort within the party's ever-broadening tent.
Though there have been diversions, these trends have largely continued up to the present. "The
wealthiest 4 percent of voting-age Americans, by a narrow plurality," backed President Obama in 2012,
Drutman observes.
Today, confronting the flailing and odious candidacy of Donald Trump, Democrats have seized upon
yet another opportunity to expand their coalition. And, once more, they have looked not to the left
- the
diverse bloc of Sanders backers pushing for social democracy - but to wealthier constituencies,
including those that tend to
lean Republican .
Presenting the 2016 election as a vote for or against "American values," the Clinton campaign
has frequently deployed the
right-wing language of exceptionalism and patriotism, and Clinton herself has eagerly embraced
the
endorsements of billionaire businessmen and women eager to legitimize their own wealth by highlighting
Trump's history of fraud and abuse.
Of course, these moves are in no way ahistorical.
"There is,"
writes Carl Beijer, "a distinct history of Clintonian coalition-building with right-wing Republicans."
And as even the most cursory examination of this history reveals, Democrats' opportunistic and strategic
solidarity with the right has real-world consequences; in Beijer's words, such an approach is "undertaken
at the risk of normalizing their politics."
From the gross
demonization of poor minorities that permeated Bill Clinton's tenure to the Democratic Party's
tacit -
and in some cases eager - acceptance of a political process dominated by business interests,
this is largely what has happened.
Sky-high
wealth inequality has become the new normal, and far from embracing and aggressively pushing
a radical redistributionist agenda, Democrats have embraced a
meritocratic message , one that emphasizes the centrality of hard work, dedication, and personal
responsibility.
Such platitudes, while reassuring to the winners of globalization, ring hollow in the ears of
those who rightly feel abandoned by the political system in general - and by the Democratic Party
in particular.
This year, with the insurgent campaign of Bernie Sanders doing much to expose long-standing rifts
within the Democratic establishment, the flaws inherent in a party reliant on both
high-income and lower-income voters have been thrown into sharp relief.
In a recent piece for the New York Times, Thomas Edsall nicely captures this tension, using housing
as the focal point.
Contrasting Baltimore County - a majority white community where the median household income is
over $68,000 - and Baltimore City - a majority black community where the median household income
is just over $42,500 - Edsall details "how hard it is for the Democratic Party to reconcile the interests
of its upscale wing with those of its lower-income wing."
Baltimore City, Edsall notes, has always been a Democratic stronghold, but Baltimore County, "in
the wake of an influx of educated, higher income professionals, immigrants and minorities," has,
of late, been leaning Democratic, as well; Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney there decisively in 2012.
But progressive attempts to lift poor families in the city - to provide better opportunities for
housing, education, and other means of upward mobility - have been met with strong resistance from
wealthier communities that, though they increasingly vote Democratic, are wary of attempts to integrate
poor and rich neighborhoods.
The result, Edsall quotes former Maryland attorney general Stephen Sachs as saying, is "economic
apartheid."
To demonstrate the rifts between the county and the city, Edsall cites the recent efforts by Baltimore's
Housing Authority to buy homes "in prosperous suburbs to use as public housing." Attempts to provide
affordable housing have long been a key component of anti-poverty programs, but opposition to such
programs by wealthy county residents has proven intractable.
Despite attempts by public officials to work "under the radar" to provide opportunities for poor
families, anger was quick to mount.
"The reaction from many was outright racist," Doug Donovan, a journalist who has followed this
issue closely, told Edsall.
"The problems for Democrats on matters of race and housing subsidies are not confined to Baltimore,"
Edsall points out. "In Westchester County, just north of New York City, an ongoing battle over the
court-ordered construction of affordable housing has played a key role in the election and re-election
of a Republican county executive - in a suburban jurisdiction that, in presidential elections, has
become increasingly Democratic."
Given her attempts to take both sides on matters of class, and given her embrace of big-tent liberalism,
it makes sense that Hillary Clinton has been rather mute on this topic - despite the fact that, as
Edsall observes, Clinton owns a home that "happens to be located in the midst of an affordable housing
conflict."
This willingness to quietly accept a status quo that privileges wealthy communities at the expense
of the poor pervades the thinking not just of Clinton Democrats, but of the two-party system as a
whole.
"This willingness to quietly accept a status quo that privileges wealthy communities at the expense
of the poor pervades the thinking not just of Clinton Democrats, but of the two-party system as a
whole."
Across the board, the interests of organized wealth and economic elites are prioritized over those
of much of the population. The case of housing is just one example; health care, including Obamacare,
which was
subordinated to the interests of the private insurance and pharmaceutical industries at great
cost to the most vulnerable, is another.
In 1996, Adolph Reed
denounced
Clintonian neoliberalism as "a politics motivated by the desire for proximity to the ruling class
and a belief in the basic legitimacy of its power and prerogative. It is a politics which, despite
all its idealist puffery and feigned nobility, will sell out any allies or egalitarian objectives
in pursuit of gaining the Prince's ear."
Over the last several decades, the consequences of such a dynamic - one in which both major parties
are eager, above all, to serve the needs of their wealthiest constituents - have been stark. While
those at the very top are doing extremely well in the aftermath of decades of
deregulation and privatization , almost everyone else is in a state of stagnation or decline.
As Neil Irwin
observes , "81 percent of the United States population is in an income bracket with flat or declining
income over the last decade."
And while Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both vie for the support of
economically insecure middle class Americans, the poorest are virtually ignored.
"We don't have a full-voiced condemnation of the level or extent of poverty in America today,"
Matthew Desmond, the author of an essential book on evictions and deep poverty,
told the New York Times. "We aren't having in our presidential debate right now a serious conversation
about the fact that we are the richest democracy in the world, with the most poverty. It should be
at the very top of the agenda."
But it isn't. Not satisfied with a crime of omission, however, Democrats, particularly in 2016,
have moved in the opposite direction, earnestly courting and proclaiming the benevolence of "
the good billionaires
," in contrast with the pernicious Donald Trump.
Such distinctions say, in effect, that staggering systemic inequities are okay, just as long as
those benefiting from these inequities are admirable people - they're not, of course: Warren Buffett
has made a lot of money
exploiting the poor , and Michael Bloomberg has been quite Trump-like with his extensive history
of
sexist remarks .
Because they eschew any honest critique of capitalism, these are the absurdities to which Democrats
are confined: They must justify the economic order and insist that there are good and bad economic
elites, those who, out of the kindness of their hearts,
share the spoils with their workers and those who, like Trump, don't.
And often, Democrats have not merely capitulated to the anti-poor agenda of the right; they have
adopted swaths of it, pushing it on their own under the guise of political compromise. It is no wonder,
then, that the poorest
tend to not turnout on election day - they feel disowned by a political system that has, in actual
fact, disowned them.
The campaign of Bernie Sanders
helped to bring to the surface Democrats' history of rightward sprints, and it offered a brief
glimpse of the class and ideological warfare brewing within the confines of the Democratic Party,
a party divided by its ostensible commitment to "the people" and its actual commitment to the business
interests and the economic elites that have so skillfully
captured the legislative process .
This shaky coalition, Corey Robin
notes
, "rests upon the age-old powder keg of race, class, and real estate that's just waiting to explode.
Everything about the neoliberal Democratic Party depends upon suppressing this conflict."
We saw this throughout the primary process, during which the Sanders coalition, whose core priority
was an aggressive approach to income inequality, was smeared repeatedly as racist, sexist, and class-reductionist.
The
elite anger the Sanders insurgency provoked was telling: It made clear the opposition within
the political establishment to "
even mild social
democracy ." It teased out the distinctions between those who believe corporate money is inherently
corrupting and those who don't, those who support single-payer health care and those who don't, those
who support a radical approach to both redistributing income and wealth and addressing the crisis
of poverty and those who don't.
These are meaningful distinctions, and they will animate future political contests and, hopefully,
successful progressive movements and campaigns.
With Hillary Clinton at the helm, though, it is unlikely that the Democrats' drift toward becoming
"
the cosmopolitan elite party " will slow, particularly if Trump_vs_deep_state
becomes the dominant current within the GOP. Also, given Clinton's "embrace of amoral billionaires,"
notes
Nathan Robinson, it is "highly unlikely that the party will follow through on any meaningful attempt
to reduce American economic inequality."
But the crises we face - deep poverty is just one of many - reach far beyond the realm of electoral
politics, and even the election of the Right Leaders will not move us any closer to ameliorating
the suffering in America's most vulnerable communities.
The problem is, ultimately, systemic: It is about who writes the rules, and how these rules act
in the real world to create
extraordinary gains for some while leaving others to compete, endlessly and ruthlessly, for the
rest.
As long as those who write the rules are primarily concerned with securing gains for their wealthy
constituents, and as long as Democratic initiatives are shaped by the "
truly advantaged wing " of the party, there is little reason to believe the steps necessary to
eradicate poverty will be taken.
"The problem is that we have a political system almost wholly captured by those
hostile to the radical redistributive agenda necessary to ameliorate the suffering poverty inflicts
in communities throughout the world's wealthiest nation."
"If we are going to spend the bulk of our public dollars on the affluent - at least when it comes
to housing - we should own up to that decision and stop repeating the canard about this rich country
being unable to afford more," Matthew Desmond
writes . "If poverty persists in America, it is not for lack of resources. We lack something
else."
In the present, we lack the mass organization necessary to launch a meaningful counter-offensive
to combat "
the scourge of neoliberalism ," a political and economic framework that atomizes individuals
who would otherwise share common objectives, undercutting avenues for democratic reform and entrenching
the power of private capital.
And, according to the latest census
figures
, the costs of our inability to challenge these institutional powers are startling: Over 46 million
Americans live in poverty; the poverty rate for children under the age of 18 is 21.1 percent. Millions,
furthermore, live in
deep poverty ; over 17 million families suffer from
food insecurity .
The problem is no longer, as it was prior to the publication of Michael Harrington's famous study
The Other America, that the poor are invisible, unseen by the political class and by those enjoying
the gains of an "
affluent
society ."
The problem is that we have a political system almost wholly captured by those
hostile to the radical redistributive agenda necessary to ameliorate the suffering poverty inflicts
in communities throughout the world's wealthiest nation. We have, in other words, a political class
that sees the poor, but does nothing in response.
"No other advanced nation,"
writes Eduardo Porter, "tolerates this depth of deprivation."
In such a context, even the election of Bernie Sanders would not have been sufficient to alter
the nature of the political and economic order. Only
labor-based mass movements sustained beyond the extravaganzas of electoral politics and working
independently of the anti-democratic forces that so dominate Washington can produce sufficient force
to create lasting change.
Such efforts will be dismissed as Utopian, unfeasible, too idealistic; they will
fail more often than
they succeed; and they will always provoke a response from those uninterested in ceding the gains
they have gone to great lengths to consolidate - they are necessary, nonetheless, given the stakes.
"Never before has humanity depended so fully for the survival of us all on a social movement being
willing to bet on impracticality,"
write Mark and Paul Engler, in a similar vein as John Dewey's
observation
, penned in the midst of the Great Depression, that it is, ultimately, "the pressure of necessity
which creates and directs all political changes."
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
What is amazing is that such column was published is such a sycophantic for Hillary and openly anti-Trump
rag as NYT. In foreign policy Hillary is the second incarnation of Cheney... Neocons rules NYT coverage
of Presidential race and, of course, they all favor Hillary. Of course chances that some on neocons
who so enthusiastically support her, crossing Party lines are drafted, get M16 and send to kill brown
people for Wall Street interests now is close to zero. Everything is outsourced now. But still, it is
simply amazing that even a lonely voice against neocon campaign of demonization of Trump got published
in NYT ...
MSM shilling for Hillary is simply overwhelming, so why this was in NYT is a mystery to me. But
this article of Maureen Dowd in on spot. Simply amazing how she manage to publish it !!!
Notable quotes:
"... Hillary will keep the establishment safe. Who is more of an establishment figure, after all? Her husband was president, and he repealed Glass-Steagall, signed the Defense of Marriage Act and got rid of those pesky welfare queens. ..."
"... Hillary often seems more Republican than the Gotham bling king, who used to be a Democrat and donor to Democratic candidates before he jumped the turnstile. ..."
"... Hillary is a reliable creature of Wall Street. Her tax return showed the Clintons made $10.6 million last year, and like other superrich families, they incorporated with the Clinton Executive Services Corporation (which was billed for the infamous server). Trump has started holding up goofy charts at rallies showing Hillary has gotten $48,500,000 in contributions from hedge funders, compared to his $19,000. ..."
"... Unlike Trump, she hasn't been trashing leading Republicans. You know that her pals John McCain and Lindsey Graham are secretly rooting for her. There is a cascade of prominent Republicans endorsing Hillary, donating to Hillary, appearing in Hillary ads, talking up Hillary's charms. ..."
"... Robert Kagan, a former Reagan State Department aide, adviser to the McCain and Mitt Romney campaigns and Iraq war booster, headlined a Hillary fund-raiser this summer. Another neocon, James Kirchick, keened in The Daily Beast , "Hillary Clinton is the one person standing between America and the abyss." ..."
"... The Democratic nominee put out an ad featuring Trump-bashing Michael Hayden, an N.S.A. and CIA chief under W. who was deemed "incongruent" by the Senate when he testified about torture methods. And she earned an endorsement from John Negroponte, a Reagan hand linked to American-trained death squads in Latin America. ..."
"... Politico reports that the Clinton team sent out feelers to see if Kissinger, the Voldemort of Vietnam, and Condi Rice, the conjurer of Saddam's apocalyptic mushroom cloud, would back Hillary. ..."
"... The Hillary team seems giddy over its windfall of Republicans and neocons running from the Trump sharknado. But as David Weigel wrote in The Washington Post, the specter of Kissinger, the man who advised Nixon to prolong the Vietnam War to help with his re-election, fed a perception that "the Democratic nominee has returned to her old, hawkish ways and is again taking progressives for granted." ..."
"... Hillary is a safer bet in many ways for conservatives. Trump likes to say he is flexible. What if he returns to his liberal New York positions on gun control and abortion rights? ..."
"... Trump is far too incendiary in his manner of speaking, throwing around dangerous and self-destructive taunts about "Second Amendment people" taking out Hillary, or President Obama and Hillary being the founders of ISIS ..."
"... Hillary, on the other hand, understands her way around political language and Washington rituals. Of course you do favors for wealthy donors. And if you want to do something incredibly damaging to the country, like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history, don't shout inflammatory and fabricated taunts from a microphone. ..."
"... You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war. If you want to carry the GOP banner, your fabrications have to be more sneaky. ..."
"... "You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war." ..."
"... Anyone who believes Bill Clinton didn't know exactly what was going on is just kidding themselves. One clue, for example. They moved the WMD 'intelligence" investigation to the DOD under Paul Wolfowitz. LOL! ..."
"... Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and "Listen Liberal: Or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?" echoes Ms. Dowd's sentiments. In a recent column Frank says that with Trump certain to lose, you can forget about a progressive Clinton. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/13/trump-clinton-elec... ..."
"... "America's two-party system itself has temporarily become a one-party system. And within that one party, the political process bears a striking resemblance to dynastic succession. Come November, Clinton will have won her great victory – not as a champion of working people's concerns, but as the greatest moderate of them all." ..."
"... We've also managed to select one of biggest dissemblers, enablers, war hawks, fungible flip-floppers, pay for play con artists, scandal mongerers candidates since Tricky Dicky. Congratulations America! We did it. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "Wet get the government we deserve." ..."
"... The reaction by many to Ms Dowd's column clearly shows that the "save the world" "lesser evil" argument only works is one is willing to suspend belief on the demonstrated evil of Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... Clinton could well take us to war against Russia. In Syria, Clinton is spoiling to give Russia a punch in the nose, on the theory that Russia will back down and the US will have a free hand there. She advocates a a no-fly zone for Russian jets in Syria. The idea there is to create a confrontation, shoot down a couple of Russian jets and teach them a lesson. There is also the CIA and Pentagon "Plan B" for the Syrian negotiations. ..."
"... It's always wonderful to see when the truth comes out in the end: Hillary is the perfect Repulican candidate and this is also prove of the fact that on finance and economic issues Democrats and old mainstream Republicans have been in in the same pocket...even under Obama. ..."
"... One night after the election on the Carson show Goldwater quipped that he didn't know how unpopular a president he would have been until Johnson adopted his policies... ..."
"... All the things you say about Hillary are true. She is an establishment favorite. She did indeed vote to support Bush and his insane desire to invade Iraq. ..."
"... Did we all forget the millions who went for Bernie and his direct and aggressive confrontation of Hillary's Wall Street/corporate ties? That was a contest between what used to be the Dem party of the people and the corporate friendly Dem party of today. We understood then that Hillary represented the Right; why the surprise now? (The right pointing arrow on the "H" logo is so appropriate.) ..."
"... There are reasons Hillary is disliked and distrusted by nearly a majority of us. My reasons are she is of and for the oligarchs and deceitful enough to run as a populist. ..."
"... America tried to liberalize in the 1960's and the response was swift and violent as three of the greatest liberal lions and voices the country has ever known - JFK, MLK and RFK - were gunned down. ..."
"... While one can endlessly argue the specific details of those ghastly assassinations of America's liberal superstars, in my view, all three of those murders rest on the violent, nefarious right-wing shoulders and fumes of moneyed American 'conservatism' that couldn't stand to share the profits of their economic parasitism with society. ..."
"... I truly believe that Congressional Republicans in the House are already drafting articles of impeachment should Hillary become President. Dowd may claim that Republicans are in lock step with her, but don't be surprised when the talk of impeachment starts soon after Jan 20, 2017. ..."
"... We need a multi party system. With 2 parties dominating the politics, its like having a monopoly of liberalism or conservatism which just does not represent the width and depth of views our citizens resonate with. Having voted democrat all my life, to me Hillary does not represent my choice (Bernie does). ..."
"... This annoys me..."like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history" Maureen is talking about Hillary, but she might as well be talking about her own newspaper. Hillary got it wrong, but so did the New York Times editorial board. ..."
"... The Bush Administration hinted that the anti-war people were traitors and terrorist sympathizers and everybody got steamrolled. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/opinion/culture-war-with-b-2-s.html ..."
"... HRC couldn't have asked for a better opponent if she'd constructed him out of a six-foot pile of mildewed straw. By running against Trump, the whole Trump and nothing but the Trump, and openly courting neocon war criminals and "establishment" Republicans, she's outrageously giving CPR to what should have been a rotting corpse of a political party by now. ..."
"... By giving new life to the pathocrats who made Trump possible, Clinton is only making her own party weaker and more right-wing, only making it easier for down-ticket Republicans to slither their way back into power.... the better to triangulate with during the Clinton restoration. Grand Bargain, here we come. TPP, (just waiting for that fig leaf of meager aid for displaced American workers) here we come. Bombs away. ..."
"... She'll have to stop hoarding her campaign cash and share it with the down-ticket Democrats running against the same well-heeled GOPers she is now courting with such naked abandon. ..."
"... The Empress needs some new clothes to hide that inner Goldwater Girl. ..."
All these woebegone Republicans whining that they can't rally behind their flawed candidate is
crazy. The G.O.P. angst, the gnashing and wailing and searching for last-minute substitutes and exit
strategies, is getting old. They already have a 1-percenter who will be totally fine in the Oval
Office, someone they can trust to help Wall Street, boost the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cuddle with
hedge funds, secure the trade deals beloved by corporate America, seek guidance from Henry Kissinger
and hawk it up - unleashing hell on Syria and heaven knows where else.
The Republicans have their candidate: It's Hillary. They can't go with Donald Trump. He's too
volatile and unhinged. The erstwhile Goldwater Girl and Goldman Sachs busker can be counted on to
do the normal political things, not the abnormal haywire things. Trump's propounding could drag us
into war, plunge us into a recession and shatter Washington into a thousand tiny bits.
Hillary will keep the establishment safe. Who is more of an establishment figure, after all?
Her husband was president, and he repealed Glass-Steagall, signed the Defense of Marriage Act and
got rid of those pesky welfare queens.
Pushing her Midwestern Methodist roots, taking advantage of primogeniture, Hillary often seems
more Republican than the Gotham bling king, who used to be a Democrat and donor to Democratic candidates
before he jumped the turnstile.
Hillary is a reliable creature of Wall Street. Her tax return showed the Clintons made $10.6
million last year, and like other superrich families, they incorporated with the Clinton Executive
Services Corporation (which was billed for the infamous server). Trump has started holding up goofy
charts at rallies showing Hillary has gotten $48,500,000 in contributions from hedge funders, compared
to his $19,000.
Unlike Trump, she hasn't been trashing leading Republicans. You know that her pals John McCain
and Lindsey Graham are secretly rooting for her. There is a cascade of prominent Republicans endorsing
Hillary, donating to Hillary, appearing in Hillary ads, talking up Hillary's charms.
Robert Kagan, a former Reagan State Department aide, adviser to the McCain and Mitt Romney
campaigns and Iraq war booster, headlined a Hillary fund-raiser this summer. Another neocon, James
Kirchick,
keened in The Daily Beast , "Hillary Clinton is the one person standing between America and the
abyss."
She has finally stirred up some emotion in women, even if it is just moderate suburban Republican
women palpitating to leave their own nominee, who has the retro air of a guy who just left the dim
recesses of a Playboy bunny club.
The Democratic nominee put out an ad featuring Trump-bashing Michael Hayden, an N.S.A. and
CIA chief under W. who was deemed "incongruent" by the Senate when he testified about torture
methods. And she earned an endorsement from John Negroponte, a Reagan hand linked to American-trained
death squads in Latin America.
Politico reports that the Clinton team sent out feelers to see if Kissinger, the Voldemort
of Vietnam, and Condi Rice, the conjurer of Saddam's apocalyptic mushroom cloud, would back Hillary.
Hillary has written that Kissinger is an "idealistic" friend whose counsel she valued as secretary
of state, drawing a rebuke from Bernie Sanders during the primaries: "I'm proud to say Henry Kissinger
is not my friend."
The Hillary team seems giddy over its windfall of Republicans and neocons running from the
Trump sharknado. But as
David Weigel wrote in The Washington Post, the specter of Kissinger, the man who advised Nixon
to prolong the Vietnam War to help with his re-election, fed a perception that "the Democratic nominee
has returned to her old, hawkish ways and is again taking progressives for granted."
And
Isaac Chotiner wrote in Slate, "The prospect of Kissinger having influence in a Clinton White
House is downright scary."
Hillary is a safer bet in many ways for conservatives. Trump likes to say he is flexible.
What if he returns to his liberal New York positions on gun control and abortion rights?
Trump is far too incendiary in his manner of speaking, throwing around dangerous and self-destructive
taunts about "Second Amendment people" taking out Hillary, or President Obama and Hillary being the
founders of ISIS. And he still blindly follows his ego, failing to understand the fundamentals
of a campaign. "I don't know that we need to get out the vote," he told Fox News Thursday. "I think
people that really wanna vote are gonna get out and they're gonna vote for Trump."
Hillary, on the other hand, understands her way around political language and Washington rituals.
Of course you do favors for wealthy donors. And if you want to do something incredibly damaging to
the country, like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history,
don't shout inflammatory and fabricated taunts from a microphone.
You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the
Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al
Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war. If you want to carry the GOP banner,
your fabrications have to be more sneaky.
As
Republican strategist Steve Schmidt noted on MSNBC, "the candidate in the race most like George
W. Bush and Dick Cheney from a foreign policy perspective is in fact Hillary Clinton, not the Republican
nominee."
And that's how Republicans prefer their crazy - not like Trump, but like Cheney.
JohnNJ, New jersey August 14, 2016
For me, this is her strongest point:
"You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day
of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including
Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war."
There are still people who believe her excuse that she only voted for authorization, blah,
blah, blah.
Anyone who believes Bill Clinton didn't know exactly what was going on is just kidding
themselves. One clue, for example. They moved the WMD 'intelligence" investigation to the DOD
under Paul Wolfowitz. LOL!
Red_Dog , Denver CO August 14, 2016
Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and "Listen Liberal: Or What
Ever Happened to the Party of the People?" echoes Ms. Dowd's sentiments. In a recent column Frank
says that with Trump certain to lose, you can forget about a progressive Clinton.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/13/trump-clinton-elec...
"America's two-party system itself has temporarily become a one-party system. And within
that one party, the political process bears a striking resemblance to dynastic succession. Come
November, Clinton will have won her great victory – not as a champion of working people's concerns,
but as the greatest moderate of them all."
And great populist uprising of our times will be gone --- probably for many years.
FDR Liberal , Sparks, NV August 14, 2016
Spot on column Ms. Dowd.
As Americans we are to blame that these two major party candidates are the only viable ones
seeking the presidency. Yes, fellow citizens we are to blame because in the end we are the ones
that voted for them in various primaries and caucuses. And if you didn't attend a caucus or vote
in a primary, you are also part of problem.
In short, it is not the media's fault, nor is it the top .1%, 1% or 10% fault, nor your kids'
fault, nor your parents' fault, nor your neighbors' fault, etc.
It is our fault because we did this together. Yes, we managed y to select a narcissist, xenophobe,
anti-Muslim, racist, misogynist, and dare I say buffoon to the GOP ticket.
We've also managed to select one of biggest dissemblers, enablers, war hawks, fungible
flip-floppers, pay for play con artists, scandal mongerers candidates since Tricky Dicky. Congratulations
America! We did it. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "Wet get the government we deserve."
Martin Brod, NYC August 14, 2016
The reaction by many to Ms Dowd's column clearly shows that the "save the world" "lesser
evil" argument only works is one is willing to suspend belief on the demonstrated evil of Hillary
Clinton.
The Green Party and Libertarian parties provide sane alternatives to the two most distrusted
candidates of the major parties. As debate participants they
would offer an alternative to evil at a time when the planets count-down clock is racing to mid-night.
pathenry, berkeley August 14, 2016
Clinton could well take us to war against Russia. In Syria, Clinton is spoiling to give
Russia a punch in the nose, on the theory that Russia will back down and the US will have a free
hand there. She advocates a a no-fly zone for Russian jets in Syria. The idea there is to create
a confrontation, shoot down a couple of Russian jets and teach them a lesson. There is also the
CIA and Pentagon "Plan B" for the Syrian negotiations.
If the negotiations fail, give stingers to our "vetted allies". Who will those stingers be
used against? Russia. At least the ones not smuggled to Brussels. And then there is the plan being
bandied about by our best and brightest to organize, arm and lead our "vetted allies" in attacks
on Russian bases in Syria. A Bay of Pigs in the desert. A dime to a dollar, Clinton is supportive
of these plans.
All of this is dangerous brinksmanship which is how you go to war.
Mike A. , East Providence, RI August 14, 2016
The second Pulitzer quality piece from the NYT op-ed columnists in less than a month (see Charles
Blow's "Incandescent With Rage" for the first).
heinrich zwahlen , brooklyn August 14, 2016
It's always wonderful to see when the truth comes out in the end: Hillary is the perfect
Repulican candidate and this is also prove of the fact that on finance and economic issues Democrats
and old mainstream Republicans have been in in the same pocket...even under Obama.
For real progressives it's useless to vote for her and high time to start a new party. Cultural
issues are not the main issues that pain America, it's all about the money stupid.
JohnD, New York August 14, 2016
... One night after the election on the Carson show Goldwater quipped that he didn't know
how unpopular a president he would have been until Johnson adopted his policies...
Lee Elliott , Rochester August 14, 2016
You've written the most depressing column I've read lately. All the things you say about
Hillary are true. She is an establishment favorite. She did indeed vote to support Bush and his
insane desire to invade Iraq. But it was that vote kept her from being president in 2008.
Perhaps that will convince her to keep the establishment a little more at arm's length. When there
is no other behind for them to kiss, then you can afford to be a little hard to get.
As for Trump, he is proving to be too much like Ross Perot. He looks great at first but begins
to fade when his underlying lunacy begins to bubble to the surface.
Speaking of Perot, I find it an interesting coincidence that Bill Clinton and now Hillary Clinton
will depend on the ravings of an apparent lunatic in order to get elected.
citizen vox, San Francisco August 14, 2016
Why the vitriol against Dowd? Did we all forget the millions who went for Bernie and his
direct and aggressive confrontation of Hillary's Wall Street/corporate ties? That was a contest
between what used to be the Dem party of the people and the corporate friendly Dem party of today.
We understood then that Hillary represented the Right; why the surprise now? (The right pointing
arrow on the "H" logo is so appropriate.)
Last week's article on how Hillary came to love money was horrifying; because Bill lost a Governor's
race, Hillary felt so insecure she called all her wealthy friends for donations. Huh?! Two Harvard
trained lawyers asking for financial help?! And never getting enough money to feel secure?! GIVE
ME A BREAK (to coin a phrase).
There are reasons Hillary is disliked and distrusted by nearly a majority of us. My reasons
are she is of and for the oligarchs and deceitful enough to run as a populist.
If readers bemoan anything, let it be that the populist movement of the Dem party was put down
by the Dem establishment. We have a choice between a crazy candidate of no particular persuasion
and a cold, calculating Republican. How discouraging.
Thanks, Maureen Dowd.
Chris, Louisville August 14, 2016
Maureen please don't ever give up on Hillary bashing. It needs to be done before someone accidentally
elects her as President. She is most like Angela Merkel of Germany. Take a look what's happening
there. That is enough never to vote for Hillary.
Susan e, AZ August 14, 2016
I recall the outrage I, a peace loving liberal who despised W and Cheney, felt while watching
the made for TV "shock and awe" invasion of Iraq. I recall how the"liberal Democrats" who supported
that disaster with a vote for the IRW could never quite bring themselves to admit their mistake
- and I realized that many, like Hillary, didn't feel it was a mistake. Not really. It was necessary
for their political careers.
For me, its not a vote for Hillary, its a vote for a candidate that sees killing innocent people
in Syria (or Libya, or Gaza, etc.) as the only way to be viewed as a serious candidate for CIC.
I'm old enough to remember another endless war, as the old Vietnam anti-war ballad went: "I ain't
gonna vote for war no more."
John, Switzerland August 14, 2016
Maureen Dowd is not being nasty, but rather accurate. It is nasty to support and start wars
throughout the ME. It is nasty to say (on mic) "We came, we saw, he died" referring to the gruesome
torture-murder of Qaddafi.
Will Hillary start a war against Syria? Yes or no? That is the the "six trillion dollar" question.
Socrates , is a trusted commenter Downtown Verona, NJ August 13, 2016
It's hard to a find a good liberal in these United States, not because there's anything wrong
with liberalism or progressivism, but because Americans have been taught, hypnotized and beaten
by a powerfully insidious and filthy rich right-wing to think that liberalism, progressivism and
socialism is a form of fatal cancer.
America tried to liberalize in the 1960's and the response was swift and violent as three
of the greatest liberal lions and voices the country has ever known - JFK, MLK and RFK - were
gunned down.
While one can endlessly argue the specific details of those ghastly assassinations of America's
liberal superstars, in my view, all three of those murders rest on the violent, nefarious right-wing
shoulders and fumes of moneyed American 'conservatism' that couldn't stand to share the profits
of their economic parasitism with society.
The end result is that political liberals are forced to triangulate for their survival in right-wing
America, and you wind up with Presidents like Bill Clinton and (soon) Hillary Clinton who know
how to survive in a pool of right-wing knives, assassins and psychopaths lurking everywhere representing
Grand Old Profit.
... ... ...
Dotconnector, New York August 14, 2016
The trickery deep within the dark art of Clintonism is triangulation. By breeding a nominal
Democratic donkey with a de facto Republican elephant, what you get is a corporatist chameleon.
There's precious little solace in knowing that this cynical political hybrid is only slightly
less risky than Trumpenstein.
And the fact that Henry Kissinger still has a seat at the table ought to chill the spine of
anyone who considers human lives -- those of U.S. service members and foreign noncombatants alike
-- to have greater value than pawns in a global chess game.
Bj, is a trusted commenter Washington,dc August 13, 2016
I truly believe that Congressional Republicans in the House are already drafting articles
of impeachment should Hillary become President. Dowd may claim that Republicans are in lock step
with her, but don't be surprised when the talk of impeachment starts soon after Jan 20, 2017.
They didn't succeed with Bill. And they were chomping at the bit to try to impeach Obama
over his use of executive orders and his decision not to defend an early same sex marriage case.
They are just waiting for inauguration to start this process all over again - another circus and
waste of taxpayer money.
petey tonei, Massachusetts August 14, 2016
Two party system is not enough for a country this big, with such a wide spectrum of political
beliefs. We need a multi party system. With 2 parties dominating the politics, its like having
a monopoly of liberalism or conservatism which just does not represent the width and depth of
views our citizens resonate with. Having voted democrat all my life, to me Hillary does not represent
my choice (Bernie does). Heard on NPR just today from on the ground reporters in Terre Haute,
Indiana, the bellwether of presidential elections, the 2 names that were most heard were Trump
and Bernie Sanders, not Hillary. Sadly, Bernie is not even the nominee but he truly represents
the guts, soul of mid America
Schrodinger, is a trusted commenter Northern California August 14, 2016
This annoys me..."like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder
in U.S. history" Maureen is talking about Hillary, but she might as well be talking about her
own newspaper. Hillary got it wrong, but so did the New York Times editorial board.
What about Ms Dowd herself? Of the four columns she wrote before the vote on October 11th,
2002, only two mentioned the war vote, and one of those was mostly about Hillary. Dowd said of
Hillary that, "Whatever doubts she may have privately about the war, she is not articulating her
angst as loudly as some of her Democratic colleagues. She knows that any woman who hopes to be
elected president cannot have love beads in her jewelry case."
In her column 'Culture war with B-2's', Dowd comes out as mildly anti-war. "Don't feel bad
if you have the uneasy feeling that you're being steamrolled", Dowd writes, "You are not alone."
Fourteen years later that column still looks good, and I link to it at the bottom. However, Dowd
could and should have done a lot more. I don't think that anybody who draws a paycheck from the
New York Times has a right to get on their high horse and lecture Hillary about her vote. They
ignored the antiwar protests just like they ignored Bernie Sanders' large crowds.
Karen Garcia , is a trusted commenter New Paltz, NY August 13, 2016
HRC couldn't have asked for a better opponent if she'd constructed him out of a six-foot
pile of mildewed straw. By running against Trump, the whole Trump and nothing but the Trump, and
openly courting neocon war criminals and "establishment" Republicans, she's outrageously giving
CPR to what should have been a rotting corpse of a political party by now.
By giving new life to the pathocrats who made Trump possible, Clinton is only making her
own party weaker and more right-wing, only making it easier for down-ticket Republicans to slither
their way back into power.... the better to triangulate with during the Clinton restoration. Grand
Bargain, here we come. TPP, (just waiting for that fig leaf of meager aid for displaced American
workers) here we come. Bombs away.
With three months to go before this grotesque circus ends, Trump is giving every indication
that he wants out, getting more reckless by the day. And that's a good thing, because with her
rise in the polls, Hillary will now have to do more on the stump than inform us she is not Trump.
She'll have to ditch the fear factor. She'll have to start sending emails and Tweets with something
other than "OMG! Did you hear what Trump just said?!?" on them to convince voters.
She'll have to stop hoarding her campaign cash and share it with the down-ticket Democrats
running against the same well-heeled GOPers she is now courting with such naked abandon.
The Empress needs some new clothes to hide that inner Goldwater Girl.
"... But the party's latest generation of "New Democrats" - self-described "moderates" who are funded by Wall Street and are aggressively trying to steer the party to the right - have noticed this trend and are now fighting back. Third Way, a "centrist" think tank that serves as the hub for contemporary New Democrats, has recently published a sizable policy paper, " Ready for the New Economy ," urging the Democratic Party to avoid focusing on economic inequality. Former Obama chief of staff Bill Daley, a Third Way trustee, recently argued that Sanders' influence on the primary "is a recipe for disaster" for Democrats. ..."
"... The DLC's goal was to advance "a message that was less tilted toward minorities and welfare, less radical on social issues like abortion and gays, more pro-defense, and more conservative on economic issues," wrote Robert Dreyfuss in a 2001 article in The American Prospect . "The DLC thundered against the 'liberal fundamentalism' of the party's base - unionists, blacks, feminists, Greens, and cause groups generally." ..."
"... Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed. The organization had virtually no grassroots supporters; it was funded almost entirely by corporate donors. Its executive council, Dreyfuss reported , was made up of companies that donated at least $25,000 and included Enron and Koch Industries. A list of its known donors includes scores of the United States' most powerful corporations, all of whom benefit from a Democratic Party that embraces big business and is less reliant on labor unions and the grassroots for support. ..."
"... The height of the DLC's triumph may well have been in the 1990s, when it claimed President Bill Clinton as its most prominent advocate, celebrating his disastrous welfare cuts (which were supported by Hillary Clinton as the first lady), his support for the North American Free Trade Agreement and his speech declaring that the "era of big government is over." These initiatives had the DLC's footprint all over them. ..."
"... The DLC's prescribed Third Way also found a home on Downing Street in England. Tony Blair, a major Clinton ally, was a staunch advocate of the DLC, adopted its strategies and lent his name to its website. According to the book Clinton and Blair: The Political Economy of the Third Way , he said in 1998 that it "is a third way because it moves decisively beyond an Old Left preoccupied by state control, high taxation and producer interests." ..."
"... When Bill Clinton left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate. She quickly became a major player for the DLC, serving as a prominent member of the New Democratic Caucus in the Senate, speaking at conferences on multiple occasions and serving as chair of a key initiative for the 2006 and 2008 elections. ..."
"... She also adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly in favor of Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall, one of the group's founders, was a signatory of many of the now infamous documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the United States to radically increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond. ..."
"... The DLC led efforts to take down Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq as an example of his weakness. Two years later, the organization played a similar role against Ned Lamont's antiwar challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which the DLC decried as "The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism." ..."
"... However, the DLC's influence eventually waned . A formal affiliation with the organization became something of a deal breaker for some progressive voters. When Barack Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, he had no affiliation with the DLC. So, when they wrongly included him in their directory of New Democrats, he asked the DLC to remove his name. In explaining this, he also publicly shunned the organization in an interview with Black Commentator. "You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC," he wrote when pressed by the magazine . "That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC." ..."
"... When the DLC closed, it records were acquired by the Clinton Foundation, which DLC founder Al From called an "appropriate and fitting repository." To this day, the Clinton Foundation continues to promote the work of the DLC's founding members. In September 2015, the foundation hosted an event to promote From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power ..."
"... Citizens United ..."
"... So while the DLC may be a dirty word among many progressives, this didn't stop Obama from appointing New Democrats to key posts in his White House. The same Bill Daley who works for a hedge fund and is on the board of trustees for Third Way was also President Obama's White House chief of staff . And, as was noted above, he is now actively trying to influence the Democratic Party's direction in the 2016 election. ..."
"... The remaining champions of the DLC agenda have been increasingly active in trying to push back against populism. On October 28, 2015, Third Way published an ambitious paper, "Ready for the New Economy," that aims to do just that. The paper falsely argues that "the narrative of fairness and inequality has, to put it mildly, failed to excite voters," and says "these trends should compel the party to rigorously question the electoral value of today's populist agenda." ..."
"... When Clinton announced her tax plan, Dow Jones quoted Jim Kessler, a Third Way staffer, praising the plan. On social media , Third Way staffers are routinely cheering on Clinton and attacking Sanders and O'Malley . ..."
"... and where she will be ..."
"... Consider the case of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president . Dean's reputation as a fiery progressive has always been wildly overstated , but there was a rich irony about Dean's endorsement. His centrist record aside, Dean was once the face of the party's progressive base. During his campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2003 and 2004, Dean used his opposition to the war in Iraq to garner progressive support. He attracted a large group of partisan liberal bloggers, who coined the term "Netroots" in support of his candidacy . For a time, Dean was leading in the polls during the primary. ..."
"... Remember: The Dean campaign was taken down by the DLC, who attacked him for running a campaign from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home." The rift between the DLC and Dean's supporters was so intense that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas described it as a "civil war" between Democrats. Of course, when Dean announced his support for Clinton, he made no mention of the fact that she was the leader of the same group that ambushed his candidacy precisely because it appealed to the party's left-leaning base. ..."
"... The tendency of some progressives to downplay, ignore or deflect populist critiques of Clinton's record was observed by Doug Henwood in his 2014 Harper's piece "Stop Hillary." ..."
"... In the article, he describes the "widespread liberal fantasy of [Clinton] as a progressive paragon" as misguided. "In fact, a close look at her life and career is perhaps the best antidote to all these great expectations," Henwood writes. "The historical record, such as it is, may also be the only antidote, since most progressives are unwilling to discuss Hillary in anything but the most general, flattering terms." ..."
A discussion about how the Democrats could be compromised by their relationship with the
financial institutions that fund their campaigns was unthinkable in past presidential debates.
Such a discussion falls way outside the narrow parameters of debate that have dominated political
discourse in the mainstream media for decades. But at the
Democratic
debate in Iowa this November, this issue was front and center: Hillary Clinton was forced to
defend her financial relationship with Wall Street
numerous times on network television.
Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed.
Clinton's response to populist attacks on her Wall Street connections has largely been to adopt
similar language and policy positions as her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders. In many ways she is
trying to minimize the differences between her and Sanders, rather than emphasize them. "The differences
among us," she said of her opponents at the
Iowa debate , "pale in comparison to what's happening on the Republican [side]."
But the party's latest generation of
"New Democrats" - self-described
"moderates" who
are funded by Wall Street and are aggressively trying to steer the party to the right - have
noticed this trend and are now fighting back. Third Way, a "centrist" think tank that serves as the
hub for contemporary New Democrats, has recently published a sizable policy paper, "
Ready for the
New Economy ," urging the Democratic Party to avoid focusing on economic inequality. Former Obama
chief of staff Bill Daley, a Third Way trustee, recently
argued that Sanders' influence on the primary "is a recipe for disaster" for Democrats.
This "ideological gulf" inside the party, as The Washington Post's
Ruth Marcus describes it , is not a new phenomenon. Before there was Third Way, there was the
Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). And before there was Bill Daley, there was Hillary Clinton -
a key member of the
DLC's leadership team during her entire tenure in the US Senate (2000-2008). As Clinton seeks
progressive support, it is important to consider her role in the influential movement to, as
The American Prospect describes
it , "reinvent the [Democratic] party as one pledged to fiscal restraint, less government, and
a pro-business, pro-free market outlook." This fairly recent history is an important part of Clinton's
record, and she owes it to primary voters to answer for it.
But before all of these events shaped public opinion, the party was largely guided by the ideas
of the Democratic Leadership Council.
Founded by Southern Democrats in 1985 , the group sought to transform the party by pushing it
to embrace more conservative positions and win support from big business.
Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed.
The DLC's goal was to advance "a message that was less tilted toward minorities and welfare, less
radical on social issues like abortion and gays, more pro-defense, and more conservative on economic
issues," wrote Robert Dreyfuss in a 2001
article in The American Prospect
. "The DLC thundered against the 'liberal fundamentalism' of the party's base - unionists, blacks,
feminists, Greens, and cause groups generally."
Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed. The organization
had virtually no grassroots supporters; it was funded almost entirely by corporate donors. Its executive
council, Dreyfuss reported
, was made up of companies that donated at least $25,000 and included Enron and Koch Industries.
A list of its known donors includes scores of the United States' most powerful corporations, all
of whom benefit from a Democratic Party that embraces big business and is less reliant on labor unions
and the grassroots for support.
The organization's influence was significant, especially in the 1990s. The New York Times
reported
that during that era "the Democratic Leadership Council was a maker of presidents." Its influence
continued into the post-Clinton years. Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt
and countless others all
lent their names in support of the organization. The DLC and its think tank, the
Progressive Policy Institute (PPI),
were well financed and published a seemingly endless barrage of
policy papers , op-eds
and declarations
in their numerous publications.
"It is almost hard to find anyone who wasn't involved with [the DLC]" said Mark Schmitt, a staffer
for the nonpartisan New America Foundation think tank, in an interview with Truthout. "This was before
there were a lot of organizations, and the DLC provided a way for politicians to get involved and
to be in the same room with important people."
The DLC's prescribed Third Way also
found a home on Downing
Street in England. Tony Blair, a major Clinton ally, was a staunch advocate of the DLC,
adopted its strategies and lent
his name to its website. According to the book Clinton and Blair: The Political Economy of the
Third Way ,
he said in 1998 that it "is a third way because it moves decisively beyond an Old Left preoccupied
by state control, high taxation and producer interests."
As recently as 2014, Blair has continued to urge the UK's Labour Party to remain committed to
these ideals. "Former UK prime minister Tony Blair has urged Labour leader Ed Miliband to stick to
the political centre ground, warning that the public has not 'fallen back in love with the state'
despite the global financial crisis,"
according to the Financial Times , which noted that the left-wing base of his party has rejected
his centrist leanings. "His decision as prime minister to join the US in its invasion of Iraq - as
well as his free-market leanings - have made him a
hate figure among the most leftwing Labour activists."
Hillary Clinton as a New Democrat
When Bill Clinton left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate. She quickly became
a major player for the DLC, serving as a
prominent member of
the New Democratic Caucus in the Senate, speaking at
conferences
on multiple occasions
and serving as
chair of a key initiative for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
New Democrats were never really about popular support; they were about bringing together big
business and the Democrats.
More importantly, Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed. She tried to portray
herself as a crusader for family values when she
introduced legislation to ban violent video games and
flag burning in 2005.
She also
adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly in favor of Bush's "war on
terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall, one of the group's founders, was a signatory of
many of the now infamous
documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the United States to radically
increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond.
The DLC led efforts to take down Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, citing his opposition
to the war in Iraq as an example of his weakness. Two years later, the organization played a
similar role against
Ned Lamont's antiwar challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which the DLC decried as
"The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism."
However, the DLC's influence eventually
waned
. A formal affiliation with the organization became something of a deal breaker for some progressive
voters. When Barack Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, he had no affiliation with the DLC. So,
when they wrongly included him in their directory of New Democrats, he asked the DLC to remove his
name. In explaining this, he also publicly shunned the organization in an interview with Black Commentator.
"You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in
the DLC," he wrote when
pressed by the magazine
. "That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC."
The DLC's decline continued: A growing sense of discontent among progressives, Clinton's loss
in 2008 and the economic crisis that followed turned the DLC into something of a political liability.
And in 2011, the Democratic Leadership Council
shuttered
its doors .
When the DLC closed, it records were
acquired by the Clinton Foundation, which DLC founder Al From called an "appropriate and fitting
repository." To this day, the Clinton Foundation continues to promote the work of the DLC's founding
members. In September 2015, the foundation
hosted an event to promote From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power . Amazingly,
O'Malley provided a
favorable
blurb for the book, praising it as a "reminder of the core principles that still drive Democratic
success today."
The 2016 Election and New Democrats
The DLC's demise was seen as a victory by many progressives, and the populist tone of the 2016
primary is being celebrated as a sign of rising progressivism as well. But it is probably too soon
to declare that the "battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is coming to an end," as Adam Green,
cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, recently
told the Guardian .
Consider the way Marshall spun the closing of the DLC. "With President Obama consciously reconstructing
a winning coalition by reconnecting with the progressive center, the pragmatic ideas of PPI and other
organizations are more vital than ever," he said in an
interview with Politico .
His reference to "PPI and other organizations" refers to the still-existing Progressive Policy
Institute and Third Way. These institutions have the same
Wall Street support and continue to push the same agenda that their predecessor did.
New Democrats' guns are aimed firmly at Sanders, and they are quick to defend Clinton.
Many of these "centrist" ideas lack popular support these days. But New Democrats were never really
about popular support; they were about bringing together big business and the Democrats. The group's
board of trustees is almost
entirely made up of Wall Street executives. Further, in the aftermath of the 2010 Citizens
United Supreme Court decision, these same moneyed interests
have more influence over the political process than ever before.
"These organizations now are basically just corporate lobbyists today," Schmitt said.
So while the DLC may be a dirty word among many progressives, this didn't stop Obama from appointing
New Democrats to key posts in his White House. The same Bill Daley who
works for a hedge fund and is on the
board of trustees for Third Way
was also President Obama's
White House chief of
staff . And, as was noted above, he is now actively trying to influence the Democratic Party's
direction in the 2016 election.
The remaining champions of the DLC agenda have been increasingly active in trying to push back
against populism. On October 28, 2015, Third Way published an ambitious paper,
"Ready for the
New Economy," that aims to do just that. The paper
falsely
argues that "the narrative of fairness and inequality has, to put it mildly, failed to excite
voters," and says "these trends should compel the party to rigorously question the electoral value
of today's populist agenda."
The report attacks Sanders' proposals for expanding Social Security and implementing a single-payer
health-care system directly, making
faulty
claims about both proposals. It also advises Democrats to avoid the "singular focus on income
inequality" because its "actual impact on the middle class may be small."
"Third Way and its allies are gravely misreading the economic and political moment," said Richard
Eskow, a writer for Campaign for America's Future, in a
rebuttal
to the paper. "If their influence continues to wane, perhaps one day Americans can stop paying
the price for their ill-conceived, corporation- and billionaire-friendly agenda."
Eskow is right to use the word "if" instead of "when." Progressives ignore these efforts at their
own peril. Despite their archaic and flawed ideas, Third Way's reports and speakers still get undue
attention in the mainstream media. For instance, The Washington Post
devoted 913 words to Third Way's new paper, describing it as part of a "big economic fight in
the Democratic Party." The article provided a platform for Third Way's president Jonathan Cowan to
attack Sanders. "We propose that Democrats be Democrats, not socialists," he said. This tone is the
status quo for New Democrats in the media. Their guns are aimed firmly at Sanders, and they are quick
to defend Clinton.
When Clinton was attacked for working with former Wall Street executives, The Wall Street Journal
quoted PPI president Will Marshall, defending her. "The idea that you have to excommunicate anybody
who ever worked in the financial sector is ridiculous,"
he said .
"The Necessities of the Moment": Will Clinton Run Back to the Right?
Of course, the New Democrats' preference for Clinton shouldn't surprise anyone. She has been an
ally for years. And while they have expressed concern over her leftward tilt, they are confident,
as
the Post reported , that "she'll tack back their way in a general election." For instance,
her recent opposition to the
Trans-Pacific Partnership - which Third Way is
supporting aggressively - has centrists "disappointed" but not worried.
"Everyone knew where she was on that and where she will be , but given the necessities
of the moment and a tough Democratic primary, she felt she needed to go there initially," New Democratic
Coalition chairman Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wisconsin)
told the Guardian (emphasis added).
Politics isn't a sporting event. It is important to be critical, even of candidates for whom
you will likely vote.
If New Democrats aren't worried that Clinton's populist rhetoric is sincere, progressives probably
should be worried that it isn't. As DLC founder Al From
told the Guardian : "Hillary will bend a little bit but not so much that she can't get herself
back on course in the general [election] and when she is governing."
Some, however, are confident that if elected, Clinton will have to spend political capital on
the very populist ideas she is now embracing.
"When you make these kind of promises it will be difficult to just go back on them," said the
New America Foundation's Mark Schmitt. "She will have to work on many of these issues if she is elected."
Adam Green, cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told Truthout that his group's
emphasis is to make any Democratic candidate responsive to the issues important to what he calls
the
"Warren wing" of the party, which espouses the more populist economic beliefs of Sen. Elizabeth
Warren (D-Massachusetts). Like Warren, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee hasn't endorsed
a candidate in the race as of now.
"It is not about one candidate; it is about trying to make all the candidates address the issues
we care about," Green said, citing debt-free education, expanding Social Security benefits and supporting
Black Lives Matter as key issues.
Liberals, Clinton and Partisan Amnesia
It is understandable why some progressives are hesitant to be critical of Clinton: They fully
expect that soon she will be the only thing standing between them and some candidate from the "Republican
clown car," as Green described the GOP field.
But voting pragmatically in a general election is one thing. Ignoring or apologizing for Clinton's
very recent and troubling record is another. Too many progressives are engaged in a sort of willful
partisan amnesia and are accepting the false narrative that Clinton is "a populist fighter who for
decades has been an advocate for families and children," as some unnamed
Clinton advisers told The New York Times.
Consider the case of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, who
has
endorsed Hillary Clinton for president . Dean's reputation as a fiery progressive has always
been
wildly overstated , but there was a rich irony about Dean's endorsement. His centrist record
aside, Dean was once the face of the party's progressive base. During his campaign for the Democratic
nomination in 2003 and 2004, Dean used his opposition to the war in Iraq to garner progressive support.
He attracted a large group of partisan liberal bloggers, who coined the term
"Netroots" in
support of his candidacy . For a time, Dean was
leading in the polls during the primary.
Remember: The Dean campaign was taken down by the DLC, who
attacked him
for running a campaign from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally
by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home." The rift between the DLC and
Dean's supporters was so intense that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas
described it as a "civil war" between Democrats. Of course, when Dean announced his support for
Clinton, he made no mention of the fact that she was the leader of the same group that ambushed his
candidacy precisely because it appealed to the party's left-leaning base.
Once the primary is over, the chance to force Clinton to respond to left critiques will likely
not come again soon.
Yet Moulitsas recently
endorsed Clinton in a column for The Hill. Moulitsas was one of the key bloggers who supported
Dean in 2004 and helped create the Netroots in its infancy. His goal, he said often, was
"crashing the gate" of the Democratic establishment. But his uncritical support for Clinton,
the quintessential establishment candidate, has turned much of
his own blog into evidence of how some progressives are dismissing recent history for partisan
reasons. In the last contested Democratic primary, Moulitsas was extremely
critical
of Clinton. Now, he is helping her
do to Sanders what the DLC did to Dean.
Why are the likes of Dean and Moulitsas so quick to embrace Clinton after years of battling with
her and her allies in the so-called "vital center?" Only they know for sure. In the case of Dean,
it may well be because he was never a real populist to begin with. In 2003, Bloomberg did a story
asking Vermonters to talk about Dean's ideology. "Howard is not a liberal. He's a pro-business, Rockefeller
Republican,"
said Garrison Nelson, a political science professor at the University of Vermont. This sentiment
is shared by many Vermonters, on both the
left
and
right .
But for other self-identified progressives who have embraced the establishment candidate, such
as Moulitsas, the answers may be simpler: partisan loyalty and ambition. The fact is the odds of
Clinton winning the nomination are very good. And for the likes of Moulitsas - who now writes columns
for an establishment
DC paper and is a
major fundraiser for Democrats - being on the side of the winner will certainly make him more
friends in DC than supporting the self-identified socialist that opposes her.
Moulitsas argues that Clinton has dismissed "her husband's ideological baggage" and is "aiming
for a truly progressive presidency." He is now a true believer, he claims. It is up to readers to
decide if they find his argument to be credible, especially compared to the conflicting statements
he has made for many years. Many on
his own blog are skeptical.
But, lastly, the main reason many progressives are willing to overlook Clinton's record is simply
fear. They are afraid of a Republican president, and it is hard to blame them. The idea of a President
Trump - or Carson or Cruz - is extremely frightening for many people. This is entirely understandable.
But even if one feels obligated to vote for Clinton in the general election, should she win the nomination,
that does not mean her record ought to be ignored. Politics isn't a sporting event. It is important
to be critical, even of candidates for whom you will likely vote.
The Historical Record: "The Only Antidote"
The tendency of some progressives to downplay, ignore or deflect populist critiques of Clinton's
record was observed by Doug Henwood in his 2014 Harper's piece
"Stop Hillary."
In the article, he describes the "widespread liberal fantasy of [Clinton] as a progressive paragon"
as misguided. "In fact, a close look at her life and career is perhaps the best antidote to all these
great expectations," Henwood writes. "The historical record, such as it is, may also be the only
antidote, since most progressives are unwilling to discuss Hillary in anything but the most general,
flattering terms."
Cleary, Clinton's historical record reveals much to be concerned about, including her long career
as a New Democrat. For the first time in recent memory, however, progressives actually have some
leverage to make her answer for this record.
Clinton has a reasonably competitive opponent who has challenged her on her record of Wall Street
support, her
dismissal of the Glass-Steagall Act and her
vote for war in Iraq . She should also be challenged vigorously on her role with the DLC.
Circumstances have created a unique moment where Clinton has to answer these tough questions.
But it may be a fleeting moment. Once the primary is over, the chance to force Clinton - or any major
establishment politician - to respond to left critiques will likely not come again soon. Copyright,
Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission .
Michael Corcoran
is a journalist based in Boston. He has written for The Boston Globe, The Nation,
The Christian Science Monitor, Extra!, NACLA Report on the Americas and other publications. Follow
him on Twitter: @mcorcoran3 .
"... The Clinton approach from hereon in is one of masquerade: appropriate the Bernie Sanders aura, give the impression that the party has somehow miraculously moved leftward, and snap up a stash of votes come November. ..."
"... clinging to the fiction that the Clintons are somehow progressive. This ignores the fundamental fact that Bill Clinton, during his presidential tenure through the 1990s, made parts of the GOP strategy plan relatively progressive by way of comparison. Stunned by this embrace of hard right ideas, the Republicans would be kept out of the White House till 2000. ..."
The reality is that millions were readying themselves to vote for him come November precisely because
he was Sanders, meshed with the ideas of basic social democracy. He betrayed them.
The Clinton approach from hereon in is one of masquerade: appropriate the Bernie Sanders aura,
give the impression that the party has somehow miraculously moved leftward, and snap up a stash of
votes come November.
The approach of the Republicans will be self-defeating, clinging to the fiction that the Clintons
are somehow progressive. This ignores the fundamental fact that Bill Clinton, during his presidential
tenure through the 1990s, made parts of the GOP strategy plan relatively progressive by way of comparison.
Stunned by this embrace of hard right ideas, the Republicans would be kept out of the White House
till 2000.
Be wary of any language of change that is merely the language of promise. Keep in mind that US
politics remains a "binary" choice, an effective non-choice bankrolled by financial power.
"... He's no more a progressive revolutionary than any other member of Congress, nor Washington's bipartisan criminal class, bureaucrats included – Sanders a card-carrying member throughout his deplorable political career. ..."
"... A major concern is the group's tax status as a 501(c)(4) organization able to get large donations from anonymous sources – meaning the usual ones buying influence, letting Sanders pretend to be progressive and revolutionary while operating otherwise. ..."
"... Claire Sandberg was the initiative's organizing director. "I left and others left because we were alarmed that Jeff (Weaver) would mismanage this organization as he mismanaged the campaign," she explained. ..."
"... She fears Weaver will "betray its core purpose by accepting money from billionaires and not remaining grassroots funded and plowing that billionaire cash into TV instead of investing it in building a genuine movement." ..."
"... Vermont GOP vice chairman Brady Toensing blasted Sanders for "preach(ing) transparency and then tr(ying) to set up the most shadowy of shadowy fund-raising organization to support" what he claims to endorse. ..."
"... Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
"... His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." ..."
He's no more a progressive revolutionary than any other member of Congress, nor Washington's
bipartisan criminal class, bureaucrats included – Sanders a card-carrying member throughout his deplorable
political career.
Endorsing Hillary Clinton after rhetorically campaigning against what she represents exposed his
duplicity – a progressive in name only. An opportunist for his own self-interest, he wants his extended
15 minutes of fame made more long-lasting.
Claiming his new initiative "will fight to transform America and advance the progressive agenda
(he) believe(s) in" belies his deplorable House and Senate voting records, on the wrong side of most
major issues, especially supporting most US wars of aggression.
A separate Sanders Institute intends operating like his Our Revolution initiative. Maybe his real
aim is cashing in on his high-profile persona – including a new book due out in mid-November titled
"Our Revolution: A Future To Believe In."
Save your money. Its contents are clear without reading it – the same mumbo jumbo he used while
campaigning.
It excludes his deplorable history of promising one thing, doing another, going along with Washington
scoundrels like Hillary to get along, betraying his loyal supporters – the real Sanders he wants
concealed.
On August 24, The
New York Times said his Our Revolution initiative "has been met with criticism and controversy
over its financing and management."
It's "draw(ing) from the same pool of 'dark money' (he) condemned" while campaigning. After
his former campaign manager Jeff Weaver was hired to lead the group, "the majority of its staff
resigned," said The Times – described as "eight core staff members…"
"The group's entire organizing department quit this week, along with people working in digital
and data positions." They refused to reconsider after Sanders urged them to stay on.
A major concern is the group's tax status as a 501(c)(4) organization able to get large donations
from anonymous sources – meaning the usual ones buying influence, letting Sanders pretend to be progressive
and revolutionary while operating otherwise.
Claire Sandberg was the initiative's organizing director. "I left and others left because we were
alarmed that Jeff (Weaver) would mismanage this organization as he mismanaged the campaign," she
explained.
She fears Weaver will "betray its core purpose by accepting money from billionaires and not remaining
grassroots funded and plowing that billionaire cash into TV instead of investing it in building a
genuine movement."
Vermont GOP vice chairman Brady Toensing blasted Sanders for "preach(ing) transparency and then
tr(ying) to set up the most shadowy of shadowy fund-raising organization to support" what he claims
to endorse.
"What I'm seeing here is a senator who is against big money in politics, but only when" it applies
to others, not himself, Toensing added.
Campaign Legal Center's Paul S. Ryan said "(t)here are definitely some red flags with respect
to the formation of this group…We're in a murky area."
Is Sanders' real aim self-promotion and enrichment? Is his Our Revolution more a scheme than an
honest initiative?
Is it sort of like the Clinton Foundation, Sanders wanting to grab all he can – only much less
able to match the kind of super-wealth Bill and Hillary amassed?
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at
[email protected].
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive
for Hegemony Risks WW III."
"... Here is an up-to-date look at the massive amount of money that has been donated to Super PACs in this election cycle: http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/07/super-pacs-2016-awash-with-cash.html ..."
"... The wealthiest Americans still firmly believe that political control belongs to them. ..."
"... "The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers." ..."
Do companies employ people to make its employees rich?
No they employ people to make a profit, the productive output of all employees is split to take
a profit for the company, cover costs and pay wages. The employee loses a slice of their productive output to the company for the company to take
as profit.
The employee takes out less than he puts in.
Someone with a trust fund receives an income from their trust fund without the fund going down.
They take out more than they put in.
The system trickles up and assuming it trickles down to lower taxes on the wealthy has polarized
personal wealth and is hitting global aggregate demand.
Adam Smith noted the system flowed upwards in the 18th Century.
"The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining
of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour
of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant
and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But
every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no
tax gatherers."
Where did the idea of trickledown come from?
US billionaires after a long liquid lunch.
Across the country, the presence and influence of big money exerts a downward pressure on down-ticket
candidates across the board. Steve Israel's sentiments are widely shared; without direct and committed
backing from large (national-level) donors, candidates have to spend the greater part of their
election efforts just to raise money, this of course eats into their constituent outreach. Candidates
with expensive consultants/vendors and/or large staff may be under pressured to fundraise from
within their own campaign. HRC's decision to forego a visit to Louisiana flood victims may be
a case of in-house pressure; money can distort rational, not to mention compassionate, action.
And significant donations and/or political support can appear as if out of nowhere. I recently
spoke with a candidate for D.A. who was surprised to hear his own voice coming out of his car
radio; a national PAC had chosen to back him, and was buying local radio time. Since PACs can't
(shouldn't) coordinate with formal campaigns, this isn't too unusual. But he has had to answer
questions from media about why and how he got this support (they had interviewed him by phone
some months earlier, with no further direct contact). His opponent has since dropped out, citing
financial pressures and lack of sufficient contributions to continue. The opposing party is scrambling
to find a replacement to meet the State's requirements for submission of candidate names, no luck
so far; they could actually end up pulling an incumbent State Senator running for re-election
to vacate one slot to fill another.
The flood of money in politics, including the involvement of PACs, also raises the stakes for
prospective candidates, who are under increasing scrutiny from mainstream and independent media;
outside money drives media attention directly and indirectly, in addition to media capabilities
of well financed opposing candidates and parties. Money heats up the entire process, and the emotional
and physical (and financial) pressure is considerable. This also leads to more self-funding candidates,
and less opportunity for independents with lesser personal means. And the trend of antagonistic
campaigning, long of polarizing vitriol and short on substantial issue discussion, is also driven
by moneyed influences seeking traction of any kind, while bringing little or no substantial or
broadly popular policy agenda to a contest.
The Sanders direct fundraising model may be evidence of a countercurrent. Bernie famously spent
no time courting big donors, and was able to produce a formidable campaign war chest directly
from his message and persona. But even while competing favorably with Hillary's campaign fundraising,
Clinton benefited from massive PAC support which Sanders never matched. Sanders' campaign also
had a hard time finding experienced campaign staff (and possibly other resources); there was considerable
implicit (and some explicit) pressure within the Dem consultant stable to avoid opposing the Clinton
(Money) Machine. Jobs and careers on the line, with repercussions long after this election cycle.
Already, however, the whole enterprise is in turmoil, thanks to the resignations of several of its
top staff members even before it was off the ground, who were angered by the decision of Senator
Sanders and his wife, Jane Sanders, to appoint his former campaign manager, John Weaver, as its top
officer over their very clearly expressed objections.
Among those heading to the exits was Claire
Sandberg, who was the digital organising director of the campaign and the organising director of
Our Revolution. Her entire department of four people quit, in fact.
She and the others who joined the revolt, including Kenneth Pennington, who was to be the digital
director of Our Revolution, were opposed to Mr Weaver's involvement both for reasons of personality
clashes and because they felt he mismanaged the Senator's campaign in part by spending too much money
on television advertising and failing to harness grassroots support.
They also contended that Mr Weaver would only exacerbate an additional concern they had with the
new entity namely that it has been set up as a so-called 501(c)(4) organisation, which, because of
its charitable status, is in theory not allowed to work directly with the election of political candidates
and is able to receive large sums from anonymous donors.
A large part of the premise of Mr Sanders's campaign for president had been precisely to wean
political campaigns from the flood of dark money that flows into them. That the Our Revolution entity
has been set up precisely to take such money looked to them like a betrayal.
According to several reports a majority of the staff appointed to run the new outfit resigned
as soon as the appointment of Mr Weaver was confirmed on Monday
"... And, pardon me for being a tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theorist, I wonder if this was the dirt that the Clinton campaign was planning to use against Bernie before he endorsed you-know-who on July 12. ..."
"... President Sanders was not to last long at BC and she left for still unknown circumstances soon after the purchase of the property. ..."
"... The next Presidents, Cjristine Plunkett, Mike Smith and Carol Moore then sold off large portions of the property to real estate developers and then, when the ship finally sank under increasingly hopeless and clueless leadership, all of whom could not increase enrollment or or raise any funds (in fact we were eventually told that the school had given up fund raising), Burlington College went into a relentless downward spiral which tragically and painfully closed its doors in May, 20016. ..."
"... It may ultimately have been the straw that broke the camel's back, and it looks terrible that Jane Sanders was at the helm and instrumental in making the decision, but it also sounds like it was a bold effort – that the Board of Directors signed off on – to change the school's fortunes, and one that unfortunately could not overcome years of struggle and financial instability. ..."
My comments on this link: Jane Sanders used to be president of Burlington
College.
And, pardon me for being a tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theorist, I wonder if this was the dirt
that the Clinton campaign was planning to use against Bernie before he endorsed you-know-who on
July 12.
But if she left five years ago, it is difficult to see how she could be blamed for this specific
problem. Whatever her role in the financial problems may have been (and I admit I don't understand
that well), her successors were responsible for what was done subsequently, and if they knew they
might have to close down should have taken steps to protect student records and ensure their future
accessibility.
This was a comment left on that article by someone named Sandy Baird:
Thank you for this reporting. The demise of Burlington College was not caused by Jane Sanders.
The Board of trustees and the then President Jane Sanders bought the property from the Catholic
diocese. President Sanders was an ambitious President and sought to increase the enrollment
by creating substantial, innovative and effective programs, which included the Burlington College/Cuba
Semester abroad and by increasing the profile of the school in the community and state. Jane's
plan always was to create a thriving campus for a growing student body and for a unique college
which had as its mission the "building of sustainable, just, humane and beautiful communities."
However, President Sanders was not to last long at BC and she left for still unknown circumstances
soon after the purchase of the property.
The next Presidents, Cjristine Plunkett, Mike Smith and Carol Moore then sold off large
portions of the property to real estate developers and then, when the ship finally sank under
increasingly hopeless and clueless leadership, all of whom could not increase enrollment or
or raise any funds (in fact we were eventually told that the school had given up fund raising),
Burlington College went into a relentless downward spiral which tragically and painfully closed
its doors in May, 20016.
The school, the property and the beach will now be picked up by the
developer, Eric Farrell and the beach goes to the City. In a final irony, Eric Farrell was
awarded an honorary doctorate degree at the final graduation of the school in May when its founder, Stu Lacase gave the graduation address.
Burlington College was always a fragile concern. Its website notes that in the early days,
it "had no financial backing, paid its bills when they came due, and paid its President when
it could." Jane Sanders's plan to place a big bet on expansion in order to put the school on
a more solid long-term footing was similar to decisions made by other college presidents, and
sometimes those bets simply don't work out.
On the last quote, that's how I read it. Owning real estate on the Lake Champlain waterfront
is not, ipso facto , a crazy thing to do. It sounds like the college just couldn't outrun
trouble. I still don't think it's a good look, though.
It may ultimately have been the straw that broke the camel's back, and it looks terrible that
Jane Sanders was at the helm and instrumental in making the decision, but it also sounds like
it was a bold effort – that the Board of Directors signed off on – to change the school's fortunes,
and one that unfortunately could not overcome years of struggle and financial instability.
The college should have provided the transcripts before it locked the doors, but it looks to
me like they wouldn't have been able to do it even then without the state's financial assistance.
If Jane had only known, she could have gotten the Board to approve a donation to the Clinton
Foundation, right?
Looks terrible? Seriously? I'm sorry, but I can't raise my pulse at all because someone took
a rational chance her successors were unable to carry through successfully.
As for providing the transcripts before locking the doors, that would have been problematic,
as so many places want original transcripts from the institution and won't accept something that
has come through the hands of the student. Those alumni are going to be dogged by that as long
as they need transcripts unless the state or somebody funds permanent access.
Amen, did anyone hear the screaming about this same scenario when small college had Ben Sasse
as President of College? He left, others followed and undid some of his actions and eventually
the small college suffered.
Apparently it is fine for some people to have these behaviors overlooked and not so for others.
I believe there is a word for that – hmmm, I'm sure it will come to me eventually.
"... The politicians are battling it out for mindshare in both the electorate and the donor class for related but different reasons. ..."
"... The electorate is not so committed to serving the masters of capitalism, big finance and large corporations and the ownership class as their petty oligarchs are, but that is why campaign finance needs a makeover. ..."
"... In both cases though brainwashing starts at an early age. It just does not pay well enough for the general electorate to be as rigid in their thinking as it does for politicians to be rigid in their blinking. That is why media coverage of public affairs needs a makeover. ..."
The politicians and their electoral constituents are separate matters although there must obviously
be a stratum within which political allegiance can be triangulated. The politicians are battling
it out for mindshare in both the electorate and the donor class for related but different reasons.
The electorate is not so committed to serving the masters of capitalism, big finance and large
corporations and the ownership class as their petty oligarchs are, but that is why campaign finance
needs a makeover.
In both cases though brainwashing starts at an early age. It just does not pay well enough
for the general electorate to be as rigid in their thinking as it does for politicians to be rigid
in their blinking. That is why media coverage of public affairs needs a makeover.
"... The politicians are battling it out for mindshare in both the electorate and the donor class for related but different reasons. ..."
"... The electorate is not so committed to serving the masters of capitalism, big finance and large corporations and the ownership class as their petty oligarchs are, but that is why campaign finance needs a makeover. ..."
"... In both cases though brainwashing starts at an early age. It just does not pay well enough for the general electorate to be as rigid in their thinking as it does for politicians to be rigid in their blinking. That is why media coverage of public affairs needs a makeover. ..."
The politicians and their electoral constituents are separate matters although there must obviously
be a stratum within which political allegiance can be triangulated. The politicians are battling
it out for mindshare in both the electorate and the donor class for related but different reasons.
The electorate is not so committed to serving the masters of capitalism, big finance and large
corporations and the ownership class as their petty oligarchs are, but that is why campaign finance
needs a makeover.
In both cases though brainwashing starts at an early age. It just does not pay well enough
for the general electorate to be as rigid in their thinking as it does for politicians to be rigid
in their blinking. That is why media coverage of public affairs needs a makeover.
The likelihood is that the Clinton presidency will be tumultuous.
No Honeymoon: On the left, there are fewer hopes about Clinton than about
Barack Obama. The pressure will begin even before she takes office in what is likely to be a battle
royal in the lame duck session of Congress as Obama tries to force through his TPP trade deal.
New Energy: If the Sanders supporters stay engaged, there could be an organizational
form – his OurRevolution and his institute – that can do what a political party should do: educate
and mobilize around progressive issues; recruit and support truly progressive candidates. This
insurgency may continue to grow.
New Generation: It can't be forgotten how overwhelmingly Sanders won young
voters. He not only won 3 of 4 millennial voters in the Democratic primaries, he won a majority
of young people of color voting. Some of this was his message. Much of it was the integrity of
someone consistent in his views spurning the big money corruptions of our politics. These young
people are going to keep moving. They won't find answers in a Clinton administration. We're going
to see more movements, more disruptions, and more mobilizations – around jobs, around student
debt, about inequality, around criminal justice, immigration, globalization, and climate and more.
New Coalitions: Sanders and Trump clearly have shaken the coalitions of their
parties. Trump combined populism with bigotry and xenophobia to break up the Republican establishment's
ability to use the latter to support their neoliberal economics. Sanders attracted support of
the young across lines of race, challenging the Democratic establishment's ability to use liberal
identity politics to fuse minorities and upper middle class professionals into a majority coalition.
Clinton fended off the challenge, but the shakeup has only begun.
New Ideas: The Davos era has failed. There is no way it can continue down
the road without producing more and more opposition. This is now the second straight "recovery"
in which most Americans will lose ground. Already the elite is embattled intellectually on key
elements of the neo-liberal agenda: corporate globalization, privatization, austerity, "small
government," even global policing. Joe Stiglitz suggests that the Davos era is over, but that
is premature. What is clear is that it has failed and the struggle to replace it has just begun.
And that waving the white flag because Trump is besmirching populism mistakes today's farce for
history's drama.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
"... about lesser-evil politics and what impact the election could have on the future of progressive politics. ..."
"... Ford quoted writer Steven Salait, who wrote recently, "Lesser evilism is possible only because we're so accustomed to seeing certain people as lesser human beings." ..."
"... Dr. Monteiro believes that Republican support for Clinton could signal the beginning of a "new Mccarthyism." ..."
"... "Now we've always known that the two-party system was essentially a one party system with two wings." he said, "But now, so many of the Republicans and the neocons and the liberals are gravitating to this big umbrella. But at the same time they're saying to anyone who would oppose their policy in Russia, or towards Korea or Syria, that somehow you are unpatriotic, you are on the payroll of Russia or some external force. So I would suggest that there's nothing more lethal than a Cold War liberal. They go beyond the conservatives." ..."
"... That's a real concern. When we look at Hillary Clinton, when we look at her support for surveillance, her lack of support for civil liberties…It's very important that we're not distracted by this issue of who people vote for, is it this party or that party ..."
"... "That's not to say that elections aren't important, they definitely are a gauge of where people are at, at any given point, but that's not where social change comes from. And we need to stand strong, we need to stand united, we need to be prepared to get out into the streets to continue to struggle around the issues, including issues that are to the left of the articulated position of Bernie Sanders himself, which are issues of peace and social justice that the Bernie movement resonated with." ..."
With election season in full swing, Democrats and defecting Republicans
have ramped up a campaign against the open bigotry of bombastic real estate magnate Donald Trump.
Radio Sputnik's Loud & Clear spoke with Jane Cutter, editor of Liberationnews.org; Dr. Anthony
Monteiro, W.E.B. DuBois scholar and member of the Black Radical Organizing Collective; and Derek
Ford, Assistant Professor of Education Studies at DePauw University, about lesser-evil politics
and what impact the election could have on the future of progressive politics.
Cutter
explained that, historically, "Who's sitting in the White House is ultimately not the determining
factor" of a movement's vitality, and points to the presidency of Richard Nixon, considered to
be one of America's most conservative presidents. Cutter noted the many progressive measures passed
under the Nixon Administration due to pressure from the Civil Rights, Black Power, feminist and
LGBTQ movements.
"At that time, people were organized, people were mobilized, people were militant and in the
streets and, as a result, the Nixon Administration and other elements of the ruling class were
forced to give up numerous concessions that were in fact quite beneficial to the working class
of this country," she said.
Ford quoted writer Steven Salait, who wrote recently, "Lesser evilism is possible only
because we're so accustomed to seeing certain people as lesser human beings."
"By that he was saying that to call Hillary Clinton the lesser evil is to call the people of
Palestine, in Syria, Libya and Iraq, as lesser human beings, because her actions and her policies
have been so steadfastly hawkish there. It also disarms the movement and any potential for popular
uprising."
Dr. Monteiro believes that Republican support for Clinton could signal the beginning of
a "new Mccarthyism."
"Now we've always known that the two-party system was essentially
a one party system with two wings." he said, "But now, so many of the Republicans and the neocons
and the liberals are gravitating to this big umbrella. But at the same time they're saying to
anyone who would oppose their policy in Russia, or towards Korea or Syria, that somehow you are
unpatriotic, you are on the payroll of Russia or some external force. So I would suggest that
there's nothing more lethal than a Cold War liberal. They go beyond the conservatives."
He added, "I think Hillary represents something that we have to be very frightened of and we
really have to mobilize and steel ourselves for a really intense struggle against what she represents."
Cutter agreed, saying, "That's a real concern. When we look at Hillary Clinton, when we
look at her support for surveillance, her lack of support for civil liberties…It's very important
that we're not distracted by this issue of who people vote for, is it this party or that
party."
"That's not to say that elections aren't important, they definitely are a gauge of where
people are at, at any given point, but that's not where social change comes from. And we need
to stand strong, we need to stand united, we need to be prepared to get out into the streets to
continue to struggle around the issues, including issues that are to the left of the articulated
position of Bernie Sanders himself, which are issues of peace and social justice that the Bernie
movement resonated with."
Yet his real foreign policy record is closer to Hillary's than he likes to admit. Yes, he
opposed the Iraq war – and then proceeded to routinely vote to fund that war: ditto Afghanistan.
In 2003, at the height of the Iraq war hysteria, then Congressman Sanders
voted for a
congressional resolution hailing Bush:
"Congress expresses the unequivocal support and appreciation of the nation to the President
as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military
operations in Iraq as part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism."
As the drumbeat for war with Iran got louder, Rep. Sanders voted for the
Iran Freedom
Support Act, which codified sanctions imposed since the fall of the Shah and handed out
millions to "pro-freedom" groups seeking the overthrow of the Tehran regime. The Bush
administration, you'll
recall, was running a regime change operation at that point which gave covert support to
Jundullah, a terrorist group responsible for murdering
scores of
Iranian civilians. Bush was also
canoodling with the
Mujahideen-e-Khalq, a weirdo cult group once designated as a terrorist organization (a label
lifted by Hillary Clinton's State Department after a
well-oiled public relations campaign).
Sanders fulsomely supported the Kosovo war: when shocked antiwar activists visited his Senate
office in Burlington, Vermont, he
called the cops
on them. At a Montpelier public meeting featuring a debate on the war, Bernie
argued
passionately in favor of Bill Clinton's "humanitarian" intervention, and pointedly told hecklers
to leave if they didn't like what he had to say.
As a Senator, his votes on civil liberties issues show a distinct pattern. While he voted
against the Patriot Act, in 2006 he voted
in favor of
making fourteen provisions of the Act permanent, including those that codified the FBI's
authority to seize business records and carry out roving wiretaps. Sanders voted no on the
legislation establishing the Department of Homeland Security, but by the time he was in the
Senate he was regularly voting for that agency's ever-expanding budget.
The evolution of Bernie Sanders – from his days as a Liberty Unionist radical and Trotskyist
fellow-traveler, to his first political success as Mayor of Burlington, his election to Congress
and then on to the Senate – limns the course of the post-Sixties American left. Although birthed
in the turmoil of the Vietnam war, the
vaunted anti-interventionism of this crowd soon fell by the wayside as domestic political
tradeoffs trumped ideology. Nothing exemplifies this process of incremental betrayal better than
Sanders'
support for the troubled F-35 fighter jet, the classic case of a military program that exists
only to enrich the military-industrial complex. Although the plane has been plagued with
technical difficulties, and has toted up hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns,
Sanders has stubbornly defended and voted for it because Lockheed-Martin manufactures it in
Vermont.
No progressives worth their name would vote for Hillary. Betrayal of Sanders made the choice
more difficult, but still there no alternative. Clinton "No passaran!". Also "Clinton proved capable
of coming to an agreement with Sanders. He received good money,
bought a new house, published a book, and joined with Clinton, calling on his supporters to vote
for her"...
Crappy slogans like "hold
her feet to the fire" are lies. Has there ever been serious detail about that? I've seen this line over
and over. Hillary is dyed-in-the-wool neoliberal and will behave as such as soon as she get
into office. You can view her iether as (more jingoistic) Obama II or (equally reckless) Bush III.
If she wins, the next opportunity to check her neoliberal leaning will
be only during the next Persidential election.
Notable quotes:
"... ...was Clinton the better progressive choice against Sanders? Almost no Sanders-supporting Democratic voter would say yes to that. Not on trade, not on climate, not on breaking up too-big Wall Street banks, not on criminally prosecuting (finally) "too big to jail" members of the elite - not on any number of issues that touch core progressives values. ..."
"... It's time for progressives who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable. ..."
"... She's now appointed two pro-TPP politicians to key positions on her campaign - Tim Kaine as her Vice President and Ken Salazar to lead her presidential transition team. It's time for progressives who helped Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable. ..."
"... The choice of Salazar is a pretty good sign that as expected we'll be seeing the 'revolving door' in full force in a Clinton administration. As head of the transition he'll have enormous influence on who fills thousands of jobs at the White House and federal agencies. ..."
"... It is really important to stop referring to "job-killing trade deals" and point out every single time they are mentioned that the TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not about "trade" in any sense that a normal person understands it. ..."
"... TPP & its ilk, like NAFTA and CAFTA before them, are about world government by multinational corporations via their Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions. ..."
"... Regulatory arb, slice of corruption, and like shareholder value memes an equity burnishing tool… ..."
"... One thing I liked about Thom Hartmann was he relentlessly drove home the point that the US succeeded, grew, and became the dominant economic power in the world through the use of TARIFFS. Tariffs are necessary. ..."
"... The nafta-shafta deals relinquish the right to even think about tariffs. You don't have a sovereign nation any more. ..."
"... You can visit the prosperous Samsung-suburb of Suwon, Korea and see all the abandoned manufacturing space (where Korea was just a step on the path to Vietnam and Bangladesh). ..."
"... Information revolution automation is substituting machines for human intelligence. Here the race to the bottom is a single step, and these "trade" deals are all about rules of governance that will apply when people have been stripped of all economic power. ..."
"... merely infinite wealth and power for a thin oligarchy of robot/machine owners? ..."
"... Globalization and Technologization is a canard they use to explain the impoverishment and death of the working class. ..."
"... The fact that auto manufactures moved plants to low wage, nonunion, right to work states actually highlights the fact that labor costs drive the decision where to locate manufacturing plants. ..."
...was Clinton the better progressive choice against Sanders? Almost no Sanders-supporting Democratic
voter would say yes to that. Not on trade, not on climate, not on breaking up too-big Wall Street
banks, not on criminally prosecuting (finally) "too big to jail" members of the elite - not on any
number of issues that touch core progressives values.
... ... ...
Becky Bond on the Challenge to Clinton Supporters
...Bond looks at what the primary has wrought, and issues this challenge to activists who helped
defeat Sanders: You broke it, you bought it. Will you now take charge in the fight to hold Clinton
accountable? Or will you hang back (enjoying the fruits) and let others take the lead? ("Enjoying
the fruits" is my addition. As one attendee noted, the Democratic Convention this year seemed very
much like "a jobs fair.")
Bond says this, writing in
The Hill (my emphasis):
Progressive Clinton supporters: You broke it, you bought it
It's time for progressives who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to
take the lead on holding her accountable.
With Donald Trump tanking in the polls, there's room for progressives to simultaneously
crush his bid for the presidency while holding Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire on the TPP
.
And yet:
She's now appointed two pro-TPP politicians to key positions on her campaign - Tim Kaine as her Vice President and Ken Salazar to lead her presidential transition team. It's
time for progressives who helped Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on
holding her accountable.
... ... ...
Bond has more on Salazar and why both he and Tim Kaine are a "tell," a signal of things to come
from Hillary Clinton: "The choice of Salazar is a pretty good sign that as expected we'll be seeing
the 'revolving door' in full force in a Clinton administration. As head of the transition he'll have
enormous influence on who fills thousands of jobs at the White House and federal agencies."
It is really important to stop referring to "job-killing trade deals" and point out every single
time they are mentioned that the TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not about "trade" in
any sense that a normal person understands it.
This is the evil behind the lie of calling these
"trade" agreements and putting the focus on "jobs." TPP & its ilk, like NAFTA and CAFTA before
them, are about world government by multinational corporations via their Investor State Dispute
Settlement (ISDS) provisions.
That's what's at stake; not jobs. The jobs will be lost to automation
anyway; they are never coming back. The TPP et al legal straight jackets do not sell out jobs,
that's already been done. No, what these phony trade agreements do is foreclose any hope of achieving
functioning democracies. Please start saying so!
I miss-typed above. Of course I meant TPP and not ttp.
Yes, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc., certainly killed jobs. However, those jobs are not coming back
to these shores. In the higher wage countries, "good" jobs - in manufacturing and in many "knowledge"
and "service" sectors - as well as unskilled jobs, are being or have been replaced with automated
means and methods.
Just a few examples: automobile assemblers; retail cashiers; secretaries; steelworkers; highway
toll collectors; gas station attendants. ETC. Here's what's happened so far just in terms of Great
Lakes freighters:
"The wheelman stood behind Captain Ross, clutching a surprisingly tiny, computerized steering
wheel. He wore driving gloves and turned the Equinox every few seconds in whatever direction the
captain told him to. The wheel, computer monitors and what looked like a server farm filling the
wheelhouse are indicative of changes in the shipping industry. Twenty years ago, it took 35 crew
members to run a laker. The Equinox operates with 16, only a handful of whom are on duty at once."
TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not trade, and only very incidentally, jobs. The rulers
of the universe vastly prefer paying no wages to paying low wages, and whatever can be automated,
will be, eventually in low-wage countries as well as here and in Europe. A great deal of this
has already happened and it will continue. Only 5 sections of the TPP even deal with trade–that's
out of 29. Don't take this on my authority; Public Citizen is the gold standard of analysis regarding
these so-called "trade" agreements.
It took the OverClass several decades to send all those jobs away from our shores. It would
take several decades to bring those jobs back to our shores. But it could be done within a context
of militant belligerent protectionism.
Americans are smart enough to make spoons, knives and forks. We used to make them. We could
make them again. The only obstacles are contrived and artificial political-economic and policy
obstacles. Apply a different Market Forcefield to the American Market, and the actors within that
market would act differently over the several decades to come.
One thing I liked about Thom Hartmann was he relentlessly drove home the point that the US
succeeded, grew, and became the dominant economic power in the world through the use of TARIFFS.
Tariffs are necessary. They protect your industries while at the same time bringing in a lot of
revenue.
The nafta-shafta deals relinquish the right to even think about tariffs. You don't have a
sovereign
nation any more.
The first round of industrial revolution automation substituted machines for human/horse mechanical
exertion. We reached "peak horse" around 1900, and the move to low-wage/low-regulation states
was just a step on the global race to the bottom. You can visit the prosperous Samsung-suburb
of Suwon, Korea and see all the abandoned manufacturing space (where Korea was just a step on
the path to Vietnam and Bangladesh).
Information revolution automation is substituting machines for human intelligence. Here the
race to the bottom is a single step, and these "trade" deals are all about rules of governance
that will apply when people have been stripped of all economic power.
Will the rise of the machines lead to abundance for all, or merely infinite wealth and power
for a thin oligarchy of robot/machine owners? TPP and it's ilk may be the last chance for we the
people to have any say in it.
Manufacturing
is in decline due to Reagan's tax cuts and low investment. Globalization and Technologization
is a canard they use to explain the impoverishment and death of the working class.
@Squirrel – Labor costs, as you say, are a driving force; they are not the only one.
Notice that the products you mentioned are all large heavy items. In these cases the transportation
costs are high enough that the companies want their production to be close to their final market.
The lower cost of labor elsewhere is not enough to compensate for the higher shipping costs from
those locations. In addition, the wage gap between the US and other places has narrowed over the
past 20 years, mostly due to the ongoing suppression of wage gains in the US. Your examples are
exceptions that do not falsify the original premise that a huge amount of manufacturing has moved
to lower wage locations. And those moves are still ongoing, e.g., Carrier moving to Mexico.
The cost of manufactured goods has not fallen because the labor savings is going to profit
and executive compensation, not reduced prices.
The fact that auto manufactures moved plants to low wage, nonunion, right to work states actually
highlights the fact that labor costs drive the decision where to locate manufacturing plants.
"... All these elections are equally fake. At some point you're going to have to stop pecking B.F. Skinner's levers, because the pellets have stopped coming out. But there's no point reasoning with you till your extinction burst finally subsides. ..."
"... This is not a very good piece for several reasons, one being only in the nonsense universe of US mainstream discourse can Clinton be termed a 'centrist' or can someone be depicted as a bona fide 'progressive' and also be a supporter of Clinton. I wouldn't waste a moment trying to pressure 'Clinton progressives' on anything – there is no historical evidence she or Bill have ever had the slightest interest in the public interest. At best a 'Clinton progressive' might claim to be 'defending' some existing public good, but good luck there as well – as Trump is not the source of any real 'threat', that distinction belonging to the existing power elites (military, financial, corporate, legal, media etc.) Clinton serves. ..."
"... The idea that Clinton ever was 'open' to progressives reminds me of why the putrid Rahm Emmanuel could dismiss the left as a 'bunch of retards'. Time to make them eat those words by taking ourselves and our values and our thinking seriously enough we stop fearing not being taken 'seriously' by so loathsome a crew as the Clintons. ..."
Here in Temple Grandin's touchy-feely slaughterhouse, Sanders gets 45% of the vote and leads
them down Hillary's cattle chute for slaughter – not cooption, not marginalization, but the bolt
gun to the head, with lots of sadistic poleaxing straight out of an illegal PETA video. The surviving
livestock are auctioned off for flensing through gleeful trading in influence. This we learn,
is not beyond redemption. In some demented psycho-Quaker sense, perhaps. What the fuck WON'T you
put up with?
In this psychotic mindset, Kim Jong Un's 99.97% victory proves he's like twice as worthwhile
as any Dem. Write him in. Nursultan Nazarbayev, too, his 98% success speaks for itself. Write
him in. All these elections are equally fake. At some point you're going to have to stop pecking
B.F. Skinner's levers, because the pellets have stopped coming out. But there's no point reasoning
with you till your extinction burst finally subsides.
Then we can talk about how you knock over moribund regimes.
This is not a very good piece for several reasons, one being only in the nonsense universe
of US mainstream discourse can Clinton be termed a 'centrist' or can someone be depicted as a
bona fide 'progressive' and also be a supporter of Clinton. I wouldn't waste a moment trying to
pressure 'Clinton progressives' on anything – there is no historical evidence she or Bill have
ever had the slightest interest in the public interest. At best a 'Clinton progressive' might
claim to be 'defending' some existing public good, but good luck there as well – as Trump is not
the source of any real 'threat', that distinction belonging to the existing power elites (military,
financial, corporate, legal, media etc.) Clinton serves.
There are 3 critical issues 'progressives', Greens, lefties, libertarians and others must come
together en masse to resist: TPP immediately, US foreign policy of permanent wars of aggression
now involving the entire Muslim world and fossil fuels. Don't waste any time hoping to influence
Clinton (you won't) or fretting about Trump. First TPP, then anti-War/anti-fossil fuels.
I am convinced TPP can be beaten – not with 'Clinton activists', but with a broad coalition
of interests. And once it has been beaten, the supremely idiotic 'war on terror' is next up. Americans'
votes and electoral desires have been ignored and suppressed. Other legitimate means therefore
must be taken up and utilized to change critical policy failures directly.
The idea that Clinton ever was 'open' to progressives reminds me of why the putrid Rahm Emmanuel
could dismiss the left as a 'bunch of retards'. Time to make them eat those words by taking ourselves
and our values and our thinking seriously enough we stop fearing not being taken 'seriously' by
so loathsome a crew as the Clintons.
"... Perhaps the most surreal point of the night is when a military leader speaks to how much butt we're going to kick once Hillary is elected, the Sanders delegates start the chant, "Peace, Not War", and the rest of the arena drowns this out with chants of 'U.S.A ..."
"... We discussed how it felt Orwellian, like the two minutes of hate in 1984. "Having chants of 'No More War' attempted to be drowned out by chants of 'USA' was baffling," Alan Doucette, Bernie delegate from Las Vegas, said. "To me, USA is a symbol of justice and equality and not warmongering and looking for excuses to go to war. That's what I want it to be and what it should be." ..."
"... "The most dislocating experience was General Allen's speech, with so many military brass on display, and the 'fight' between No More War and USA. That was chilling. Note, No More War is not: War Criminal! Or similarly 'disrespectful' stuff; it's simply a demand not to make our present worse with more 'hawkish' 'interventionist' 'regime change' wars and war-actions." ..."
"... The US 2016 election is different. You actually have a huge choice to make. Do you vote(or not vote) to support the Washington establishment, which is clearly pushing for war with Russia, or do you vote Trump who doesn't want such a war? Your choice. ..."
"... why would you even contemplate gambling that we can survive 4 years of Clinton without a nuclear war? ..."
Mark Lasser (CO): "Perhaps the most surreal point of the night is when a military leader
speaks to how much butt we're going to kick once Hillary is elected, the Sanders delegates start
the chant, "Peace, Not War", and the rest of the arena drowns this out with chants of 'U.S.A.'"
Carole Levers (CA): " I was harassed by five Hillary delegates who got in my face while I was
sitting in my seat. They told me that we needed to quit chanting, go home, and that we did not belong
there. They added that by chanting "No More Wars" we were disrespecting the veterans. I replied that
none of us were disrespecting the veterans. We were honoring them by NOT WANTING ANY MORE DEAD VETERANS,
killed in illegal wars for the profits of the wealthy. I reiterated that we were exercising our first
amendment rights to which one replied that WE (Bernie delegates) had no rights. I was later shoved
by a Hillary delegate into the metal frame of the seats."
Carol
Cizauskas (NV): "We heard other Bernie delegates chanting "No more war" and then the "opposing
team" of Hillary delegates thundering over those chants with "USA." It was darkly eerie. We discussed
how it felt Orwellian, like the two minutes of hate in 1984. "Having chants of 'No More War' attempted
to be drowned out by chants of 'USA' was baffling," Alan Doucette, Bernie delegate from Las Vegas,
said. "To me, USA is a symbol of justice and equality and not warmongering and looking for excuses
to go to war. That's what I want it to be and what it should be."
#SlayTheSmaugs (NY): "The most dislocating experience was General Allen's speech, with so
many military brass on display, and the 'fight' between No More War and USA. That was chilling. Note,
No More War is not: War Criminal! Or similarly 'disrespectful' stuff; it's simply a demand not to
make our present worse with more 'hawkish' 'interventionist' 'regime change' wars and war-actions."
Lauren Steiner (CA): "[Clinton supporters] decided to chant with us when we chanted 'Black Lives
Matter.' But for some reason, they found 'No More War' to be offensive and shouted "USA" right after.
At first, I was puzzled by the fact that they were shouting exactly what Trump supporters shout at
his rallies. Then, after all the bellicose speeches and the fact that they had so many Republicans
endorsing Clinton, it hit me that perhaps it was because they were courting Republicans now. They
didn't care about our support anymore."
Ike, August 18, 2016 at 1:02 pm
I am reading Primary Colors by Anonymous. It is entertaining as well as reaffirming a suspected
baseline of conduct.
Lambert Strether, August 18, 2016 at 1:11 pm
Primary Colors (by Joke Line (Joe Klein)) is terrific. The movie is good too. I am so happy
and amazed that I live in a world where John Travolta plays Bill Clinton in a movie.
Jeremy Grimm, August 18, 2016 at 1:31 pm
The harassment and dirty tricks pulled against the Sanders people - as described in these collected
reports - leaves me wondering whether Sanders actually won the nomination. It would have been
much more politic for the Hillary people to let the Sanders delegates blow off steam and wait
until the nomination and end of the convention to circle the wagons in "unity". If Hillary clearly
won the nomination then the stupidity and arrogance in team Hillary's treatment of the Sanders
people speaks to a new level of disdain for the 99%. The business about the $700 hotels and the
misinformation and lack of information provided from team Sanders raises other questions.
trent, August 18, 2016 at 2:17 pm
Wow, all those testimonials from the democrat convention are an eye opener, for some. Hillary's
soft Nazism on full display for any of the still true believers. Yet the press calls trump the
Nazi. Trump is crazy, but its almost an honest craziness compared to Hillary. She's nuts, but
manipulates everything she can to hide it. I'll take out in the open crazy, easier to plan for.
EoinW, August 19, 2016 at 8:51 am
I haven't voted in years. In Canada, however, we've never been given a choice on anything.
Doesn't matter if the election is federal, provincial or municipal, no issues just personalities.
The US 2016 election is different. You actually have a huge choice to make. Do you vote(or
not vote) to support the Washington establishment, which is clearly pushing for war with Russia,
or do you vote Trump who doesn't want such a war? Your choice.
But why would you even contemplate gambling that we can survive 4 years of Clinton without
a nuclear war? Speculating on global warming or third party movements kind of lose their
significance during a nuclear winter.
Patricia
This young woman turned it into a tale, "The Bullshittery of the DNC":
Clinton betrayal and sell out of Democratic Party to Wall Street was actually a phenomenon affecting
other similar parties, especially in Europe. And not only in Great Britain, where Tony Bliar was a real
copycat.
Notable quotes:
"... Ideology or political philosophy may matter to the skilled politician, but it matters less as a matter of conviction than as the précis of a novel's plot. It is like a key they use to encode rhetorical poses for the occasion, to signal that they understand the concerns of whatever group they are speaking to. ..."
"... It is one of the odd (to me) features of political attitude formation that so many people have amnesia where there should be some basic appreciation for what politics, at base, is about. (Politics is about who gets what, when, how, in Harold Lasswell's immortal title.) ..."
"... Neoliberalism is possibly the most important set of political phenomena -- certainly the most consequential -- in our generation's experience of political ideas and movements, and yet a common impulse is to deny it is exists or labels anything more meaningful than a catch-all "don't like it". ..."
"... I do think think there's something to the contention that a political re-alignment is underway and the iron hold that neoliberalism has on the Media discourse is rusting. Rusting or not, the structures of propaganda and manipulation remain highly centralized, so even if the rhetorical tropes lose their meaning and emotional resonance, it isn't clear that the structures of authority won't continue, their legitimacy torn and tattered but not displaced. Because there's no replacement candidate, yet. ..."
"... I agree, of course, that Marxism is obsolete. But, it does furnish a model of what an ideology can do to explain political economy and its possibilities, providing a rally point and a confession of faith. The contrast to our present common outlook highlights that several things are clearly missing for us now: one is economic class antagonism, the idea that the rich are the enemy, that rich people make themselves rich by preying on the society, and that fundamental, structural remedies are available thru politics. ..."
"... I do think there's a reservoir of inchoate anger about elite betrayal and malfeasance. The irony of being presented the choice of Trump and Clinton as a remedy is apparently not fully appreciated by our commenters, let alone the irony of rummaging the attic and bringing down Sanders, like he was a suit of retro clothes last worn by one's grandfather. ..."
"... Above, Layman reminds us that George W Bush sold himself as a compassionate conservative. Quite a few adults voted for him I understand. Supposedly quite a few did so thinking that dry drunk would be a good fellow to have a beer with. Because . . . I guess some pundits thought to tell them that that is what politics is about, having a guy in the most powerful office in the federal government that you identify with - a guy who cuts brush at his ranch with a chainsaw. ..."
F Foundling @ 605: The 'self' one can rely on is mostly features of temperament and style,
not policy. The 'brand' is also to a large extent about style, not substance, and it is subject
to change, too.
The handful of politicians I have known personally have had fewer and lighter personal commitments
to political policy preferences, than most, say, news junkies. They are trying to get political
power, which rests at the nexus of conflicting forces. They have to put themselves at the crossroads,
so to speak, and - maybe this is one of the paradoxes of power -- if they are to exercise power
from being at a nexus, they have to be available to be used; they have to be open to persuasion,
if they are to persuade.
Ideology or political philosophy may matter to the skilled politician, but it matters less
as a matter of conviction than as the précis of a novel's plot. It is like a key they use to encode
rhetorical poses for the occasion, to signal that they understand the concerns of whatever group
they are speaking to.
T: If inequality remains the same or increases and growth remains low (and I believe they
are very much linked) there will be new challengers from both the right and left and one of them
will win. It did take a good 70 yrs to vanquish the robber barons.
If there's a perennial lodestar for politics, it is this: the distribution of income, wealth
and power. Follow the money is a good way to make sense of any criminal enterprise.
F. Foundling: For decades already, so-called centre-left parties all over the world (can't
vouch for *every* country) have been engaged to varying extents in deregulation, privatisation,
welfare state reduction, TTIP-style neoliberal globalism and now, most recently, austerity (not
to mention a slavish pro-US foreign policy).
Yes.
It is one of the odd (to me) features of political attitude formation that so many people have
amnesia where there should be some basic appreciation for what politics, at base, is about. (Politics
is about who gets what, when, how, in Harold Lasswell's immortal title.)
I suspect that William the Conqueror had scarcely summered twice in England before someone
was explaining to the peasantry that he was building those castles to protect the people.
Neoliberalism is possibly the most important set of political phenomena -- certainly the
most consequential -- in our generation's experience of political ideas and movements, and yet
a common impulse is to deny it is exists or labels anything more meaningful than a catch-all "don't
like it".
RP: A lot of what people seem to be talking about is Overton Window stuff. I'm not convinced.
I do think think there's something to the contention that a political re-alignment is underway
and the iron hold that neoliberalism has on the Media discourse is rusting. Rusting or not, the
structures of propaganda and manipulation remain highly centralized, so even if the rhetorical
tropes lose their meaning and emotional resonance, it isn't clear that the structures of authority
won't continue, their legitimacy torn and tattered but not displaced. Because there's no replacement
candidate, yet.
By replacement candidate, I mean some set of ideas about how society and political economy
can be positively structured and legitimated as functional.
I agree, of course, that Marxism is obsolete. But, it does furnish a model of what an ideology
can do to explain political economy and its possibilities, providing a rally point and a confession
of faith. The contrast to our present common outlook highlights that several things are clearly
missing for us now: one is economic class antagonism, the idea that the rich are the enemy, that
rich people make themselves rich by preying on the society, and that fundamental, structural remedies
are available thru politics.
I do think there's a reservoir of inchoate anger about elite betrayal and malfeasance. The
irony of being presented the choice of Trump and Clinton as a remedy is apparently not fully appreciated
by our commenters, let alone the irony of rummaging the attic and bringing down Sanders, like
he was a suit of retro clothes last worn by one's grandfather.
bruce wilder 08.11.16 at 10:36 pm
Lee A. Arnold: I don't think I've met anyone over the age of consent who doesn't know what
politicians are all about.
Above, Layman reminds us that George W Bush sold himself as a compassionate conservative. Quite
a few adults voted for him I understand. Supposedly quite a few did so thinking that dry drunk
would be a good fellow to have a beer with. Because . . . I guess some pundits thought to tell
them that that is what politics is about, having a guy in the most powerful office in the federal
government that you identify with - a guy who cuts brush at his ranch with a chainsaw. How many
times did Maureen Dowd tell the story of dog strapped to the roof on the Romney family vacation?
In my comment, you may have read "politician" but I actually wrote, "politics". And, I did
not write that there was only inchoate anger. You added "only".
It has been said that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all
of the people some of the time. Apparently, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders
wishes to fool all of the people, at least those who were once his loyal
devotees, all of the time. This writer received an enthusiastic email from some
organization talking about the next steps in Mr. Sanders 'revolution', and
requesting that this writer hold a house party to watch a speech to be given by
the senator, as part of the initiation of a new organization called 'Our
Revolution'.
Well, there is certainly something revolting about all this, but
it has nothing to do with a social change.
Mr. Sanders, that avowed socialist with a long and undistinguished career in
what passes in the U.S. for public service (well-paid 'service', that is), lost
all credibility with any but his most blindly loyal followers when, after
months of railing against everything that Hillary Clinton stands for, even to
the point of calling her unfit to be president, he put on a happy face and gave
her a glowing endorsement at the Democratic Convention. Does this sound to the
reader like a man of integrity? Does endorsing Miss Wall Street 2016 have that
ring of revolutionary fervor? Does such glowing support of the Princess of
Israel sound like part of revolutionary change
Methinks not. No, his support for Mrs. Clinton, and his forthcoming address
about 'Our Revolution', seem to be the work of a career politician who wants to
bask in whatever remains of the adulation of his naive and enthusiastic
youthful followers, while at the same time enjoying all the perquisites of 'the
good old boys' club'. The only thing he sacrifices along the way (in addition,
of course, to self-respect, but who in elected office has that anyway?), is
credibility. Oh, and integrity. And honesty. Well, maybe he does make many
sacrifices to enjoy both the prestige of change agent and maintainer of the
status quo. But really, does anyone do it better than he?
"... individuals' innate psychological predispositions to intolerance ("authoritarianism") interacting with changing conditions of societal threat. The threatening conditions, particularly resonant in the present political climate, that exacerbate authoritarian attitudes include, most critically, great dissension in public opinion and general loss of confidence in political leaders. Using purpose-built experimental manipulations, cross-national survey data and in-depth personal interviews with extreme authoritarians and libertarians, the book shows that this simple model provides the most complete account of political conflict across the ostensibly distinct domains of race and immigration, civil liberties, morality, crime and punishment, and of when and why those battles will be most heated. ..."
"... But the latent authoritarianism within them is triggered when they perceive a threat to the stable moral order. ..."
"... It's at this point in the talk when Haidt surely began to make his audience squirm. He says that in his work as an academic and social psychologist, he sees colleagues constantly demonizing and mocking conservatives. He warns them to knock it off. "We need political diversity," he says. And: "They are members of our community." ..."
"... The discourse and behavior of the Left, says Haidt, is alienating millions of ordinary people all over the West. It's not just America. We are sliding towards authoritarianism all over the West, and there's really only one way to stop it. ..."
"... we can reduce intolerance and defuse the conflict by focusing on sameness. We need unifying rituals, beliefs, institutions, and practices, he says, drawing on Stenner's research. The romance the Left has long had with multiculturalism and diversity (as the Left defines it) has to end, because it's helping tear us apart. ..."
"... If we don't have a feasible conservative party, we open the way for authoritarianism. ..."
"... I don't think the center can hold anymore. It's too late. The cultural left in this country is very authoritarian, at least as regards orthodox Christians and other social conservatives. On one of the Stenner slides, we see that she defines one characteristic of authoritarians as "punishing out groups." Conservative Christians are the big out group for the cultural left, and have been for a long time. ..."
"... The threat to the moral order is very real, and not really much of a threat anymore; it's a reality. ..."
"... Haidt says that the authoritarian impulse comes when people cease trusting in leaders. Yep, that's where a lot of us are, and not by choice. ..."
If you look back far enough in humankind's history, you will observe that you don't see civilizations
starting without their building temples first. Haidt, who is a secular liberal, is not making a theistic
point, not really. He's saying that the work of civilization can only be accomplished when a people
binds itself together around a shared sense of the sacred. It's what makes a people a people, and
a civilization a civilization. "It doesn't have to be a god," says Haidt. Anything that we hold
sacred, and hold it together, is enough.
The thing is, this force works like an electromagnetic
field: the more tightly it binds us, the more alien others appear to us, and the more we find it
impossible to empathize with them. This is what Haidt means by saying that morality binds and blinds.
Haidt quizzes the 700-800 people in the hall about their Hillary vs. Trump feelings. The group
- all psychologists, therapists, professors of psychology, and so forth - were overwhelmingly pro-Hillary
and anti-Trump. No surprise there. But then he tells them that if they believe that they could treat
without bias a patient who is an open Trump supporter, they're lying to themselves. In the America
of 2016, political bias is the most powerful bias of all - more polarizing by far than race, even.
Haidt turns to the work of social psychologist Karen Stenner, and her 2005 book
The Authoritarian Dynamic. The publisher describes the book like this (boldface emphases
mine):
What are the root causes of intolerance? This book addresses that question by developing a
universal theory of what determines intolerance of difference in general, which includes racism,
political intolerance, moral intolerance and punitiveness. It demonstrates that all these seemingly
disparate attitudes are principally caused by just two factors: individuals' innate psychological
predispositions to intolerance ("authoritarianism") interacting with changing conditions of societal
threat. The threatening conditions, particularly resonant in the present political climate,
that exacerbate authoritarian attitudes include, most critically, great dissension in
public opinion and general loss of confidence in political leaders. Using purpose-built
experimental manipulations, cross-national survey data and in-depth personal interviews with extreme
authoritarians and libertarians, the book shows that this simple model provides the most complete
account of political conflict across the ostensibly distinct domains of race and immigration,
civil liberties, morality, crime and punishment, and of when and why those battles will be most
heated.
Haidt says Stenner discerns three strands of contemporary political conservatism: 1) laissez-faire
libertarians (typically, business Republicans); 2) Burkeans (e.g., social conservatives who value
stability); and 3) authoritarians.
Haidt makes a point of saying that it's simply wrong to call Trump a fascist. He's too individualistic
for that. He's an authoritarian, but that is not a synonym for fascist, no matter how much the Left
wants to say it is.
According to Haidt's reading of Stenner, authoritarianism is not a stable personality trait. Most
people are not naturally authoritarian. But the latent authoritarianism within them is triggered
when they perceive a threat to the stable moral order.
It's at this point in the talk when Haidt surely began to make his audience squirm. He says that
in his work as an academic and social psychologist, he sees colleagues constantly demonizing and
mocking conservatives. He warns them to knock it off. "We need political diversity," he says. And:
"They are members of our community."
The discourse and behavior of the Left, says Haidt, is alienating millions of ordinary people
all over the West. It's not just America. We are sliding towards authoritarianism all over the West,
and there's really only one way to stop it.
At the 41:37 point in the talk, Haidt says that we can reduce intolerance and defuse the conflict
by focusing on sameness. We need unifying rituals, beliefs, institutions, and practices, he says,
drawing on Stenner's research. The romance the Left has long had with multiculturalism and diversity
(as the Left defines it) has to end, because it's helping tear us apart.
This fall, the Democrats are taking Stenner's advice brilliantly, says Haidt, referring to the
convention the Dems just put on, and Hillary's speech about how we're all better off standing together.
Haidt says this is actually good advice, period. "It's not just propaganda you wheel out at election
time," he says. If we don't have a feasible conservative party, we open the way for authoritarianism.
To end the talk, Haidt focuses on what his own very tribe - psychologists and academics - can
do to make things better. They can start by being aware of their own extreme bias. "We lean very
far left," he says, then shows a graph tracking how far from the center the academy has become over
the past 20 years.
Haidt says we don't need "equality" - that is, an equal number of conservatives and liberals in
the academy. We just need to have diversity enough for people to be challenged in their viewpoints,
so an academic community can flourish according to its nature. But this is not what we have. According
to the research Haidt presents, in 1996, liberals in the academy outnumbered conservatives 2:1. Today,
it's 5:1 - and the conservatives are concentrated in engineering and other technical fields. Says
Haidt: "In the core areas of the university - in the humanities and social sciences - it's 10 to
1 and 40 to 1."
The Right has left the university faculties, he said - and a lot of that is because they got tired
of the "hostile climate and discrimination"
"People who are not on the left … are often in the closet," says Haidt. "They can't speak up.
They can't criticize. They hear somebody say something, they believe it's false, but they can't speak
up and say why they believe it's false. And that is a breakdown in our science."
Until they repent (my word, not his), university professors will continue to be part of the problem,
not the solution, says Haidt. He ends by calling on his colleagues to "get our hearts in order."
To stop being moralistic hypocrites. To be humble. To be more forgiving, and more open to hearing
what their opponents have to say. Says Haidt, "If we want to change things, we need to do it more
from the perspective of love, not of hate."
I don't think the center can hold anymore. It's too late. The cultural left in this country is
very authoritarian, at least as regards orthodox Christians and other social conservatives.
On one of the Stenner slides, we see that she defines one characteristic of authoritarians as "punishing
out groups." Conservative Christians are the big out group for the cultural left, and have been for
a long time.
We are the people who defile what they consider most sacred: sexual liberty, including abortion
rights and gay rights. The liberals in control now (as distinct from all liberals, let me be clear)
have made it clear that they will not compromise with what they consider to be evil. We are the Klan
to them. Error has no rights in this world they're building.
If you'll recall my blogging about Hillary Clinton's convention speech, I really liked it in theory
- the unity business. The thing is, I don't believe for one second that it is anything but election
propaganda. I don't believe that the Democratic Party today has any interest in making space for
us. I wish I did believe that. I don't see any evidence for it. They and their supporters will drive
us out of certain professions, and do whatever they can to rub our noses in the dirt.
I know liberal readers of this blog will say, "But we don't!" To which I say: you don't,
maybe, but you're not running the show, alas.
The threat to the moral order is very real, and not really much of a threat anymore; it's a reality.
As I've written in this space many times, this is not something that was done to us; all of
us, Republicans and Democrats, Christians and non-Christians, have done this to ourselves. At this
point, all I want for my tribe is to be left alone. But the crusading Left won't let that happen
anymore.
They don't even want the Mormons to be allowed to play football foe the Big 12, for heaven's
sake. This assault is relentless. Far too many complacent Christians believe it will never hurt them,
that it will never happen where they live. It can and it will.
There is no center anymore. Alasdair MacIntyre was right. I may not be able to vote in good conscience
for Trump (and I certainly will not vote for Hillary Clinton), but I know exactly why a number of
good people have convinced themselves that this is the right thing to do. Haidt says that the authoritarian
impulse comes when people cease trusting in leaders. Yep, that's where a lot of us are, and not by
choice.
This week, I've been interviewing people for the Work chapter of my Benedict Option book. In all
but one case, the interviewees - lawyers, law professors, a doctor, corporate types, academics -
would only share their opinion if I promised that I wouldn't use their name. They know what things
are like where they work. They know that this is going to spread. That fear, that remaining inside
the closet, tells you something about where you are. When professionals feel that to state their
opinion would be to put their careers at risk, we are not in normal times.
The center has not held. I certainly wish Jon Haidt well. He's a good man doing brave, important
work. And I hope he proves me wrong on this. I honestly do. Because if I'm right, there goes America.
On the other hand, reasoning that this must not be true therefore it is not true is a good
way to get run over.
FITRAKIS: Well one of the obvious things in this election was the visible hijacking of Bernie Sanders
voters. Bernie brought in what political scientists would call an asymmetrical entrance of new voters.
He went out and got a lot of people that hadn�t voted previously and at first emerged in New York
City, in Brooklyn where you had 126 thousand people. Overwhelmingly new voters supporting Bernie
that were purged at the last second from the voting rolls. And that�s being investigated but it turned
out to be a clerk said to have Republican leanings. But just prior to the purge, the daughter of
a Clinton super delegate had bought property from her. A million and a half dollars over the street
value that wasn�t even being listed. So at least it calls into question, whether it was an old fashioned
Tammany Hall bribe for purging voters.
So it�s what me and my co-author Harvey [Wasserman] call
vote stripping, right? I think before this is all through the leaks by the Democratic National Committee,
you�ll find that somebody had access to those databases and were targeting the Bernie people to purge
them.
NOOR: And can you talk about what the tactics were that were used in order to target these Bernie
supporters and as youre saying, discount their votes?
FITRAKIS: Well, you simply purge them from the voting rolls. And that can be done in a variety of
ways depending upon the state. In most states people dont realize it but you privatize with companies,
the voter databases. And also you have often these poll books. Many of them are electronic that are
also created by proprietary companies.
So the US is the only democracy in the world that allows private for profit partisan companies
those that actually make contributions as did Dominion, the remnants of [Depolled] that went out
of business for worldwide fraud following the 04 election and Hart Intercivic. So Hart Intercivic
and Dominion both made contributions to the Clinton foundation. So you wonder, when a candidates
running for president, why are voting machine companies making donations to their campaigns?
So we allow these private, for-profit partisan companies to count our vote, to set our databases
with secret proprietary software that nobody can look at. It violates every principle of transparency.
And the only person on a high level willing to talk about this is Jimmy Carter, who says to Der Spiegel
that America has a dysfunctional democracy and that we dont meet minimum standards of transparency.
... ... ...
So all the evidence says were the absolute worst. But youve got this enculturation. Youve got
two parties and both historically corporate capitalists parties, particularly since the Koch brothers
decided we needed a DLC following the 84 election that they wanted a corporate wing of the Republican
Party and they got that in 1992 in the form of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, which were both DLC people.
Two corporate capitalist free trade parties. People wouldnt even, many people think Sanders was very
progressive and he was and he spoke as a democratic socialist.
But Jerry Brown in 1992 called for a 50% cut in the U.S. military. I mean, thats territory. But George
Herbert Walker Bush actually talked about a peace dividend. We dont even talk anymore about nearly
half of the money on planet earth beings spent in the U.S. military. And weve got soldier arguably
or advisers in 181 out of 203 nations no one wants to say in great detail. And Sanders was touching
on all these issues that that appears to be imperialism.
But these the Stein campaign has enormous room to actually talk about what is happening in the United
States. She asked people on the stage at this convention actually used the correct term, imperialism.
And they actually do talk about a rigged election system. Because its systematically rigged when
you bring these private contractors in and then they say its a computer glitch. In 2004 [D Bolt]
two weeks before the election, accidentally glitched 10,000 voters in the city of Cleveland who were
going to vote 95% for John Kerry.
I dont believe those are glitches. I believe private contractors in this privatization has allowed
big money to come in in the form of the corporation. And theres an old axiom, theres not much money
in counting vote but theres a lot of money in the voting results.
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.
"... CNN exit polls show that only about 47 percent of the Nader voters would have voted for Gore in a two way race, while 21 percent would have voted for Bush and 30 percent would have abstained from voting in the Presidential contest altogether. ..."
Well, a counterfactual: Bush v Gore 2000. I have heard arguments that if Nader had not run,
or if no one voted for him, Gore would have won Florida and hence the election.
Mike, I've no links to provide you with -you can easily find them – but the rebuttal to the
Nader-Gave-Us-Bush line is typically that 1) hundreds of thousands of registered Democrats in
Florida voted for Bush, and 2) Gore could not win his "home" (though he's really a pure product
of Washington, DC) state of Tennessee.
The Blame Nader narrative also ignores the fact that the Dems did little or nothing to contest
the blatant stealing of the election.
Thanks, Michael. They only way I see to disprove it is if they interviewed all 90,000+
Nader voters and > 50% in FL swore they would have voted for Bush - or some such.
It seems tough to disprove such an historical counterfactual hypothetical!
At any rate, I think this is what underlies Chomsky's reasoning.
Thanks for the link. From the Alternet article linked to at the end:
CNN exit polls show that only about 47 percent of the Nader voters would have voted for
Gore in a two way race, while 21 percent would have voted for Bush and 30 percent would have abstained
from voting in the Presidential contest altogether.
This would be the relevant evidence to prove the counterfactual hypothesis. I note that it
seems to be contradicted by the CNN polling data in the Truthdig article; what is unclear to me
is whether they are talking about FL voters, or national voters. It makes a difference if we are
focusing solely on FL (which in itself could be problematic if Nader's elimination swung the result
in other states - which I don't know.)
Anyway, as I said above, I do think it is this example and reasoning that underlies Chomsky's
logic. And mine. But I admit, I am abjectly unenthusiastic about it. I expect and hope that I
shall be able to vote 3rd party - I vote in NY.
Thanks again. And to you and all, I appreciate the civility of tone in this engagement. I realize
my view is probably in the minority here.
Gore got more votes overall than Bush and not all the votes were counted in FL in 2000 thanks
to a corrupt Supreme court. Bush was appointed, not elected, and that isn't Nader's fault.
Nader ran in 2004 too and got ,< 1% of the vote. Of course that election was stolen too but
neither Gore nor Kerry bothered to raise a fuss.
I think we ought to be concentrating more on the integrity of our elections in this country
rather than wringing our hands about who might be a 'spoiler'.
Can't stand the republicans but I haven't heard them whinging about Ross Perot for the last
20 years.
Sooooo tired of this analogy. And I voted for Gore in 2000. First, a couple of differences:
Gore was clearly a much better candidate and would have been a much better president than Bush.
And Gore was great on the environment.
Also, Gore lost primarily because of a tilted "liberal media" that seemed to MUCH prefer Bush.
Secondarily because he (or his people) ran one of the worst presidential campaigns I've ever seen.
Maybe the worst presidential campaign I've ever seen, as far as trying to take advantage of the
candidate's strengths (Trump in this general is working on catching up, though!)
Third was Clinton fatigue, which was very real at the time and did not help at all. Nader and
the cheating in Florida and the horrid Supreme Court decision (complete w/failures to recuse that
were kinda eyebrow raising) were also relevant, but none of this should have even come into play.
Gore had a lot to work with, Bush was a godawful candidate, and a competent campaign combined
with something even vaguely resembling fair media coverage would have made this a slam dunk 5+
% win despite the polarized country and a strong desire on the part of many to get rid of anything
associated with Bill. Even with all that, and Nader, if we hadn't allowed a truly criminal purge
of non-criminals from Florida's voter rolls, Gore wins. This was followed by the count fiasco,
more horribly biased media coverage (they were as desperate for Gore to quit then as they were
for Bernie to quit the last several months of his campaign, gotta give Bernie credit for fighting
harder and longer against worse odds), Gore inexplicably rolling over in a display that still
makes me shake my head in disbelief, and a just plain wrong Supreme Court decision that only happened
because justices w/family members working on Bush's campaign didn't recuse themselves.
But still, biggest difference for me? Neither of these are someone I want in the oval office.
Amazing: neoliberalism -- the social system under which everybody in the USA lives is not mentioned
onece. This looks like Politburo in the USSR prohibit mentioning communism by name. Clinton health
problems, reckless gingoism and neocon domonance in forigh policy also are not discussed. As oif they
do not exist. The fact that Demorats lost owrking class was by design as Clinton sold
the party to Wall Streeet, counting that blue color workers has nowhere to go. Which was rthe case until
2016 election (actually the king of bait-and-switch Obama striggled in 2012 and if Republican have has
better candidate he would be a toast). Betraysl of New Deal hangs like a curse of neoliberal Democtatic
Party. Those sucher need to pay for the betrayls and it might that time has come. .
Notable quotes:
"... In case you weren't convinced Democrats are becoming the cosmopolitan elite party. ..."
"... They abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in to its central tenets. Worse still, they led the hyper-globalization movement at crucial junctures. The enthroning of free capital mobility – especially of the short-term kind – as a policy norm by the European Union, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the IMF was arguably the most fateful decision for the global economy in recent decades. ..."
"... Instead of serving as the political arm of working and middle class voters seeking to move up the ladder, the Democratic Party faces the prospect of becoming the party of the winners, in collaboration with many of those in the top 20 percent who are determined to protect and secure their economic and social status. ..."
"... increasingly disconnected from working-class America. I mean that in a very specific sense. Our residences are increasingly segregated by class. Our schools are increasingly segregated by class. Our extended families are increasingly separated by class. ..."
"... working-class whites, based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families and reward work effort - programs like Social Security and Medicare. ..."
On Aug. 7, Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at New America, a center-left Washington think tank, posted
some of the findings from an Aug. 1
CNN survey on Twitter
with a succinct comment:
In case you weren't convinced Democrats are becoming the cosmopolitan elite party.
... ... ...
"The voice of the left - especially the old social democratic left - has lost force in recent
years," Ian Buruma, a professor of democracy, human rights, and journalism at Bard College, wrote
me in an email.
This is partly because leftwing parties since the 1960s began to switch their attention from working
class struggle to identity politics.
There is, Buruma went on,
a common anxiety about the effects of globalism, multinational corporate power, immigration.
More and more people feel unrepresented. When they complained about immigration or the bewildering
changes effected by a global economy, such people were too easily dismissed as racists and bigots.
Now they blame the "liberal elites" for all their anxieties.
Dani Rodrik, a professor of international political economy at Harvard, is even harsher in his
critique of contemporary liberalism. "Economists and technocrats on the left bear a large part of
the blame," Rodrik writes, in an essay, "
The Abdication of the Left ," published in July by Project Syndicate.
Rodrik does not let up:
They abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in to its central tenets.
Worse still, they led the hyper-globalization movement at crucial junctures. The enthroning of
free capital mobility – especially of the short-term kind – as a policy norm by the European Union,
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the IMF was arguably the most fateful
decision for the global economy in recent decades.
Left policy makers and analysts, Rodrik writes, face
the paradox that earlier waves of reforms from the left – Keynesianism, social democracy, the
welfare state – both saved capitalism from itself and effectively rendered themselves superfluous.
If [neo]liberal public policy intellectuals are unable develop "a clear program to refashion capitalism
and globalization for the twenty-first century," Rodrik warns, "the field will be left wide open
for populists and far-right groups who will lead the world – as they always have – to deeper division
and more frequent conflict."
Instead of serving as the political arm of working and middle class voters seeking to move
up the ladder, the Democratic Party faces the prospect of becoming the party of the winners, in collaboration
with many of those in the top 20 percent who are
determined to protect and secure their economic and social status.
In an interview
published by Vox.com on Aug. 8, Robert Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard, described
the consequences of the emergence of "liberal cosmopolitans, really the upper and middle class of
America," who are
increasingly disconnected from working-class America. I mean that in a very specific sense.
Our residences are increasingly segregated by class. Our schools are increasingly segregated by
class. Our extended families are increasingly separated by class.
Writing in
Politico magazine in May , Michael Lind, also a fellow at New America, argues that this cultural
conflict created the political environment that made the Trump phenomenon possible in the first place:
Most culture-war conflicts involve sexuality, gender, or reproduction. Social issues spurred
a partisan realignment by changing who considered themselves Democrats and Republicans. Over decades,
socially conservative working-class whites migrated from the Democratic Party to join the Republican
Party, especially in the South. Socially moderate Republicans, especially on the East Coast, shifted
to the Democratic coalition.
The result, in Lind's view, is an emerging Republican Party dominated by
working-class whites, based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They
will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families
and reward work effort - programs like Social Security and Medicare. But they will tend to
oppose means-tested programs for the poor whose benefits they and their families cannot enjoy.
This shift, Lind points out, will powerfully alter the Democratic coalition, too. The Democrats
will become
even more of an alliance of upscale, progressive whites with blacks and Latinos, based in large
and diverse cities. They will think of the U.S. as a version of their multicultural coalition
of distinct racial and ethnic identity groups writ large. Many younger progressives will take
it for granted that moral people are citizens of the world, equating nationalism and patriotism
with racism and fascism.
From this vantage point, Trump and the pro-social insurance populist right that has emerged in
much of Europe are as much the result of the vacuum created by traditional liberal political parties
as they are a function of the neglect of working class interests by conservatives.
Matthew Carnicelli is a trusted commenter Brooklyn, New York
5 hours ago
Tom, I keep reading these elite analyses of the political restructuring that the Drumpf campaign
is allegedly ushering in - and yet fail to see where the actual institutional support for these
policies will come from within the Republican Party.
Paul Ryan is still talking down Social Security and Medicare, and he is considered the GOP's
intellectual leader. Drumpf was recently quoted as agreeing with Ryan's critique of Social Security.
The conservative think tanks like AEI and Heritage still have Social Security and Medicare
within their crosshairs - and are still peddling the same old supply side snake oil, as is Drumpf
with his tax plan. And Drumpf's plan can only be paid for by savage cuts in every other area of
the Federal budget.
The problem with this entire argument is that Drumpf believes in nothing but "winning" - and
will say absolutely anything to win, anything at all, even if it has a snowball's chance of hell
of finding support with the Republican Party.
If Drumpf managed to win the Presidency, his single term (and he would only get one) would
either be the mother of all political train wrecks - or a complete and utter repudiation of everything
he ran on as a candidate, aside from the racism, xenophobia, and collective insanity that has
overtaken the right.
As a person far more comfortable parsing zeitgeist, let me suggest that it's a terrible idea
to draw conclusions while in the middle of a wave that you've yet to even identify.
HDNY is a trusted commenter New York, N.Y.
3 hours ago
The Times has reverted to its previous position of pretending that Bernie Sanders and his millions
of supporters don't exist. This article pretends all Democrats are willful Clinton supporters and
that Republicans are forced between choosing Donald Trump's Republican Party or Hillary Clinton's
Democratic Party.
The Times' editors' refusal to give credibility to the Sanders campaign actually shows their complicity
in making the Democratic Party more elitist, more corporate and Wall St. oriented, and less involved
with the needs of the poor and lower middle classes. Now they are bequeathing that emphasis to Trump,
still refusing to acknowledge the impact of the Sanders campaign and its supporters.
What's even odder is that the article points out the Republican 'Reformocons', a group that made
a far less significant impact on this election than did Bernie Sanders.
The good points made in this article are lost by painting the American political scene with such
a broad brush. The Times needs to pay more attention to what's really happening in this country.
"A pox on both their houses." What we have seen over the past 30 years is the end of the social
balance between Big Business, Big Government and Big Labor. Today it we have one force--that of the
corporate goliaths--in control of government through their funding of politicians who have worked
to eliminate labor as a force. If their is one critique on the Bernie Sanders left and the Donald
Trump right, it's been the almost total disenfranchisement of working Americans. While the focus
is on trade agreement written in secret by corporations, it needs to focus of workers who can bargain
collectively to ensure they share in their productivity gains and whose rights are protected from
the "race-to-the-bottom" trade agreements. Both political parties have failed here and neither the
new Trump right nor the Sanders left have put forward a real pro-worker, pro-Big Labor agenda. If
workers are left behind, as we've seen in the rise of communism in the past, we have immense social
unrest. And, until we remove the corporate choke-hold on Big Government by getting money out of politics,
we will continue to move away from the balance of social forces essential to a viable democracy toward
an oligarchy either by an autocratic Trump or a Wall Street corporate Clinton.
The main conclusion of the studies cited by Professor Edsall seems to center on the inability
of either political party to mobilize the long-term support of the white working class. The Republicans
remain in thrall to corporate America, as reflected in Paul Ryan's stubborn attachment to discredited
supply-side nostrums. The Democrats, although still committed to a higher minimum wage and the social
safety net, focus their policies on helping the middle and professional classes.
The main responsibility for this situation falls on the Democrats. The GOP never represented the
interests of the working class, but FDR's party had achieved political dominance by doing so. In
the 1960s, LBJ made the momentous decision to stake his party's future on support of the civil right's
revolution, a choice he believed would alienate the white south for a generation.
At the same time, however, he launched his war on poverty, a program with the potential to unite
the interests of black Americans with those of the white working class, in the south as well as elsewhere.
The failure of that ambitious initiative, caused in part by the diversion of resources and political
energy to the war in Vietnam, soured the Democratic leadership after 1968 on expensive programs designed
to help the very groups gloabalization would threaten.
The Clintons won in 1992 by jettisoning their party's social democratic agenda. Even Bernie Sanders
paid attention mainly to the needs of the middle class.
We certainly hope so. Neither party represents the vast majority of citizens. Instead both major
parties represent the interests of the elite, the financial elite, which populate the spectrum of
what passes for political thought from extreme liberals, such as Soros, Holloywood and Ivy League
tax-free endowments to extreme conservatives, such as Kochs and Limbaugh. From taxation, to trade
policies to criminal justice applications to protection of banksters, the major parties are complicit
in and responsible for the appalling state of our affairs. A wreck of an election that tarnishes
their brands and ushers in alternatives is perhaps too much to expect; it is not however too much
to hope for.
Recking? More like exposing. No secret the Dems' all-inclusive rhetoric is just that RHETORIC.
The party has abandoned the working class. Once American "middle class" was the pride of the world.
But what was that "middle class"? It was working class with good jobs and homes, and with the opportunity
of yet better life for their children. The only thing lacking was universal health care and inclusion
of POC.
But it never happened. After achieving this amazing success of turning working class into middle
class, US has been steadily moving away from that ideal. Both parties have abandoned the working
class. Even if the cue came from Reps, Democratic Leadership Council associated Dems (such as Clintons)
have been outdoing Reps in the area of "free trade"(=losing manufacturing jobs), dismantling safety
net in form of welfare, to make things worse reforming foster care to make taking children away from
impoverished working class biological families easier. Dems have been paying lip service to idea
of universal healthcare, affordable medications, affordable college, yet rely on the money from these
industries. While Democratic rhetoric is inclusive of minorities, and they sponsor special programs
for minorities, still not enough to offset the effect their policies on minorities ho are disproportionately
represented in the working class. Externally Dems have been pursuing same imperialistic politics
as Republicans. Clinton asking Kissinger for endorsement puts a seal on that.
I am also puzzled by this column. The young want a New Deal type society. Also, it seems to me
the much vaunted self-interest of the newly affluent Democrats would include shoring up the fortunes
of the working class so as to increase the tax base to finance a more comfortable infrastructure
and also to avoid having their own heads blown off by the mob.
The Republican Party for obvious reasons, but they've had it coming for a long time and deserve
and need to be crushed.
The Democratic Party almost got crushed as well in 2016, equally deserved, and only survived by rigging
the nomination process for the status quo candidate, quelling the populist reform movement. The military
industrial complex and Wall Street have now completely moved over to the traditional blue collar
Democratic Party.
There is a good chance the traditional Republican Party will not recover from the 2016 election,
becoming a long-time minority party at the presidential election level.
The base of the Democratic Party, Latinos, Blacks and young people might finally realize that
electing Wall Street, elite Democrats is not the answer to the critical issues facing the nation.
Once white working class people, equally disaffected with trade deals that ship their jobs overseas,
with endless wars and military conflicts that are supported by both parties, join forces with the
democratic base in 2020, there is a real prospect for a political realignment that could revolutionize
American politics for decades to come.
Thank you, Mr.Edsall, for this this very perceptive analysis of what is happening in the 2016
election.
As a first response, Bernie Sanders obviously would have been the remedy to the kind of Clintonite
Democratic Party you are describing.
Because there is a path toward a social, economic and cultural justice coalition that appeals to
the working class and the casts swaths of college-educated who, due to financial pressures, are effectively
working-class themselves.
So close this year. Will we have another chance?
Both parties were beset by populist insurrections in the recently concluded primaries. The Democratic
Party repulsed insurrectionist Sanders and dispatched him to the wilds of Vermont, never to be heard
from again. But insurrectionist Trump stormed the Republican Party gates and now takes his insurrection
into the general election contest.
My point is, powerful populist movements attacked both parties from below. That could only happen
because both parties were out of touch with a significant portion of the electorate. If Clinton wins
in November, the establishment wins again and the populists will be sent away to brood. But this
disconnection from the political establishment will surface again.
There's nothing particularly "bewildering" about the effects of the global economy. It is being
structured heavily in favor of the rich and their multinational corporations, without regard for
the economic well-being of the hundreds of millions of Americans being victimized. It's not difficult
to understand the psychology of people being robbed with nowhere to turn because the perpetrators
are both political parties using our government as their instrument. How does this article explain
the Senator Bernie Sanders phenomenon? Bernie was a low profile, social democrat who received 46%
of the Democratic vote. The Republicans are owned lock, stock and barrel by Organized Money and the
only real hope is to recapture the Democratic Party.
No, I would say Hillary bears most of the responsibility for the schisms in the democratic party
this election cycle, but, Democrats never pull together. We are famous for it.
Hillary is a business-friendly economic-moderate. She and Susan Collins have more in common than
Hillary has in common with Bernie Sanders and that angers a lot of liberals. I am old enough that
I am used to it, and, in general, economically liberal democrats don't win the presidency even when
they manage to win the nomination.
Don't let perfection be the enemy of adequacy. Besides, is compromise really such a horrible thing?
What is happening to the democratic party seems very similar to what has been happening to the
Labor party in the UK. At least until they elected the new leader of labor, Jeremy Corbyn.
As an aside, this article was dull as dirt and felt like it was written on note cards.
As members of the cosmopolitan elite intelligentsia Lee Drutman, Dani Rodrik, and Robert Putnam
have an insular view of Amercia. Maybe they should spend some time living in a small town...
Amazing: neoliberalism -- the social system under which everybody in the USA lives is not mentioned
onece. This looks like Politburo in the USSR prohibit mentioning communism by name. Clinton health
problems, reckless gingoism and neocon domonance in forigh policy also are not discussed. As oif they
do not exist. The fact that Demorats lost owrking class was by design as Clinton sold
the party to Wall Streeet, counting that blue color workers has nowhere to go. Which was rthe case until
2016 election (actually the king of bait-and-switch Obama striggled in 2012 and if Republican have has
better candidate he would be a toast). Betraysl of New Deal hangs like a curse of neoliberal Democtatic
Party. Those sucher need to pay for the betrayls and it might that time has come. .
Notable quotes:
"... In case you weren't convinced Democrats are becoming the cosmopolitan elite party. ..."
"... They abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in to its central tenets. Worse still, they led the hyper-globalization movement at crucial junctures. The enthroning of free capital mobility – especially of the short-term kind – as a policy norm by the European Union, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the IMF was arguably the most fateful decision for the global economy in recent decades. ..."
"... Instead of serving as the political arm of working and middle class voters seeking to move up the ladder, the Democratic Party faces the prospect of becoming the party of the winners, in collaboration with many of those in the top 20 percent who are determined to protect and secure their economic and social status. ..."
"... increasingly disconnected from working-class America. I mean that in a very specific sense. Our residences are increasingly segregated by class. Our schools are increasingly segregated by class. Our extended families are increasingly separated by class. ..."
"... working-class whites, based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families and reward work effort - programs like Social Security and Medicare. ..."
On Aug. 7, Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at New America, a center-left Washington think tank, posted
some of the findings from an Aug. 1
CNN survey on Twitter
with a succinct comment:
In case you weren't convinced Democrats are becoming the cosmopolitan elite party.
... ... ...
"The voice of the left - especially the old social democratic left - has lost force in recent
years," Ian Buruma, a professor of democracy, human rights, and journalism at Bard College, wrote
me in an email.
This is partly because leftwing parties since the 1960s began to switch their attention from working
class struggle to identity politics.
There is, Buruma went on,
a common anxiety about the effects of globalism, multinational corporate power, immigration.
More and more people feel unrepresented. When they complained about immigration or the bewildering
changes effected by a global economy, such people were too easily dismissed as racists and bigots.
Now they blame the "liberal elites" for all their anxieties.
Dani Rodrik, a professor of international political economy at Harvard, is even harsher in his
critique of contemporary liberalism. "Economists and technocrats on the left bear a large part of
the blame," Rodrik writes, in an essay, "
The Abdication of the Left ," published in July by Project Syndicate.
Rodrik does not let up:
They abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in to its central tenets.
Worse still, they led the hyper-globalization movement at crucial junctures. The enthroning of
free capital mobility – especially of the short-term kind – as a policy norm by the European Union,
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the IMF was arguably the most fateful
decision for the global economy in recent decades.
Left policy makers and analysts, Rodrik writes, face
the paradox that earlier waves of reforms from the left – Keynesianism, social democracy, the
welfare state – both saved capitalism from itself and effectively rendered themselves superfluous.
If [neo]liberal public policy intellectuals are unable develop "a clear program to refashion capitalism
and globalization for the twenty-first century," Rodrik warns, "the field will be left wide open
for populists and far-right groups who will lead the world – as they always have – to deeper division
and more frequent conflict."
Instead of serving as the political arm of working and middle class voters seeking to move
up the ladder, the Democratic Party faces the prospect of becoming the party of the winners, in collaboration
with many of those in the top 20 percent who are
determined to protect and secure their economic and social status.
In an interview
published by Vox.com on Aug. 8, Robert Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard, described
the consequences of the emergence of "liberal cosmopolitans, really the upper and middle class of
America," who are
increasingly disconnected from working-class America. I mean that in a very specific sense.
Our residences are increasingly segregated by class. Our schools are increasingly segregated by
class. Our extended families are increasingly separated by class.
Writing in
Politico magazine in May , Michael Lind, also a fellow at New America, argues that this cultural
conflict created the political environment that made the Trump phenomenon possible in the first place:
Most culture-war conflicts involve sexuality, gender, or reproduction. Social issues spurred
a partisan realignment by changing who considered themselves Democrats and Republicans. Over decades,
socially conservative working-class whites migrated from the Democratic Party to join the Republican
Party, especially in the South. Socially moderate Republicans, especially on the East Coast, shifted
to the Democratic coalition.
The result, in Lind's view, is an emerging Republican Party dominated by
working-class whites, based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They
will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families
and reward work effort - programs like Social Security and Medicare. But they will tend to
oppose means-tested programs for the poor whose benefits they and their families cannot enjoy.
This shift, Lind points out, will powerfully alter the Democratic coalition, too. The Democrats
will become
even more of an alliance of upscale, progressive whites with blacks and Latinos, based in large
and diverse cities. They will think of the U.S. as a version of their multicultural coalition
of distinct racial and ethnic identity groups writ large. Many younger progressives will take
it for granted that moral people are citizens of the world, equating nationalism and patriotism
with racism and fascism.
From this vantage point, Trump and the pro-social insurance populist right that has emerged in
much of Europe are as much the result of the vacuum created by traditional liberal political parties
as they are a function of the neglect of working class interests by conservatives.
Matthew Carnicelli is a trusted commenter Brooklyn, New York
5 hours ago
Tom, I keep reading these elite analyses of the political restructuring that the Drumpf campaign
is allegedly ushering in - and yet fail to see where the actual institutional support for these
policies will come from within the Republican Party.
Paul Ryan is still talking down Social Security and Medicare, and he is considered the GOP's
intellectual leader. Drumpf was recently quoted as agreeing with Ryan's critique of Social Security.
The conservative think tanks like AEI and Heritage still have Social Security and Medicare
within their crosshairs - and are still peddling the same old supply side snake oil, as is Drumpf
with his tax plan. And Drumpf's plan can only be paid for by savage cuts in every other area of
the Federal budget.
The problem with this entire argument is that Drumpf believes in nothing but "winning" - and
will say absolutely anything to win, anything at all, even if it has a snowball's chance of hell
of finding support with the Republican Party.
If Drumpf managed to win the Presidency, his single term (and he would only get one) would
either be the mother of all political train wrecks - or a complete and utter repudiation of everything
he ran on as a candidate, aside from the racism, xenophobia, and collective insanity that has
overtaken the right.
As a person far more comfortable parsing zeitgeist, let me suggest that it's a terrible idea
to draw conclusions while in the middle of a wave that you've yet to even identify.
HDNY is a trusted commenter New York, N.Y.
3 hours ago
The Times has reverted to its previous position of pretending that Bernie Sanders and his millions
of supporters don't exist. This article pretends all Democrats are willful Clinton supporters and
that Republicans are forced between choosing Donald Trump's Republican Party or Hillary Clinton's
Democratic Party.
The Times' editors' refusal to give credibility to the Sanders campaign actually shows their complicity
in making the Democratic Party more elitist, more corporate and Wall St. oriented, and less involved
with the needs of the poor and lower middle classes. Now they are bequeathing that emphasis to Trump,
still refusing to acknowledge the impact of the Sanders campaign and its supporters.
What's even odder is that the article points out the Republican 'Reformocons', a group that made
a far less significant impact on this election than did Bernie Sanders.
The good points made in this article are lost by painting the American political scene with such
a broad brush. The Times needs to pay more attention to what's really happening in this country.
"A pox on both their houses." What we have seen over the past 30 years is the end of the social
balance between Big Business, Big Government and Big Labor. Today it we have one force--that of the
corporate goliaths--in control of government through their funding of politicians who have worked
to eliminate labor as a force. If their is one critique on the Bernie Sanders left and the Donald
Trump right, it's been the almost total disenfranchisement of working Americans. While the focus
is on trade agreement written in secret by corporations, it needs to focus of workers who can bargain
collectively to ensure they share in their productivity gains and whose rights are protected from
the "race-to-the-bottom" trade agreements. Both political parties have failed here and neither the
new Trump right nor the Sanders left have put forward a real pro-worker, pro-Big Labor agenda. If
workers are left behind, as we've seen in the rise of communism in the past, we have immense social
unrest. And, until we remove the corporate choke-hold on Big Government by getting money out of politics,
we will continue to move away from the balance of social forces essential to a viable democracy toward
an oligarchy either by an autocratic Trump or a Wall Street corporate Clinton.
The main conclusion of the studies cited by Professor Edsall seems to center on the inability
of either political party to mobilize the long-term support of the white working class. The Republicans
remain in thrall to corporate America, as reflected in Paul Ryan's stubborn attachment to discredited
supply-side nostrums. The Democrats, although still committed to a higher minimum wage and the social
safety net, focus their policies on helping the middle and professional classes.
The main responsibility for this situation falls on the Democrats. The GOP never represented the
interests of the working class, but FDR's party had achieved political dominance by doing so. In
the 1960s, LBJ made the momentous decision to stake his party's future on support of the civil right's
revolution, a choice he believed would alienate the white south for a generation.
At the same time, however, he launched his war on poverty, a program with the potential to unite
the interests of black Americans with those of the white working class, in the south as well as elsewhere.
The failure of that ambitious initiative, caused in part by the diversion of resources and political
energy to the war in Vietnam, soured the Democratic leadership after 1968 on expensive programs designed
to help the very groups gloabalization would threaten.
The Clintons won in 1992 by jettisoning their party's social democratic agenda. Even Bernie Sanders
paid attention mainly to the needs of the middle class.
We certainly hope so. Neither party represents the vast majority of citizens. Instead both major
parties represent the interests of the elite, the financial elite, which populate the spectrum of
what passes for political thought from extreme liberals, such as Soros, Holloywood and Ivy League
tax-free endowments to extreme conservatives, such as Kochs and Limbaugh. From taxation, to trade
policies to criminal justice applications to protection of banksters, the major parties are complicit
in and responsible for the appalling state of our affairs. A wreck of an election that tarnishes
their brands and ushers in alternatives is perhaps too much to expect; it is not however too much
to hope for.
Recking? More like exposing. No secret the Dems' all-inclusive rhetoric is just that RHETORIC.
The party has abandoned the working class. Once American "middle class" was the pride of the world.
But what was that "middle class"? It was working class with good jobs and homes, and with the opportunity
of yet better life for their children. The only thing lacking was universal health care and inclusion
of POC.
But it never happened. After achieving this amazing success of turning working class into middle
class, US has been steadily moving away from that ideal. Both parties have abandoned the working
class. Even if the cue came from Reps, Democratic Leadership Council associated Dems (such as Clintons)
have been outdoing Reps in the area of "free trade"(=losing manufacturing jobs), dismantling safety
net in form of welfare, to make things worse reforming foster care to make taking children away from
impoverished working class biological families easier. Dems have been paying lip service to idea
of universal healthcare, affordable medications, affordable college, yet rely on the money from these
industries. While Democratic rhetoric is inclusive of minorities, and they sponsor special programs
for minorities, still not enough to offset the effect their policies on minorities ho are disproportionately
represented in the working class. Externally Dems have been pursuing same imperialistic politics
as Republicans. Clinton asking Kissinger for endorsement puts a seal on that.
I am also puzzled by this column. The young want a New Deal type society. Also, it seems to me
the much vaunted self-interest of the newly affluent Democrats would include shoring up the fortunes
of the working class so as to increase the tax base to finance a more comfortable infrastructure
and also to avoid having their own heads blown off by the mob.
The Republican Party for obvious reasons, but they've had it coming for a long time and deserve
and need to be crushed.
The Democratic Party almost got crushed as well in 2016, equally deserved, and only survived by rigging
the nomination process for the status quo candidate, quelling the populist reform movement. The military
industrial complex and Wall Street have now completely moved over to the traditional blue collar
Democratic Party.
There is a good chance the traditional Republican Party will not recover from the 2016 election,
becoming a long-time minority party at the presidential election level.
The base of the Democratic Party, Latinos, Blacks and young people might finally realize that
electing Wall Street, elite Democrats is not the answer to the critical issues facing the nation.
Once white working class people, equally disaffected with trade deals that ship their jobs overseas,
with endless wars and military conflicts that are supported by both parties, join forces with the
democratic base in 2020, there is a real prospect for a political realignment that could revolutionize
American politics for decades to come.
Thank you, Mr.Edsall, for this this very perceptive analysis of what is happening in the 2016
election.
As a first response, Bernie Sanders obviously would have been the remedy to the kind of Clintonite
Democratic Party you are describing.
Because there is a path toward a social, economic and cultural justice coalition that appeals to
the working class and the casts swaths of college-educated who, due to financial pressures, are effectively
working-class themselves.
So close this year. Will we have another chance?
Both parties were beset by populist insurrections in the recently concluded primaries. The Democratic
Party repulsed insurrectionist Sanders and dispatched him to the wilds of Vermont, never to be heard
from again. But insurrectionist Trump stormed the Republican Party gates and now takes his insurrection
into the general election contest.
My point is, powerful populist movements attacked both parties from below. That could only happen
because both parties were out of touch with a significant portion of the electorate. If Clinton wins
in November, the establishment wins again and the populists will be sent away to brood. But this
disconnection from the political establishment will surface again.
There's nothing particularly "bewildering" about the effects of the global economy. It is being
structured heavily in favor of the rich and their multinational corporations, without regard for
the economic well-being of the hundreds of millions of Americans being victimized. It's not difficult
to understand the psychology of people being robbed with nowhere to turn because the perpetrators
are both political parties using our government as their instrument. How does this article explain
the Senator Bernie Sanders phenomenon? Bernie was a low profile, social democrat who received 46%
of the Democratic vote. The Republicans are owned lock, stock and barrel by Organized Money and the
only real hope is to recapture the Democratic Party.
No, I would say Hillary bears most of the responsibility for the schisms in the democratic party
this election cycle, but, Democrats never pull together. We are famous for it.
Hillary is a business-friendly economic-moderate. She and Susan Collins have more in common than
Hillary has in common with Bernie Sanders and that angers a lot of liberals. I am old enough that
I am used to it, and, in general, economically liberal democrats don't win the presidency even when
they manage to win the nomination.
Don't let perfection be the enemy of adequacy. Besides, is compromise really such a horrible thing?
What is happening to the democratic party seems very similar to what has been happening to the
Labor party in the UK. At least until they elected the new leader of labor, Jeremy Corbyn.
As an aside, this article was dull as dirt and felt like it was written on note cards.
As members of the cosmopolitan elite intelligentsia Lee Drutman, Dani Rodrik, and Robert Putnam
have an insular view of Amercia. Maybe they should spend some time living in a small town...
His campaign ended with him performing the classic role of shipdog for Hillary,
who shares none of his ideas and economic policies. If this is not Obama style "bait
and switch' I do not know what is...
Bernie Sanders: I support Hillary Clinton. So should everyone
who voted for me http://fw.to/mVDxuLJ
The conventions are over and the general election has officially begun.
In the primaries, I received 1,846 pledged delegates, 46% of the total.
Hillary Clinton received 2,205 pledged delegates, 54%. She received 602
superdelegates. I received 48 superdelegates. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic
nominee and I will vigorously support her.
Donald Trump would be a disaster and an embarrassment for our country
if he were elected president. His campaign is not based on anything of substance
- improving the economy, our education system, healthcare or the environment.
It is based on bigotry. He is attempting to win this election by fomenting
hatred against Mexicans and Muslims. He has crudely insulted women. And
as a leader of the "birther movement," he tried to undermine the legitimacy
of our first African American president. That is not just my point of view.
That's the perspective of a number of conservative Republicans.
In these difficult times, we need a president who will bring our nation
together, not someone who will divide us by race or religion, not someone
who lacks an understanding of what our Constitution is about.
On virtually every major issue facing this country and the needs of working
families, Clinton's positions are far superior to Trump's. Our campaigns
worked together to produce the most progressive platform in the history
of American politics. Trump's campaign wrote one of the most reactionary
documents.
Clinton understands that Citizens United has undermined our democracy.
She will nominate justices who are prepared to overturn that Supreme Court
decision, which made it possible for billionaires to buy elections. Her
court appointees also would protect a woman's right to choose, workers'
rights, the rights of the LGBT community, the needs of minorities and immigrants
and the government's ability to protect the environment.
Trump, on the other hand, has made it clear that his Supreme Court appointees
would preserve the court's right-wing majority.
Clinton understands that in a competitive global economy we need the
best-educated workforce in the world. She and I worked together on a proposal
that will revolutionize higher education in America. It will guarantee that
the children of any family in this country with an annual income of $125,000
a year or less – 83% of our population – will be able to go to a public
college or university tuition free. This proposal also substantially reduces
student debt.
Trump, on the other hand, has barely said a word about higher education.
Clinton understands that at a time of massive income and wealth inequality,
it is absurd to provide huge tax breaks to the very rich.
Trump, on the other hand, wants billionaire families like his to enjoy
hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax breaks.
Clinton understands that climate change is real, is caused by human activity
and is one of the great environmental crises facing our planet. She knows
that we must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and move
aggressively to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.
Trump, on the other hand, like most Republicans, rejects science and
the conclusions of almost all major researchers in the field. He believes
that climate change is a "hoax," and that there's no need to address it.
Clinton understands that this country must move toward universal healthcare.
She wants to see that all Americans have the right to choose a public option
in their healthcare exchange, that anyone 55 or older should be able to
opt in to Medicare, and that we must greatly improve primary healthcare
through a major expansion of community health centers. She also wants to
lower the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs.
And what is Donald Trump's position on healthcare? He wants to abolish
the Affordable Care Act, throw 20 million people off the health insurance
they currently have and cut Medicaid for lower-income Americans.
During the primaries, my supporters and I began a political revolution
to transform America. That revolution continues as Hillary Clinton seeks
the White House. It will continue after the election. It will continue until
we create a government which represents all of us and not just the 1 percent
– a government based on the principle of economic, social, racial and environmental
justice.
I understand that many of my supporters are disappointed by the final
results of the nominating process, but being despondent and inactive is
not going to improve anything. Going forward and continuing the struggle
is what matters. And, in that struggle, the most immediate task we face
is to defeat Donald
"... Andrew Stewart is a documentary film maker and reporter who lives outside Providence. His film, AARON BRIGGS AND THE HMS GASPEE, about the historical role of Brown University in the slave trade, is available for purchase on Amazon Instant Video or on DVD. ..."
Bill Clinton, who is certainly savvy of the media as an engine of
electioneering, knew exactly what he was doing when he called Donald Trump up
in spring 2015 to tell him he might have a shot as a political candidate.
Clinton knew that the public had as much interest in his wife as a chance for
staph infection. Try as they might since 2012, they never were able to tap into
a public interest in the idea of President Hillary. The book tours were
stilted, boring affairs that would make Tolstoy complain about the length. The
pathetic attempts by David Brock and Media Matters to imitate Alexander
Cockburn's brand of media critique were the internet equivalent of an
inflatable sex toy. Sidney Blumenthal's ridiculous impersonation of Arthur
Schlesinger Jr., going on television to lecture about the implosion of the
Republicans in comparison to the collapse of the Whigs and implying, by
extension, that his candidate was akin to Lincoln, had all the sincerity of
Bugs Bunny planting a kiss on Yosemite Sam.
A lifelong union man and Vietnam vet friend of mine put it best, "It's her
election to lose and she is doing a phenomenal job of it." Hell, an ornery New
Deal-Great Society Pentagon Keynesian with a harsh Brooklyn accent and all the
style of Statler and Waldorf on
The Muppet Show
nearly wiped the floor
of the electoral stage with her upholstered behind! This was National Lampoon's
Presidential Campaign from the start.
... ... ...
Return to the propaganda model provided by Chomsky and Herman:
-How will this impact ownership?
-How will this impact our advertisers?
-How will this impact the willingness of our regular sources, such as the
White House or 10 Downing Street, to provide us with information?
-What sort of 'flak', negative reactions, will we get from our consumers
and particularly those consumers within the established power structure?
-Can the subject(s) of this story be presented in a fashion that would be
broadly described as either anti-Communist or based on notions of fear so to
preserve the credibility and unchallenged authority of the power structure?
The media has been the sole party that is responsible for both the hegemony
of neoliberalism and the rise of Trump. Both are instances of how they serve
their advertisers.
Let us consider the former for a moment. The case of the public pension
heist that was perpetrated in Rhode Island is illustrative. John Arnold, an
Enron alumnus, donated good money to PBS so to get a false-flag "pension
crisis" narrative put on the
NewsHour
broadcasts that everyone thought
were "neutral". The public pension systems in America are simply one of the
largest reserves of capital in America at a value total of $4 trillion. Arnold
then made a series of campaign donations to up-and-coming politicians like
then-Treasurer and now-Governor Gina Raimondo, who in turn "reformed" the
pension system, investing it in high-stakes high-fee hedge funds, effectively
activating a pipeline from the public pocket into Wall Street. Of course this
was not new for PBS, their support of neoliberalism dates back at least to when
they gave that quack Milton Friedman a ten-part television series. It was PBS
in the 1970's that flooded the airwaves with the grammar of seemingly-sane
neoliberalism while the advertisers took up the frontal action of extolling
"markets" and their infinite wisdom. Simultaneously the United States engaged
in a new Cold War, restarted by Carter after the detente policies of Nixon, so
to thoroughly demonize not just "Communism" (though the Soviet system was
everything but that by the end) but anything remotely akin to "central planning
in the economy" (which was called welfare state Keynesian economics when my
grandparents were birthing Baby Boomers). Here, in order to keep funding coming
through major donors, a taxpayer-supported public broadcasting system engaged
in a wholesale fraud that attempted to rob those same taxpayers of literally
multi-trillions of dollars on behalf of a swindler and con man who I have been
unable to discern ever having an actual job. We should understand this media
assault as a frontal attack by capital on our social safety net.
Return to the propaganda model provided by Chomsky and Herman:
-How will this impact ownership?
-How will this impact our advertisers?
-How will this impact the willingness of our regular sources, such as the
White House or 10 Downing Street, to provide us with information?
-What sort of 'flak', negative reactions, will we get from our consumers
and particularly those consumers within the established power structure?
-Can the subject(s) of this story be presented in a fashion that would be
broadly described as either anti-Communist or based on notions of fear so to
preserve the credibility and unchallenged authority of the power structure?
The media has been the sole party that is responsible for both the hegemony
of neoliberalism and the rise of Trump. Both are instances of how they serve
their advertisers.
Let us consider the former for a moment. The case of the public pension
heist that was perpetrated in Rhode Island is illustrative. John Arnold, an
Enron alumnus, donated good money to PBS so to get a false-flag "pension
crisis" narrative put on the
NewsHour
broadcasts that everyone thought
were "neutral". The public pension systems in America are simply one of the
largest reserves of capital in America at a value total of $4 trillion. Arnold
then made a series of campaign donations to up-and-coming politicians like
then-Treasurer and now-Governor Gina Raimondo, who in turn "reformed" the
pension system, investing it in high-stakes high-fee hedge funds, effectively
activating a pipeline from the public pocket into Wall Street. Of course this
was not new for PBS, their support of neoliberalism dates back at least to when
they gave that quack Milton Friedman a ten-part television series. It was PBS
in the 1970's that flooded the airwaves with the grammar of seemingly-sane
neoliberalism while the advertisers took up the frontal action of extolling
"markets" and their infinite wisdom. Simultaneously the United States engaged
in a new Cold War, restarted by Carter after the detente policies of Nixon, so
to thoroughly demonize not just "Communism" (though the Soviet system was
everything but that by the end) but anything remotely akin to "central planning
in the economy" (which was called welfare state Keynesian economics when my
grandparents were birthing Baby Boomers). Here, in order to keep funding coming
through major donors, a taxpayer-supported public broadcasting system engaged
in a wholesale fraud that attempted to rob those same taxpayers of literally
multi-trillions of dollars on behalf of a swindler and con man who I have been
unable to discern ever having an actual job. We should understand this media
assault as a frontal attack by capital on our social safety net.
Return to the propaganda model provided by Chomsky and Herman:
-How will this impact ownership?
-How will this impact our advertisers?
-How will this impact the willingness of our regular sources, such as the
White House or 10 Downing Street, to provide us with information?
-What sort of 'flak', negative reactions, will we get from our consumers
and particularly those consumers within the established power structure?
-Can the subject(s) of this story be presented in a fashion that would be
broadly described as either anti-Communist or based on notions of fear so to
preserve the credibility and unchallenged authority of the power structure?
The media has been the sole party that is responsible for both the hegemony
of neoliberalism and the rise of Trump. Both are instances of how they serve
their advertisers.
Let us consider the former for a moment. The case of the public pension
heist that was perpetrated in Rhode Island is illustrative. John Arnold, an
Enron alumnus, donated good money to PBS so to get a false-flag "pension
crisis" narrative put on the
NewsHour
broadcasts that everyone thought
were "neutral". The public pension systems in America are simply one of the
largest reserves of capital in America at a value total of $4 trillion. Arnold
then made a series of campaign donations to up-and-coming politicians like
then-Treasurer and now-Governor Gina Raimondo, who in turn "reformed" the
pension system, investing it in high-stakes high-fee hedge funds, effectively
activating a pipeline from the public pocket into Wall Street. Of course this
was not new for PBS, their support of neoliberalism dates back at least to when
they gave that quack Milton Friedman a ten-part television series. It was PBS
in the 1970's that flooded the airwaves with the grammar of seemingly-sane
neoliberalism while the advertisers took up the frontal action of extolling
"markets" and their infinite wisdom. Simultaneously the United States engaged
in a new Cold War, restarted by Carter after the detente policies of Nixon, so
to thoroughly demonize not just "Communism" (though the Soviet system was
everything but that by the end) but anything remotely akin to "central planning
in the economy" (which was called welfare state Keynesian economics when my
grandparents were birthing Baby Boomers). Here, in order to keep funding coming
through major donors, a taxpayer-supported public broadcasting system engaged
in a wholesale fraud that attempted to rob those same taxpayers of literally
multi-trillions of dollars on behalf of a swindler and con man who I have been
unable to discern ever having an actual job. We should understand this media
assault as a frontal attack by capital on our social safety net.
Trump is a rear-guard assault, though it seems now with Mike Pence on the
ticket Wall Street feels more comfortable. The media props him up in the way it
propped up "terrorists" to justify the militarizing of the police and the
shredding of the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus. He scares well-intentioned
but still-racist white liberals into a self-aggrandizing pity party wherein
they will say anything and everything about how we just
must
elect
Hillary Clinton. They fail to recognize and accept that Clinton has been
targeting the Social Security system for privatization for decades, best
illustrated in a fantastic essay by
Robin Blackburn
I have been re-reading and circulating on an almost daily
basis this year. The Democratic Party platform plank supporting Social Security
seems as adamantine as wet toilet paper, capital wants that public resource on
Wall Street and Obama himself has been making moves over the last eight years
to actualize that plan. Trump scares the sheep into the wolf's den while Bernie
Sanders barks at them should they go astray. And Trump is only able to do that
with the aid and support of a corporate media that throws up a farcical wall of
integrity and objectivity so to actualize it.
This is the synthesis of Trump
and Clinton in the montage Eisenstein described. Both are pro-war, anti-Social
Security, racist, misogynist, awful people. One and the same in almost every
sense.
Andrew Stewart
is a documentary film maker and reporter who lives outside
Providence. His film, AARON BRIGGS AND THE HMS GASPEE, about the historical role of Brown
University in the slave trade, is available for purchase on
Amazon
Instant Video
or on
DVD.
Yeah, right! With Gary Johnson, Libertarian, nipping at his
heels, a surge in third party voting is going to help the
Donald! [NOT!] If anything, discouraging people from voting
third party is going to help Trump.
But apparently Fred C. Dobbs doesn't like the idea of
voting third party to vote your conscience and register your
disgust with the two evils...
"... Who knows if he'll embrace better relations with Russia...? We don't. You cant know. He's all over the shop. We do know trigger-happy-hitlery's objectives though. That I would probably vote for him if I were a US citizen doesn't say anything about me, it speaks more about the state of decay the American political system is in - in dire need of a coup, a radical. ..."
"... The Don's security detail need to be very wary of any grassy knolls. ..."
...
As Hillary Clinton's Democratic Party's "motion to dismiss" was nearing to be heard by the US
Federal Court, this report notes, the main witness for JamPAC was attorney Lucas-but who, according
to the Washington D.C. police report, was mysteriously discovered dead on 2 August: "R-1 reports
she arrived home at 1913 hours and located her boyfriend Subject-1 laying unconscious on the bathroom
floor. R-1 immediately called 911.DCFD Engine 9 responded and found no signs consistent with life.
Subject-1 remained on scene".
With attorney Lucas now being the latest victim of Hillary Clinton's
"killing spree", this report says, the lawsuit against her Democratic Party will now be postponed
because he is unable to testify, and it may be dismissed entirely because his testimony was so
crucial as to if proper service was made or not-and that the Clinton cabal "obviously" knew about
beforehand when filing their motion a fortnight before his death.
As to how Hillary Clinton's cabal is able to accomplish their "Night of the Long Knives" murderous
acts, this report continues, is due to the "assassin network" established by what the SVR labels
as one of the most feared CIA operatives ever encountered by Russian intelligence-former CIA director,
and deputy director, Mike Morell.
Director Morell, this report explains, joined the CIA in 1980 and became an important operative
in "Operation Cyclone" that sought to destroy the government of Afghanistan that had been aligned
with the then Soviet Union.
Morell's main duties within the CIA during the early 1980's, this report details, was in establishing
a network whereby terrorists, assassins and weapons were able to flow freely between the United
States, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan-and was aided by one of his top Pakistani operatives Khizr
Khan-about whom the SVR previously reported on, and as we detailed in our report US Media Support
Of Khizr Khan Who Enabled 9/11, Boston Marathon And San Bernardino Terror Attacks Stuns Russia.
So entrenched was Morell in the CIA's "active terror network", this report continues, he was
not only present with President Bush during the 11 September 2001 (9/11) attacks, he was, also,
present when President Obama ordered the killing of CIA operation Tim Osman-otherwise known as
Osama bin Laden.
With Morell being a "diehard supporter" of Hillary Clinton, and responsible for the lies she
told about the Benghazi terror attack, this report continues, in 2013 he left the CIA a month
after Clinton resigned as Secretary of State and founded a mysterious private intelligence company
called Beacon Global Strategies LLC (BGS) where he is listed as a "Senior Consular".
Beacon Global Strategies, however, this report details, is far from a "normal" private intelligence
company as the SVR categorizes it as an "assassination/propaganda" organization created expressly
for the use and protection of top American elites and whose funding came from Claude Fontheim,
a former Clinton adviser who now serves as a lobbyist to the US-China Exchange Foundation, a nonprofit
reportedly used by Chinese government officials and Hong Kong tycoons to shape American policy
toward China-and whose clients, including Hillary Clinton, include Senators Ted Cruz and Marco
Rubio.
...
james @ 4. Digging a bit deeper we might want to characterize the fundamental nature
of the US Empire or err 'Pax Amerikana.' This is actually, for me, very difficult
to do, as compared, say to the British Empire. How to describe it fully?
Chatter about AFRICOM, a 1000 military bases, Wall Street, the destruction of Lybia,
etc. isn't explanatory enough.
Part of the problem is that much is hidden from sight (Deep State shadow dealings),
and the 'rule based' aspect is (post WW2 structure, UN, EU, etc.) very strong, with
the rules moot, applied selectively through arm-twisting, etc. Coupled with another
aspect, i.e. the prevalent US-W ideology, which is a kind of end-of-history dictate:
free-market capitalism of a kind, pro-"democracy", 'freedom' from despots, dictators,
God anointed/religious rule, very narrow personal 'freedom' (identity politics, sexual
mores, social rising thru competition, etc.) This system easily manipulates ppl into
an Orwellian space (more J. Huxley in fact.)
It also has many characteristics of Mafia-type arrangements, a criminal class dominating,
aspect not much discussed. The upshot: the system is opaque, secretive and highly
complex. In its multiple ramifications, intersections amongst them (military, Gvmt/politics,
security, finance, corporate, media, int'l relations..) Power of whatever kind (military,
media, whatever) is only effective when it can coordinate with others to effect control.
(Imagine a mess of a systemic diagram with 100s of boxes, nodes, heavy and light arrows.)
Not looking good for the US at present.
Trump is proposing (provided we read his confused comments, pronoucements, at face
value, and interpret) a simplification of the system, which is the only thing to do
with complex systems that get out of hand. (Turn off district 3, put all efforts into
fixing pipelines in 1..)
Others in their own ways are doing the same. Le Pen with 'New Nationalism', even
ISIS in way (long story, as supported by outsiders…) Sanders is a different case -
he tried once again to exploit the 'hopie changie' with a 'harking back to the past'
- a 'new' New Deal - while not adressing any vital issues in any way.
- not shilling for the Donald - attention should be put on non-est. candidates,
music of the future.
One coup deserves another. You're right about how the establishment is not able
to correct it's path without a radical shift, a guy like Sanders would have been absorbed
and subverted - he offered merely band aid solutions. Ron Pauls platform may well
have worked...his 'End The Fed' policy attacked a pillar, a thick root cause of how
the establishment is able to baffle with bullshit.
In some way, The Don's schizophrenic-stream-of-consciousness delivery is perfect
for much the subliminally mindf*cked US electorate. He gives all the sound bites a
host of large demographics need, let's just throw a tonne of shit out there now, see
what happens, and tighten up the message later on. Even if he contradicts what he
says the very next moment he opens his mouth it doesn't matter...his charisma can
counter that most of the time.
Who knows if he'll embrace better relations with Russia...? We don't. You cant
know. He's all over the shop. We do know trigger-happy-hitlery's objectives though.
That I would probably vote for him if I were a US citizen doesn't say anything about
me, it speaks more about the state of decay the American political system is in -
in dire need of a coup, a radical.
The Don's security detail need to be very wary of any grassy knolls.
@61 noirette/63 madmax/65 jfl - noirette- i like the way you process all the myriad
ways of considering the american empire... i do the same. it's impossible to come
up with a clear vision of how it works, which is one ongoing part of it - to remain
a mystery.. it will always be a part of a process of change too.
whether some force/s have hi-jacked the usa for their own narrower agenda - it
sure appears that way to me.. trump appears to offer a spontaneous response to ordinary
americans place in a country spiraling out of the realm it was thought to be (out
of control basically), not that any one view on a country remains static.. the idea
of the simplicity of his message with regard to foreign policy is appealing.. what
he would do in power is more of an unknown then what history tells us hillary clinton
will do... i would be voting for trump if i was in the usa, partly the msm witch hunt
on him which i think in my own way is more of those mysterious forces behind the scene
guiding the usa into an ever widening ditch of it's own making, leaving many more
people to suffer or worse.. thanks for everyone's comments..
"Democratic voters tried to express these frustrations through the Sanders campaign, but the
party leaders have been and probably will continue to be too dense to listen."
Notable quotes:
"... But to read the papers in the last two days is to imagine that we didn't just spend a year witnessing the growth of a massive grassroots movement fueled by loathing of the party establishment, with some correspondingly severe numerical contractions in the turnout department (though she won, for instance, Clinton received 30 percent fewer votes in California this year versus 2008, and 13 percent fewer in New Jersey). ..."
"... The twin insurgencies of Trump and Sanders this year were equally a blistering referendum on Beltway politics. ..."
Hohmann's thesis was that the "scope and scale" of Clinton's wins Tuesday night meant
mainstream Democrats could now safely return to their traditional We won, screw you posture of
"minor concessions" toward the "liberal base."
Hohmann focused on the fact that with Bernie out of the way, Hillary now had a path to victory
that would involve focusing on Trump's negatives. Such a strategy won't require much if any
acquiescence toward the huge masses of Democratic voters who just tried to derail her candidacy.
And not only is the primary scare over, but Clinton and the centrist Democrats in general are in
better shape than ever.
"Big picture," Hohmann wrote, "Clinton is running a much better and more organized campaign than
she did in 2008."
Then there was Jonathan Capehart, also of the Post, whose "This is how Bernie Sanders and Donald
Trump are the same person" piece describes Sanders as a "stubborn outsider" who "shares the same
DNA" as Donald Trump. Capeheart snootily seethes that both men will ultimately pay a karmic price
for not knowing their places.
"In the battle of the outsider egos storming the political establishment, Trump succeeded where
Sanders failed," he wrote. "But the chaos unleashed by Trump's victory could spell doom for the
GOP all over the ballot in November. Pardon me while I dab that single tear trickling down my
cheek."
If they had any brains, Beltway Dems and their clucky sycophants like Capeheart would not be
celebrating this week. They ought to be horrified to their marrow that the all-powerful
Democratic Party ended up having to dig in for a furious rally to stave off a quirky Vermont
socialist almost completely lacking big-dollar donors or institutional support.
They should be freaked out, cowed and relieved, like the Golden State Warriors would be if they
needed a big fourth quarter to pull out a win against Valdosta State.
But to read the papers in the last two days is to imagine that we didn't just spend a year
witnessing the growth of a massive grassroots movement fueled by loathing of the party
establishment, with some correspondingly severe numerical contractions in the turnout department
(though she won, for instance, Clinton received 30 percent fewer votes in California this year
versus 2008, and 13 percent fewer in New Jersey).
The twin insurgencies of Trump and Sanders this year were equally a blistering referendum on
Beltway politics. But the major-party leaders and the media mouthpieces they hang out with
can't see this, because of what that friend of mine talked about over a decade ago: Washington
culture is too far up its own backside to see much of anything at all.
In D.C., a kind of incestuous myopia very quickly becomes part of many political jobs.
Congressional aides in particular work ridiculous hours for terrible pay and hang out almost
exclusively with each other. About the only recreations they can afford are booze, shop-talk, and
complaining about constituents, who in many offices are considered earth's lowest form of life,
somewhere between lichens and nematodes.
It's somewhat understandable. In congressional offices in particular, people universally dread
picking up the phone, because it's mostly only a certain kind of cable-addicted person with too
much spare time who calls a politician's office.
"Have you ever called your congressman? No, because you have a job!" laughs Paul Thacker, a
former Senate aide currently working on a book about life on the Hill. Thacker recounts tales of
staffers rushing to turn on Fox News once the phones start ringing, because "the people" are
usually only triggered to call Washington by some moronic TV news scare campaign.
In another case, Thacker remembers being in the office of the senator of a far-Northern state,
watching an aide impatiently conduct half of a constituent phone call. "He was like, 'Uh huh,
yes, I understand.' Then he'd pause and say, 'Yes, sir,' again. This went on for like five
minutes," recounts Thacker.
Finally, the aide firmly hung up the phone, reared back and pointed accusingly at the receiver.
"And you are from fucking Missouri!" he shouted. "Why are you calling me?"
These stories are funny, but they also point to a problem. Since The People is an annoying beast,
young pols quickly learn to be focused entirely on each other and on their careers. They get
turned on by the narrative of Beltway politics as a cool power game, and before long are way too
often reaching for Game of Thrones metaphors to describe their jobs. Eventually, the only action
that matters is inside the palace.
Financial oligarchy now is really afraid of losing power... They have weak neocon stooge Hillary
-- an old woman with frail health, blood clots in the brain and probably other unknown to public
ailments. And will fight back tooth and nail to preserve
it. Like trump said -- expect the elections to be rigged.
In "How
American Politics Went Insane," Brookings Institute Fellow Jonathan Rauch spends
many thousands of words arguing for the reinvigoration of political machines, as a means
of keeping the ape-citizen further from power.
He portrays the public as a gang of
nihilistic loonies determined to play mailbox baseball with the gears of state.
"Neurotic hatred of the political class is the country's last universally acceptable
form of bigotry," he writes, before concluding:
"Our most pressing political problem today is that the country abandoned the
establishment, not the other way around."
Rauch's audacious piece, much like Andrew Sullivan's clarion call for a
less-democratic future in New York magazine ("Democracies
end when they are too democratic"), is not merely a warning about the threat posed
to civilization by demagogues like Donald Trump.
It's a piece that praises Boss Tweed's Tammany Hall (it was good for the
Irish!), the smoke-filled room (good for "brokering complex compromises"), and
pork (it helps "glue Congress together" by giving members "a kind of currency
to trade").
Rauch even chokes multiple times on the word "corruption,"
seeming reluctant to even mention the concept without shrouding it in flurries
of caveats. When he talks about the "ever-present potential for corruption"
that political middlemen pose, he's quick to note the converse also applies
(emphasis mine):
"Overreacting to the threat of corruption is just as harmful. Political
contributions, for example, look unseemly, but they play a vital role as
political bonding agents."
The basic thrust is that
shadowy back-room mechanisms, which Rauch absurdly describes as being relics of a lost
era, have a positive role and must be brought back.
He argues back-room relationships and payoffs at least committed the actors involved to
action. Meanwhile, all the transparency and sunshine and access the public is always
begging for leads mainly to gridlock and frustration.
In one passage, Rauch blames gridlock on the gerrymandering that renders most
congressional elections meaningless. In a scandal that should get more media play,
Democrats and Republicans have divvied up territory to make most House districts "safe"
for one party or another. Only about 10 to 20 percent of races are really contested in
any given year (one estimate in 2014 described an incredible 408 of the 435 races as
"noncompetitive").
As Rauch notes, meaningless general elections make primaries the main battlegrounds.
This puts pressure on party candidates to drift to extremes...
... ... ...
But it's all bull.
Voters in America not only aren't over-empowered, they've for decades now been almost
totally disenfranchised, subjects of one of the more brilliant change-suppressing
systems ever invented.
We have periodic elections, which leave citizens with the
feeling of self-rule. But in reality people are only allowed to choose between
candidates carefully screened by wealthy donors. Nobody without a billion dollars and
the approval of a half-dozen giant media companies has any chance at high office.
People have no other source of influence. Unions have been crushed. Nobody has any job
security. Main Street institutions that once allowed people to walk down the road to
sort things out with other human beings have been phased out. In their place now rest
distant, unfeeling global bureaucracies.
Has a health insurance company wrongly denied your sick child coverage? Good luck even
getting someone on the phone to talk it over, much less get it sorted out. Your
neighborhood bank, once a relatively autonomous mechanism for stimulating the local
economy, is now a glorified ATM machine with limited ability to respond to a community's
most basic financial concerns.
One of the underpublicized revelations of the financial crisis, for instance,
was that millions of Americans found themselves unable to get answers to a
simple questions like, "Who
holds the note to my house?"
People want more power over their own lives.
They want to feel some connection to society. Most particularly, they don't
want to be dictated to by distant bureaucrats who don't seem to care what
they're going through, and think they know what's best for everyone.
These are legitimate concerns. Unfortunately, they came out in this past
year in the campaign of Donald Trump, who'd exposed a tiny flaw in the system.
People are still free to vote, and some peculiarities in the structure of
the commercial media, combined with mountains of public anger, conspired to put
one of the two parties in the hands of a coverage-devouring billionaire running
on a "Purge the Scum" platform.
Donald Trump is dangerous because as president, he'd likely have little respect for
law. But a gang of people whose metaphor for society is "We are the white cells, voters
are the disease" is comparably scary in its own banal, less click-generating way.
These self-congratulating cognoscenti could have looked at the events of the last
year and wondered why people were so angry with them, and what they could do to make
government work better for the population.
Instead, their first instinct is to dismiss voter concerns as baseless, neurotic bigotry
and to assume that the solution is to give Washington bureaucrats even more leeway to
blow off the public. In the absurdist comedy that is American political life, this is
the ultimate anti-solution to the unrest of the last year, the mathematically perfect
wrong ending.
Trump is going to lose this election, then live on as the reason for an emboldened, even
less-responsive oligarchy. And you thought this election season couldn't get any worse.
"... But to read the papers in the last two days is to imagine that we didn't just spend a year witnessing the growth of a massive grassroots movement fueled by loathing of the party establishment, with some correspondingly severe numerical contractions in the turnout department (though she won, for instance, Clinton received 30 percent fewer votes in California this year versus 2008, and 13 percent fewer in New Jersey). ..."
"... The twin insurgencies of Trump and Sanders this year were equally a blistering referendum on Beltway politics. ..."
Hohmann's thesis was that the "scope and scale" of Clinton's wins Tuesday night meant
mainstream Democrats could now safely return to their traditional We won, screw you posture of
"minor concessions" toward the "liberal base."
Hohmann focused on the fact that with Bernie out of the way, Hillary now had a path to victory
that would involve focusing on Trump's negatives. Such a strategy won't require much if any
acquiescence toward the huge masses of Democratic voters who just tried to derail her candidacy.
And not only is the primary scare over, but Clinton and the centrist Democrats in general are in
better shape than ever.
"Big picture," Hohmann wrote, "Clinton is running a much better and more organized campaign than
she did in 2008."
Then there was Jonathan Capehart, also of the Post, whose "This is how Bernie Sanders and Donald
Trump are the same person" piece describes Sanders as a "stubborn outsider" who "shares the same
DNA" as Donald Trump. Capeheart snootily seethes that both men will ultimately pay a karmic price
for not knowing their places.
"In the battle of the outsider egos storming the political establishment, Trump succeeded where
Sanders failed," he wrote. "But the chaos unleashed by Trump's victory could spell doom for the
GOP all over the ballot in November. Pardon me while I dab that single tear trickling down my
cheek."
If they had any brains, Beltway Dems and their clucky sycophants like Capeheart would not be
celebrating this week. They ought to be horrified to their marrow that the all-powerful
Democratic Party ended up having to dig in for a furious rally to stave off a quirky Vermont
socialist almost completely lacking big-dollar donors or institutional support.
They should be freaked out, cowed and relieved, like the Golden State Warriors would be if they
needed a big fourth quarter to pull out a win against Valdosta State.
But to read the papers in the last two days is to imagine that we didn't just spend a year
witnessing the growth of a massive grassroots movement fueled by loathing of the party
establishment, with some correspondingly severe numerical contractions in the turnout department
(though she won, for instance, Clinton received 30 percent fewer votes in California this year
versus 2008, and 13 percent fewer in New Jersey).
The twin insurgencies of Trump and Sanders this year were equally a blistering referendum on
Beltway politics. But the major-party leaders and the media mouthpieces they hang out with
can't see this, because of what that friend of mine talked about over a decade ago: Washington
culture is too far up its own backside to see much of anything at all.
"... Ugh. Hey, Jonathan: Voters don't want candidates who agree with them about everything. They just want one who isn't going to completely take them for granted. If that's become too much to ask, maybe there's something wrong with the Democratic Party, not people like Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... As of June 6th, Hillary Clinton had won nearly 13 million primary votes, while Trump had gotten some 11.5 million. ..."
Jonathan Chait of New York magazine
wrote a column about Ralph Nader this morning that uses some interesting language. Noting that
it's now been 16 years since Nader ran for president and garnered enough dissenting votes to help
elect George W. Bush, he wrote (emphasis mine):
Instead of a reality check for the party, it'll be smugness
redoubled
"That isenough time for Nader to confess his role in enabling
one of the most disastrous presidencies in American history, or at least to come up with a better
explanation for his decision. Instead, Nader has repeated his same litany of evasions, most recently
in an interview with
Jeremy Hobson on WBUR, where he dismissed all criticisms of his 2000 campaign as 'fact deprived.'"
It would be foolish to argue that Nader's run in 2000 didn't enable Bush's presidency. Though
there were other factors, Nader's presence on the ballot was surely a big one.
But the career Democrats of the Beltway and their buddies in the press have turned the Nader episode
into something very like the creation story of the Third Way political movement. And like many religious
myths, it's gotten very tiresome.
The Democratic Party leaders have trained their followers to perceive everything in terms of one
single end-game equation: If you don't support us, you're supporting Bush/Rove/Cheney/Palin/Insert
Evil Republican Here.
That the monster of the moment, Donald Trump, is a lot more monstrous than usual will likely make
this argument an even bigger part of the Democratic Party platform going forward.
It's a sound formula for making ballot-box decisions, but the people who push it never seem content
to just use it to win elections. They're continually trying to make an ethical argument out of it,
to prove people who defy The Equation are, whether they know it or not, morally wrong and in league
with the other side.
Beltway Democrats seem increasingly to believe that all people who fall within a certain broad
range of liberal-ish beliefs owe their votes and their loyalty to the Democratic Party.
That's why, as a socially liberal person who probably likes trees and wouldn't want to see
Roe v. Wade overturned, Nader's decision to take votes from the party-blessed candidate Gore
is viewed not as dissent, but as a kind of treason.
The problem with this line of thinking is that there's no end to it. If you think I owe you my
vote because I recycle and enjoyed To Kill a Mockingbird, you're not going to work very
hard to keep it. That's particularly true if the only standard you think you need to worry about
is not being worse than Donald Trump, which is almost the same as no standard at all.
This is why the thinking within the Democratic Party has gotten so flabby over the years. It increasingly
seems to rejoice in its voters' lack of real choices, and relies on a political formula that requires
little input from anyone outside the Beltway.
It's heavily financed by corporate money, and the overwhelming majority of its voters would never
cast a vote for the nut-bar God-and-guns version of Republicanism that's been their sole opposition
for decades.
So the party gets most of its funding without having to beg for it door to door, and it gets many
of its votes by default. Except for campaign-trail photo ops, mainstream Democrats barely need to
leave Washington to stay in business.
Still, the Democratic Leadership Council wing of the Democrats have come to believe they've earned
their status, by being the only plausible bulwark against the Republican menace.
This sounds believable because party officials and pundits like Chait keep describing critics
of the party as far-leftists and extremists, whose platform couldn't win a national election.
Dissenting voices like this year's version of Nader, Bernie Sanders, are inevitably pitched as
quixotic egotists who don't have the guts to do what it takes to win. They're described as just out
for 15 minutes of fame, and maybe a few plaudits from teenagers and hippies who'll gush over their
far-out idealism.
But that characterization isn't accurate. The primary difference between the Nader/Sanders platform
and the Gore/Clinton platform isn't rooted in ideology at all, but money.
The former camp refuses to be funded by the Goldmans and Pfizers of the world, while the latter
camp embraces those donors. That's really all this comes down to. There's nothing particularly radical
about not taking money from companies you think you might need to regulate someday. And there's nothing
particularly centrist or "realistic" about taking that same money.
When I think about the way the Democrats and their friends in the press keep telling me I owe
them my vote, situations like the following come to mind. We're in another financial crisis. The
CEOs of the ten biggest banks in America, fresh from having wrecked the economy with the latest harebrained
bubble scheme, come to the Oval Office begging for a bailout.
In that moment, to whom is my future Democratic president going to listen: those bankers or me?
It's not going to be me, that's for sure. Am I an egotist for being annoyed by that? And how exactly
should I take being told on top of that that I still owe this party my vote, and that I should keep
my mouth shut about my irritation if I don't want to be called a Republican-enabler?
The collapse of the Republican Party and its takeover by the nativist Trump wing poses all sorts
of problems, not the least of which being the high likelihood that the Democrats will now get even
lazier when it comes to responding to their voters' interests. The crazier the Republicans get, the
more reflexive will be the arguments that we can't afford any criticism of Democrats anymore, lest
we invite in the Fourth Reich.
I didn't vote for Nader in 2000, and I don't have a problem with anyone arguing this coming Election
Day that we shouldn't all do whatever we can to keep Donald Trump out of office.
What's problematic is the way Beltway media types are forever turning postmortems on the candidacies
of people like Nader or Sanders into parables about the perils of voting your conscience, when what
we're really talking about is the party's unwillingness to untether itself from easy money. This
is how Chait sums up Nader (again, emphasis mine):
"Nader goes on to defend his idiosyncratic belief that people are under no obligation to consider
real-world impacts in their voting behavior. Vote for a third-party candidate, write in a candidate,
follow your own conscience: 'I think voters in a democracy should vote for anybody
they want, including write in or even themselves. I don't believe in any kind of reprimand of voters
who stray from the two-party tyranny.'
"Why should people vote for candidates at all? Since, by definition, the person we most closely
agree with is ourselves, why not just write your own name in every time?"
Ugh. Hey, Jonathan: Voters don't want candidates who agree with them about everything. They just
want one who isn't going to completely take them for granted. If that's become too much to ask, maybe
there's something wrong with the Democratic Party, not people like Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders.
As of June 6th, Hillary Clinton had won nearly 13 million primary votes, while Trump had gotten
some 11.5 million.
"... they make the point that Hillary Clinton is a deeply flawed candidate, notably so in matters related to national security. Clinton is surely correct that allowing Trump to make decisions related to war and peace would be the height of folly . Yet her record in that regard does not exactly inspire confidence. ..."
"... When it comes to foreign policy, Trump's preference for off-the-cuff utterances finds him committing astonishing gaffes with metronomic regularity. ..."
"... By comparison, the carefully scripted Clinton commits few missteps, as she recites with practiced ease the pabulum that passes for right thinking in establishment circles. But fluency does not necessarily connote soundness. Clinton, after all, adheres resolutely to the highly militarized "Washington playbook" that President Obama himself has disparaged - a faith-based belief in American global primacy to be pursued regardless of how the world may be changing and heedless of costs. ..."
"... First, and most important, the evil effects of money: ..."
"... Republic Lost, Version 2.0 ..."
"... Second, the perverse impact of identity politics on policy ..."
"... Third, the substitution of "reality" for reality ..."
"... The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America ..."
"... According to Boorstin, more than five decades ago the American people were already living in a "thicket of unreality." By relentlessly indulging in ever more "extravagant expectations," they were forfeiting their capacity to distinguish between what was real and what was illusory. Indeed, Boorstin wrote, "We have become so accustomed to our illusions that we mistake them for reality." ..."
"... While ad agencies and PR firms had indeed vigorously promoted a world of illusions, Americans themselves had become willing accomplices in the process. ..."
"... "The American citizen lives in a world where fantasy is more real than reality, where the image has more dignity than its original. We hardly dare to face our bewilderment, because our ambiguous experience is so pleasantly iridescent, and the solace of belief in contrived reality is so thoroughly real. We have become eager accessories to the great hoaxes of the age. These are the hoaxes we play on ourselves." ..."
"... Real Housewives of ..."
"... Game of Thrones ..."
"... The Apprentice ..."
"... "The making of the illusions which flood our experience has become the business of America," wrote Boorstin. It's also become the essence of American politics, long since transformed into theater, or rather into some sort of (un)reality show. ..."
"... This emphasis on spectacle has drained national politics of whatever substance it still had back when Ike and Adlai commanded the scene. It hardly need be said that Donald Trump has demonstrated an extraordinary knack - a sort of post-modern genius - for turning this phenomenon to his advantage. ..."
"... The thicket of unreality that is American politics has now become all-enveloping. The problem is not Trump and Clinton, per se. It's an identifiable set of arrangements - laws, habits, cultural predispositions - that have evolved over time and promoted the rot that now pervades American politics. As a direct consequence, the very concept of self-government is increasingly a fantasy, even if surprisingly few Americans seem to mind. ..."
"... I know Clinton is one of this gang. And I am sure that given his personality, Trump will succumb to this madness almost at once. Give a narcissistic jerk that much power and good luck to all of us (of course, give that much power to a rabid insider like Clinton and good luck to all of us). Of course, their partisans will say, "Trump will just ignore the entire vast apparatus of the permanent government and the security state and do whatever he likes" or "Nixon went to China, and Clinton can metaphorically do the same when she realizes she's no longer a cheerleader at State and the buck stops at her desk", but I don't believe either of those assertions. ..."
"... Thanks james, to the annoying chest thumpers the image of dems chanting USA USA to drown out No More Wars really signals an alternate reality. I think AB went way too easy on clinton, ..."
"... It's depressing to see Andrew Bacevich, one of our country's most astute observers of the national security scene and a retired military officer, come down on the side of Hilary Clinton as the lesser evil candidate. He can only do so by totally ignoring her central role in the ignition of Cold War 2.0 in his litany of her liabilities. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton offers more of the same bad news, only worse. Trump scares everybody from the MIC, which includes Bacevich, who after all draws a hefty monthly pension from the Defense Dept., because he indicates he actually wants to be the boss, to call the shots, to shake things up, to rattle some cages. The last prez who actually tried to boss around the MIC was JFK, and he had his brain tissue splattered onto the Dallas street in broad daylight. Trump was kind of a stealth candidate in the primaries, in that the bigwigs were unable to take him seriously, even after he won some primaries. By the time they marshaled enough opposition to stop him, it was too late. ..."
"... The people, in the eyes of miscreants like Obama, are mere pawns to be manipulated, stolen from, etc. He's implying the GOP should have had a superdelegate fix, like the dems, to overcome any spurt of independent thinking from the electorate. ..."
"... Clinton may be a non-introspective narcissist who has an poor understanding of the historical results of policy and current affairs, who never admits mistakes/grievous wrongs ("Libya needs more time") and whose most significant personal decision was to recognize that, after failing the bar exam in Washington DC, it was time to go to Arkansas and hitch her wagon to Bill Clinton's career. ..."
"... Trump is a novice at government, yes, but he has experienced dealing with foreign countries as a businessman. HRC is much scarier-she is capable of rattling off the neocon doctrine as it pertains to a lot of countries. Great. I'd much prefer the novice. I would love to have the neocons and neolibs destroyed. ..."
"... Hillary is scary because I think she and Victory Nuland are going to push us into a war with Putin – Trump is an idiot, but we already know that Hillary has a taste for blood. Libya and Iraq are two prime examples. ..."
Even by Washington standards, Secretary Clinton exudes a striking sense of entitlement combined
with a nearly complete absence of accountability. She shrugs off her
misguided vote in support of invading Iraq back in 2003, while serving as senator from New York.
She neither explains nor apologizes for pressing to depose Libya's Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, her most
notable "
accomplishment " as secretary of state. "We came, we saw, he died," she
bragged back then, somewhat prematurely given that Libya has since fallen into anarchy and become
a haven for ISIS.
She clings to the demonstrably false claim that her use of a private server for State Department
business compromised
no classified information . Now opposed to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TTP) that she
once described as the "gold standard in trade agreements," Clinton rejects charges of political
opportunism. That her change of heart occurred when attacking the TPP was helping Bernie Sanders
win one Democratic primary after another is merely coincidental. Oh, and the big money accepted from
banks and
Wall Street as well as the
tech sector for minimal work and
the bigger money still from leading figures in the Israel lobby? Rest assured that her acceptance
of such largesse won't reduce by one iota her support for "working class families" or her commitment
to a just peace settlement in the Middle East.
Let me be clear: none of these offer the slightest reason to vote for Donald Trump. Yet together
they make the point that Hillary Clinton is a deeply flawed candidate, notably so in matters
related to national security. Clinton is surely correct that allowing Trump to make decisions related
to war and peace would be the
height of folly . Yet her record in that regard does not exactly inspire confidence.
When it comes to foreign policy, Trump's preference for off-the-cuff utterances finds him
committing astonishing gaffes with metronomic regularity. Spontaneity serves chiefly to expose
his staggering ignorance.
By comparison, the carefully scripted Clinton commits few missteps, as she recites with practiced
ease the pabulum that passes for right thinking in establishment circles. But fluency does not necessarily
connote soundness. Clinton, after all, adheres resolutely to the highly militarized "Washington playbook"
that President Obama himself has
disparaged - a faith-based belief in American global primacy to be pursued regardless of how
the world may be changing and heedless of costs.
On the latter point, note that Clinton's acceptance speech in Philadelphia included not a
single mention of Afghanistan. By Election Day, the war there will have passed its 15th anniversary.
One might think that a prospective commander-in-chief would have something to say about the longest
conflict in American history, one that continues with no end in sight. Yet, with the Washington playbook
offering few answers, Mrs. Clinton chooses to remain silent on the subject.
So while a Trump presidency holds the prospect of the United States driving off a cliff, a Clinton
presidency promises to be the equivalent of banging one's head against a brick wall without evident
effect, wondering all the while why it hurts so much.
Pseudo-Politics for an Ersatz Era
But let's not just blame the candidates. Trump and Clinton are also the product of circumstances
that neither created. As candidates, they are merely exploiting a situation - one relying on intuition
and vast stores of brashness, the other putting to work skills gained during a life spent studying
how to acquire and employ power. The success both have achieved in securing the nominations of their
parties is evidence of far more fundamental forces at work.
In the pairing of Trump and Clinton, we confront symptoms of something pathological. Unless Americans
identify the sources of this disease, it will inevitably worsen, with dire consequences in the realm
of national security. After all, back in Eisenhower's day, the IEDs planted thanks to reckless presidential
decisions tended to blow up only years - or even decades - later. For example, between the 1953 U.S.-engineered
coup that restored the Shah to his throne and the 1979 revolution that converted Iran overnight from
ally to adversary, more than a quarter of a century elapsed. In our own day, however, detonation
occurs so much more quickly - witness the almost instantaneous and explosively unhappy consequences
of Washington's post-9/11 military interventions in the Greater Middle East.
So here's a matter worth pondering: How is it that all the months of intensive fundraising, the
debates and speeches, the caucuses and primaries, the avalanche of TV ads and annoying robocalls
have produced two presidential candidates who tend to elicit from a surprisingly large number of
rank-and-file citizens disdain, indifference, or at best hold-your-nose-and-pull-the-lever acquiescence?
Here, then, is a preliminary diagnosis of three of the factors contributing to the erosion of
American politics, offered from the conviction that, for Americans to have better
choices next time around, fundamental change must occur - and soon.
First, and most important, the evil effects of money: Need chapter and verse? For a tutorial,
see this essential 2015 book by Professor Lawrence Lessig of Harvard:
Republic
Lost, Version 2.0 . Those with no time for books might spare 18 minutes for Lessig's brilliant
and deeply disturbing
TED talk . Professor Lessig argues persuasively that unless the United States radically changes
the way it finances political campaigns, we're pretty much doomed to see our democracy wither and
die.
Needless to say, moneyed interests and incumbents who benefit from existing arrangements take
a different view and collaborate to maintain the status quo. As a result, political life has increasingly
become a pursuit reserved for those like Trump who possess vast personal wealth or for those like
Clinton who display an aptitude for persuading the well to do to open their purses, with all that
implies by way of compromise, accommodation, and the subsequent repayment of favors.
Second, the perverse impact of identity politics on policy : Observers make much of the
fact that, in capturing the presidential nomination of a major party, Hillary Clinton has shattered
yet another glass ceiling. They are right to do so. Yet the novelty of her candidacy starts and ends
with gender. When it comes to fresh thinking, Donald Trump has far more to offer than Clinton - even
if his version of "fresh" tends to be synonymous with wacky, off-the-wall, ridiculous, or altogether
hair-raising.
The essential point here is that, in the realm of national security, Hillary Clinton is utterly
conventional. She subscribes to a worldview (and view of America's role in the world) that originated
during the Cold War, reached its zenith in the 1990s when the United States proclaimed itself the
planet's "sole superpower," and persists today remarkably unaffected by actual events.
On the campaign trail, Clinton attests to her bona fides by routinely reaffirming her belief in American
exceptionalism , paying fervent tribute to "
the world's greatest military ," swearing that she'll be "listening to our generals and admirals,"
and vowing to get tough on America's adversaries. These are, of course, the mandatory rituals of
the contemporary Washington stump speech, amplified if anything by the perceived need for the first
female candidate for president to emphasize her pugnacity.
A Clinton presidency, therefore, offers the prospect of more of the same - muscle-flexing and
armed intervention to demonstrate American global leadership - albeit marketed with a garnish of
diversity. Instead of different policies, Clinton will offer an administration that has a different
look, touting this as evidence of positive change.
Yet while diversity may be a good thing, we should not confuse it with effectiveness. A national
security team that "looks like America" (to use the phrase originally coined by Bill Clinton) does
not necessarily govern more effectively than one that looks like President Eisenhower's. What matters
is getting the job done.
Since the 1990s women have found plentiful opportunities to fill positions in the upper echelons
of the national security apparatus. Although we have not yet had a female commander-in-chief, three
women have served as secretary of state and two as national security adviser. Several have filled
Adlai Stevenson's old post at the United Nations. Undersecretaries, deputy undersecretaries, and
assistant secretaries of like gender abound, along with a passel of female admirals and generals.
So the question needs be asked: Has the quality of national security policy improved compared
to the bad old days when men exclusively called the shots? Using as criteria the promotion of stability
and the avoidance of armed conflict (along with the successful prosecution of wars deemed unavoidable),
the answer would, of course, have to be no. Although Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Susan
Rice, Samantha Power, and Clinton herself might entertain a different view, actually existing conditions
in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and other countries across the Greater
Middle East and significant parts of Africa tell a different story.
The abysmal record of American statecraft in recent years is not remotely the
fault of women; yet neither have women made a perceptibly positive difference. It turns out that
identity does not necessarily signify wisdom or assure insight. Allocating positions of influence
in the State Department or the Pentagon based on gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation -
as Clinton will assuredly do - may well gratify previously disenfranchised groups. Little evidence
exists to suggest that doing so will produce more enlightened approaches to statecraft, at least
not so long as adherence to the Washington playbook figures as a precondition to employment. (Should
Clinton win in November, don't expect the redoubtable ladies of
Code Pink to be tapped for
jobs at the Pentagon and State Department.)
In the end, it's not identity that matters but ideas and their implementation. To contemplate
the ideas that might guide a President Trump along with those he will recruit to act on them - Ivanka
as national security adviser? - is enough to elicit shudders from any sane person. Yet the prospect
of Madam President surrounding herself with an impeccably diverse team of advisers who share her
own outmoded views is hardly cause for celebration.
Putting a woman in charge of national security policy will not in itself amend the defects exhibited
in recent years. For that, the obsolete principles with which Clinton along with the rest of Washington
remains enamored will have to be jettisoned. In his own bizarre way (albeit without a clue as to
a plausible alternative), Donald Trump seems to get that; Hillary Clinton does not.
Third, the substitution of "reality" for reality : Back in 1962, a young historian by
the name of Daniel Boorstin published
The
Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America . In an age in which Donald Trump and
Hillary Clinton vie to determine the nation's destiny, it should be mandatory reading. The Image
remains, as when it first appeared, a fire bell ringing in the night.
According to Boorstin, more than five decades ago the American people were already living in a
"thicket of unreality." By relentlessly indulging in ever more "extravagant expectations," they were
forfeiting their capacity to distinguish between what was real and what was illusory. Indeed, Boorstin
wrote, "We have become so accustomed to our illusions that we mistake them for reality."
While ad agencies and PR firms had indeed vigorously promoted a world of illusions, Americans
themselves had become willing accomplices in the process.
"The American citizen lives in a world where fantasy is more real than reality, where the image
has more dignity than its original. We hardly dare to face our bewilderment, because our ambiguous
experience is so pleasantly iridescent, and the solace of belief in contrived reality is so thoroughly
real. We have become eager accessories to the great hoaxes of the age. These are the hoaxes we play
on ourselves."
This, of course, was decades before the nation succumbed to the iridescent allure of Facebook,
Google, fantasy football, " Real Housewives of _________," selfies, smartphone apps,
Game of Thrones , Pokémon GO - and, yes, the vehicle that vaulted Donald Trump to stardom,
The Apprentice .
"The making of the illusions which flood our experience has become the business of America," wrote
Boorstin. It's also become the essence of American politics, long since transformed into theater,
or rather into some sort of (un)reality show.
Presidential campaigns today are themselves, to use Boorstin's famous term, "pseudo-events" that
stretch from months into years. By now, most Americans know better than to take at face value anything
candidates say or promise along the way. We're in on the joke - or at least we think we are. Reinforcing
that perception on a daily basis are media outlets that have abandoned mere reporting in favor of
enhancing the spectacle of the moment. This is especially true of the cable news networks, where
talking heads serve up a snide and cynical complement to the smarmy fakery that is the office-seeker's
stock in trade. And we lap it up. It matters little that we know it's all staged and contrived, as
long as - a preening Megyn Kelly getting under Trump's skin, Trump himself denouncing "lyin' Ted"
Cruz, etc., etc. - it's entertaining.
This emphasis on spectacle has drained national politics of whatever substance it still had back
when Ike and Adlai commanded the scene. It hardly need be said that Donald Trump has demonstrated
an extraordinary knack - a sort of post-modern genius - for turning this phenomenon to his advantage.
Yet in her own way Clinton plays the same game. How else to explain a national convention organized
around the idea of "
reintroducing to the American people" someone who served eight years as First Lady, was elected
to the Senate, failed in a previous high-profile run for the presidency, and completed a term as
secretary of state? The just-ended conclave in Philadelphia was, like the Republican one that preceded
it, a pseudo-event par excellence, the object of the exercise being to fashion a new "image" for
the Democratic candidate.
The thicket of unreality that is American politics has now become all-enveloping. The problem
is not Trump and Clinton, per se. It's an identifiable set of arrangements - laws, habits, cultural
predispositions - that have evolved over time and promoted the rot that now pervades American politics.
As a direct consequence, the very concept of self-government is increasingly a fantasy, even if surprisingly
few Americans seem to mind.
At an earlier juncture back in 1956, out of a population of 168 million, we got Ike and Adlai.
Today, with almost double the population, we get - well, we get what we've got. This does not represent
progress. And don't kid yourself that things really can't get much worse. Unless Americans rouse
themselves to act, count on it, they will.
Americans are annoying chest-thumpers but the average Jane or Joe has no power in their own
lives. In contrast, the Washington foreign policy elite has power, the power of life and death,
over billions across the globe, and they exercise it regularly. This power has utterly corrupted
the elite and gone to their heads. That is why any defiance is met with such rage. They are used
to getting their own way, and woe to the country that acts or even thinks otherwise.
I know Clinton is one of this gang. And I am sure that given his personality, Trump will succumb
to this madness almost at once. Give a narcissistic jerk that much power and good luck to all
of us (of course, give that much power to a rabid insider like Clinton and good luck to all of
us). Of course, their partisans will say, "Trump will just ignore the entire vast apparatus of
the permanent government and the security state and do whatever he likes" or "Nixon went to China,
and Clinton can metaphorically do the same when she realizes she's no longer a cheerleader at
State and the buck stops at her desk", but I don't believe either of those assertions.
Thanks james, to the annoying chest thumpers the image of dems chanting USA USA to drown out
No More Wars really signals an alternate reality. I think AB went way too easy on clinton, and
the misogyny claim was one cheap shot (True, antipathy directed toward Hillary Clinton draws some
of its energy from incorrigible sexists along with the "vast right wing conspiracy" whose members
thoroughly loathe both Clintons. Yet the antipathy is not without basis in fact.) but I think
he retakes that ground when he labels her "utterly conventional", On balance a good article but
as with many prominent figures he can make a laundry list of her downsides and still come out
sounding like a supporter of hers. I share your conclusion, good luck
It's depressing to see Andrew Bacevich, one of our country's most astute observers of the national
security scene and a retired military officer, come down on the side of Hilary Clinton as the
lesser evil candidate. He can only do so by totally ignoring her central role in the ignition
of Cold War 2.0 in his litany of her liabilities.
Hillary Clinton offers more of the same bad news, only worse. Trump scares everybody from the
MIC, which includes Bacevich, who after all draws a hefty monthly pension from the Defense Dept.,
because he indicates he actually wants to be the boss, to call the shots, to shake things up,
to rattle some cages. The last prez who actually tried to boss around the MIC was JFK, and he
had his brain tissue splattered onto the Dallas street in broad daylight. Trump was kind of a
stealth candidate in the primaries, in that the bigwigs were unable to take him seriously, even
after he won some primaries. By the time they marshaled enough opposition to stop him, it was
too late.
Obama, for his part, has indicated the republican party was negligent in its duties
by letting the people vote this guy into the nomination. The people, in the eyes of miscreants
like Obama, are mere pawns to be manipulated, stolen from, etc. He's implying the GOP should have
had a superdelegate fix, like the dems, to overcome any spurt of independent thinking from the
electorate.
Clinton may be a non-introspective narcissist who has an poor understanding of the historical
results of policy and current affairs, who never admits mistakes/grievous wrongs ("Libya needs
more time") and whose most significant personal decision was to recognize that, after failing
the bar exam in Washington DC, it was time to go to Arkansas and hitch her wagon to Bill Clinton's
career.
Trump is a novice at government, yes, but he has experienced dealing with foreign countries
as a businessman. HRC is much scarier-she is capable of rattling off the neocon doctrine as it
pertains to a lot of countries. Great. I'd much prefer the novice. I would love to have the neocons
and neolibs destroyed.
As Bacevich says, Ike was not a bad president, and he had no gov't experience before he was elected.
My dad was a democrat, I guess, but the one thing I remember hearing him utter regarding politics
was praise of Ike: " Things were good in the 50's-we had General Motors, General Electric, and
General Eisenhower!"
Hillary is scary because I think she and Victory Nuland are going to push us into a war with
Putin – Trump is an idiot, but we already know that Hillary has a taste for blood.
Libya and Iraq are two prime examples.
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
"... But there is hardly a single valid reason to be found anywhere why someone would want to vote for either them. Some have argued that Trump is less likely to cause World War III, because his instincts are those of a businessman, and he is primarily interested in making money, not war; but Clinton likes money just as much as Trump-just look at her gigantic private slush fund known as the Clinton Foundation! ..."
"... A 2014 study, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page conclusively showed how the preferences of average citizens matter not a whit, while those of moneyed elites and interest groups certainly do. ..."
"... no need to concern yourself with who is the "lesser evil," or which candidate made which meaningless promises. You will not be casting a vote for someone; you will be casting a vote against the entire process. Think of yourself as a soldier who volunteered in defense of liberty: you will simply be carrying out your orders. The charge has been laid by someone else; your mission, should you wish to accept it, is to light the fuse and walk away. This should at once motivate you to go and vote and make the voting process easy and stress-free. You are going to show up, subvert the dominant paradigm, and go watch the fireworks. ..."
"... In any case, the two major parties are dying, and the number of non-party members is now almost the same as the number of Democrats and Republicans put together. ..."
"... Try the line "This penny can't be bought." Don't argue or debate; rattle off your "elevator speech," hand over the penny and move on. ..."
"... And that, my fellow Americans, is how you can change a "you lose-they win" outcome to a more just and equitable "you lose-they lose" in this particular game of strategy. ..."
In all my years of watching politics in the US, never have I seen a presidential election
generate such overwhelmingly negative emotions. Everyone hates Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or,
increasingly, both of them. This is creating a severe psychological problem for many people: they
want to tell their friends and the world that Clinton is mentally unstable and a crook, but they
are conflicted because they realize that by so doing they would be supporting Trump. Or they want
to tell everyone what a vulgar, narcissistic, egotistical blowhard Trump is, but they are
conflicted because they realize that by so doing they would be supporting Clinton. Some are
abandoning the two-party duopoly in favor of minor parties, ready to vote for Jill Stein the
Green or Gary Johnson the Libertarian, but are conflicted because voting for Stein would take
votes away from Clinton the crook and thus support Trump the blowhard, while voting for Johnson
would take votes away from Trump the blowhard and thus support Clinton the crook. There is just
no winning! Or is there?
There is a long list of arguments for voting against either of the major candidates, some of them
seemingly valid. At the top of the list of the seemingly valid ones are that Clinton is corrupt
and a warmonger, while Trump is inexperienced and socially divisive.
But there is hardly a
single valid reason to be found anywhere why someone would want to vote for either them. Some
have argued that Trump is less likely to cause World War III, because his instincts are those of
a businessman, and he is primarily interested in making money, not war; but Clinton likes money
just as much as Trump-just look at her gigantic private slush fund known as the Clinton
Foundation!
On the other hand, perhaps Trump will like the idea of peace only until the
moment he is elected, at which point it will be explained to him that the US empire is an
extortion racket, and that breaking legs (a.k.a. war) is how it comes up with the ink. And then
he will like war just as much as Clinton does. None of this makes it easy for a lover of liberty
and peace to vote for either one of them in good conscience.
I heard Jill Stein say that people should be able to vote their conscience. Yes, let's concede
that voting against your conscience is probably bad for your soul, if not your pocketbook. But
this makes it sound as if the voting booth were a confessional rather than what it is-an
apparatus by which people can assert their very limited political power. But do you have any
political power, or are American elections just a game of manipulation in which you lose no
matter how you vote?
A 2014 study, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest
Groups, and Average Citizens" by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page conclusively showed how the
preferences of average citizens matter not a whit, while those of moneyed elites and interest
groups certainly do.
Thus, the question as to whether you are the winner or the loser in the
game of US electoral politics is easily answered: if you are a multibillionaire and a captain of
industry, then you might win; if you are an average citizen, then the chances of you winning are
precisely zero.
Given that you are going to lose, how should you play? Should you behave like a Furious Sheep,
obeying all the signals fed to you by the candidates, their organizations and the political
commentators in the mass media? Should you do your part to hand the largest possible victory to
those who are manipulating the political process to their advantage? Or should you withhold
cooperation to the largest extent possible and try to unmask them and neutralize their efforts at
political manipulation?
Sure, there are some cheap thrills to be had for the Furious Sheep-endorphins from jumping up and
down while waving mass-produced signs and shouting slogans pre-approved by campaign committees.
But if you are the sort of person who likes to have an independent thought now and again, what
you are probably looking for are three things:
avoid psychological damage from having to observe and participate in this absurd and
degrading spectacle;
experience the delicious thrill of watching this system fail and those behind it lose
face; and
regain some amount of faith in the possibility of a future for your children and
grandchildren that might involve something actually resembling some sort of democracy rather
than a humiliating, sordid, rigged game.
Before we can play, we have to understand what variety of game this is in technical terms.
There are many different kinds of games: games of strength (tug-of-war), games of skill (fencing)
and games of strategy (backgammon). This one is a game of strength, fought using large bags of
money, but it can be turned into a game of strategy by the weaker side, not to win but to deny
victory to the other side.
Most of us are brought up with the nice idea that games should be fair. In a fair game both
sides have a chance at victory, and there is normally a winner and a loser, or, failing that, a
tie. But fair games represent only a subset of games, while the rest-the vast majority-are
unfair. Here, we are talking about a specific type of unfair game in which your side always
loses. But does that mean that the other side must always win? Not at all! There are two possible
outcomes: "you lose-they win" and "you lose-they lose."
Now, if you, being neither a multibillionaire nor a captain of industry, are facing the
prospect of spending the rest of your life on the losing side, which outcome should you wish for?
Of course, you should want the other side to lose too! The reason: if those on the other side
start losing, then they will abandon this game and resort to some other means of securing an
unfair victory. In the case of the game of American electoral politics, this would pierce the
veil of faux-democracy, generating a level of public outrage that might make the restoration of
real democracy at least theoretically possible.
So, how do you change the outcome from "you lose-they win" to "you lose-they lose"?
The first question to answer is whether you should bother voting at all, and the answer is,
Yes, you should vote. If you don't vote, then you abandon the playing field to the Furious Sheep
who, being most easily manipulated, will hand an easy victory to the other side. And so the
remaining question is, How should you vote to make the other side lose? This should not be
regarded as a matter of personal choice;
no need to concern yourself with who is the "lesser
evil," or which candidate made which meaningless promises. You will not be casting a vote for
someone; you will be casting a vote against the entire process. Think of yourself as a soldier
who volunteered in defense of liberty: you will simply be carrying out your orders. The charge
has been laid by someone else; your mission, should you wish to accept it, is to light the fuse
and walk away. This should at once motivate you to go and vote and make the voting process easy
and stress-free. You are going to show up, subvert the dominant paradigm, and go watch the
fireworks.
Next, you have to understand the way the electoral game is played. It is played with
money-very large sums of money-with votes being quite secondary. In mathematical terms, money is
the independent variable and votes are the dependent variable, but the relationship between money
and votes is nonlinear and time-variant. In the opening round, the moneyed interests throw huge
sums of money at both of the major parties-not because elections have to be, by their nature,
ridiculously expensive, but to erect an insurmountable barrier to entry for average citizens. But
the final decision is made on a relatively thin margin of victory, in order to make the electoral
process appear genuine rather than staged, and to generate excitement. After all, if the moneyed
interests just threw all their money at their favorite candidate, making that candidate's victory
a foregone conclusion, that wouldn't look sufficiently democratic. And so they use large sums to
separate themselves from you the great unwashed, but much smaller sums to tip the scales.
When calculating how to tip the scales, the political experts employed by the moneyed
interests rely on information on party affiliation, polling data and historical voting patterns.
To change the outcome from a "lose-win" to a "lose-lose," you need to invalidate all three of
these:
The proper choice of party affiliation is "none," which, for some bizarre reason, is
commonly labeled as "independent,"
(and watch out for American Independent Party, which is
a minor right-wing party in California that has successfully trolled people into joining it by
mistake). Be that as it may; let the Furious Sheep call themselves the "dependent" ones.
In any case, the two major parties are dying, and the number of non-party members is now
almost the same as the number of Democrats and Republicans put together.
When responding to a poll, the category you should always opt for is "undecided," up to
and including the moment when you walk into the voting booth.
When questioned about your
stands on various issues, you need to remember that the interest in your opinion is
disingenuous: your stand on issues matters not a whit (see study above) except as part of an
effort to herd you, a Furious Sheep, into a particular political paddock. Therefore, when
talking to pollsters, be vaguely on both sides of every issue while stressing that it plays no
role in your decision-making. Should you be asked what does matter to you, concentrate on such
issues as the candidates' body language, fashion sense and demeanor. Doing so will effectively
short-circuit any attempt to manipulate you using your purely fictional ability to influence
public policy. You cannot be for or against a candidate being forthright and well-spoken; nor
is there a litmus test for comportment or fashion sense. Politicians are supposed to be able
to herd Furious Sheep by making promises they have no intention of keeping. But what if the
voters (wise to the fact that their opinions no longer matter) suddenly start demanding better
posture, more graceful hand gestures, a more melodious tone of voice and a sprightlier step?
Calamity! What was supposed to be a fake but tidy ideological battleground with fictional but
clearly delineated front lines suddenly turns into a macabre beauty pageant held on a uniform
field of liquefied mud.
The final step is to invalidate historical voting patterns.
Here, the perfectly
obvious solution is to vote randomly. Random voting will produce not random but chaotic
results, invalidating the notion that the electoral process is about party platforms,
policies, issues or popular mandates. More importantly, it will invalidate the process by
which votes are purchased, in effect getting money out of politics. You just have to remember
to bring a penny into the voting booth with you. Here is a flowchart that explains how you
should decide who to vote for once you are standing in the voting booth holding a penny:
If you want to be an activist, bring a pocketful of pennies and hand them out to people
while standing in line at the polling place. You won't need to convince that many people to
produce the intended effect. Remember, in order to maintain the appearance of a democratic
process, the artificial, financially induced margin of victory is kept quite thin, and even
a small amount of added randomness is enough to wipe it out. Point out the word "liberty"
prominently embossed on each penny. Briefly explain what a Furious Sheep is, and how the
exercise of liberty is the exact opposite of being a Furious Sheep.
Then explain to them how the pennies are to be used: the first flip of the penny
determines whether you are voting for the left or the right; the second-whether you are
voting for the major or the minor candidate. Be sure to mention that this is a sure-fire
way to get money out of politics.
Try the line "This penny can't be bought." Don't
argue or debate; rattle off your "elevator speech," hand over the penny and move on.
The last detail everyone needs to remember is how to respond to exit polls, in order to
deprive the other side of any understanding of what has just happened. When asked how you
voted, say: "I voted by secret ballot."
Then you can go home, turn on the idiot box and watch a fun spectacle featuring the gnashing
of teeth, the rending of garments and the scattering of ashes upon talking heads. You won't get
to see the behind-the-scenes rancor and the recriminations among the moneyed elites, but you can
imagine just how furious they will be, having had their billions of dollars defeated by a few
handfuls of pennies.
You might think that random voting, with each candidate getting an equal share of the votes,
would be perfectly predictable, making it possible to secure a victory by hacking a few voting
machines. But this would never be the case in the real world, because not everyone will vote
randomly. You might then think that it would still be possible to manipulate the nonrandom voters
into voting a certain way. But how can anyone predict who will vote randomly and who won't? And
if every vote is, in essence, purchased, how would someone go about buying random votes, or
figuring out which candidate such a purchase would favor? In this situation, buying votes would
only serve to further confuse the outcome. Thus, the effect of added randomness on the outcome
will not be random; it will be chaotic.
And that, my fellow Americans, is how you can change a "you lose-they win" outcome to a
more just and equitable "you lose-they lose" in this particular game of strategy.
Dmitry Orlov was born in Leningrad and immigrated to the United States in the 1970's. He is
the author of Reinventing Collapse, Hold Your Applause! and Absolutely Positive, and publishes
weekly at the phenomenally popular blog
www.ClubOrlov.com
.
"... 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.
"... But there is hardly a single valid reason to be found anywhere why someone would want to vote for either them. Some have argued that Trump is less likely to cause World War III, because his instincts are those of a businessman, and he is primarily interested in making money, not war; but Clinton likes money just as much as Trump-just look at her gigantic private slush fund known as the Clinton Foundation! ..."
"... A 2014 study, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page conclusively showed how the preferences of average citizens matter not a whit, while those of moneyed elites and interest groups certainly do. ..."
"... no need to concern yourself with who is the "lesser evil," or which candidate made which meaningless promises. You will not be casting a vote for someone; you will be casting a vote against the entire process. Think of yourself as a soldier who volunteered in defense of liberty: you will simply be carrying out your orders. The charge has been laid by someone else; your mission, should you wish to accept it, is to light the fuse and walk away. This should at once motivate you to go and vote and make the voting process easy and stress-free. You are going to show up, subvert the dominant paradigm, and go watch the fireworks. ..."
"... In any case, the two major parties are dying, and the number of non-party members is now almost the same as the number of Democrats and Republicans put together. ..."
"... Try the line "This penny can't be bought." Don't argue or debate; rattle off your "elevator speech," hand over the penny and move on. ..."
"... And that, my fellow Americans, is how you can change a "you lose-they win" outcome to a more just and equitable "you lose-they lose" in this particular game of strategy. ..."
In all my years of watching politics in the US, never have I seen a presidential election
generate such overwhelmingly negative emotions. Everyone hates Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or,
increasingly, both of them. This is creating a severe psychological problem for many people: they
want to tell their friends and the world that Clinton is mentally unstable and a crook, but they
are conflicted because they realize that by so doing they would be supporting Trump. Or they want
to tell everyone what a vulgar, narcissistic, egotistical blowhard Trump is, but they are
conflicted because they realize that by so doing they would be supporting Clinton. Some are
abandoning the two-party duopoly in favor of minor parties, ready to vote for Jill Stein the
Green or Gary Johnson the Libertarian, but are conflicted because voting for Stein would take
votes away from Clinton the crook and thus support Trump the blowhard, while voting for Johnson
would take votes away from Trump the blowhard and thus support Clinton the crook. There is just
no winning! Or is there?
There is a long list of arguments for voting against either of the major candidates, some of them
seemingly valid. At the top of the list of the seemingly valid ones are that Clinton is corrupt
and a warmonger, while Trump is inexperienced and socially divisive.
But there is hardly a
single valid reason to be found anywhere why someone would want to vote for either them. Some
have argued that Trump is less likely to cause World War III, because his instincts are those of
a businessman, and he is primarily interested in making money, not war; but Clinton likes money
just as much as Trump-just look at her gigantic private slush fund known as the Clinton
Foundation!
On the other hand, perhaps Trump will like the idea of peace only until the
moment he is elected, at which point it will be explained to him that the US empire is an
extortion racket, and that breaking legs (a.k.a. war) is how it comes up with the ink. And then
he will like war just as much as Clinton does. None of this makes it easy for a lover of liberty
and peace to vote for either one of them in good conscience.
I heard Jill Stein say that people should be able to vote their conscience. Yes, let's concede
that voting against your conscience is probably bad for your soul, if not your pocketbook. But
this makes it sound as if the voting booth were a confessional rather than what it is-an
apparatus by which people can assert their very limited political power. But do you have any
political power, or are American elections just a game of manipulation in which you lose no
matter how you vote?
A 2014 study, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest
Groups, and Average Citizens" by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page conclusively showed how the
preferences of average citizens matter not a whit, while those of moneyed elites and interest
groups certainly do.
Thus, the question as to whether you are the winner or the loser in the
game of US electoral politics is easily answered: if you are a multibillionaire and a captain of
industry, then you might win; if you are an average citizen, then the chances of you winning are
precisely zero.
Given that you are going to lose, how should you play? Should you behave like a Furious Sheep,
obeying all the signals fed to you by the candidates, their organizations and the political
commentators in the mass media? Should you do your part to hand the largest possible victory to
those who are manipulating the political process to their advantage? Or should you withhold
cooperation to the largest extent possible and try to unmask them and neutralize their efforts at
political manipulation?
Sure, there are some cheap thrills to be had for the Furious Sheep-endorphins from jumping up and
down while waving mass-produced signs and shouting slogans pre-approved by campaign committees.
But if you are the sort of person who likes to have an independent thought now and again, what
you are probably looking for are three things:
avoid psychological damage from having to observe and participate in this absurd and
degrading spectacle;
experience the delicious thrill of watching this system fail and those behind it lose
face; and
regain some amount of faith in the possibility of a future for your children and
grandchildren that might involve something actually resembling some sort of democracy rather
than a humiliating, sordid, rigged game.
Before we can play, we have to understand what variety of game this is in technical terms.
There are many different kinds of games: games of strength (tug-of-war), games of skill (fencing)
and games of strategy (backgammon). This one is a game of strength, fought using large bags of
money, but it can be turned into a game of strategy by the weaker side, not to win but to deny
victory to the other side.
Most of us are brought up with the nice idea that games should be fair. In a fair game both
sides have a chance at victory, and there is normally a winner and a loser, or, failing that, a
tie. But fair games represent only a subset of games, while the rest-the vast majority-are
unfair. Here, we are talking about a specific type of unfair game in which your side always
loses. But does that mean that the other side must always win? Not at all! There are two possible
outcomes: "you lose-they win" and "you lose-they lose."
Now, if you, being neither a multibillionaire nor a captain of industry, are facing the
prospect of spending the rest of your life on the losing side, which outcome should you wish for?
Of course, you should want the other side to lose too! The reason: if those on the other side
start losing, then they will abandon this game and resort to some other means of securing an
unfair victory. In the case of the game of American electoral politics, this would pierce the
veil of faux-democracy, generating a level of public outrage that might make the restoration of
real democracy at least theoretically possible.
So, how do you change the outcome from "you lose-they win" to "you lose-they lose"?
The first question to answer is whether you should bother voting at all, and the answer is,
Yes, you should vote. If you don't vote, then you abandon the playing field to the Furious Sheep
who, being most easily manipulated, will hand an easy victory to the other side. And so the
remaining question is, How should you vote to make the other side lose? This should not be
regarded as a matter of personal choice;
no need to concern yourself with who is the "lesser
evil," or which candidate made which meaningless promises. You will not be casting a vote for
someone; you will be casting a vote against the entire process. Think of yourself as a soldier
who volunteered in defense of liberty: you will simply be carrying out your orders. The charge
has been laid by someone else; your mission, should you wish to accept it, is to light the fuse
and walk away. This should at once motivate you to go and vote and make the voting process easy
and stress-free. You are going to show up, subvert the dominant paradigm, and go watch the
fireworks.
Next, you have to understand the way the electoral game is played. It is played with
money-very large sums of money-with votes being quite secondary. In mathematical terms, money is
the independent variable and votes are the dependent variable, but the relationship between money
and votes is nonlinear and time-variant. In the opening round, the moneyed interests throw huge
sums of money at both of the major parties-not because elections have to be, by their nature,
ridiculously expensive, but to erect an insurmountable barrier to entry for average citizens. But
the final decision is made on a relatively thin margin of victory, in order to make the electoral
process appear genuine rather than staged, and to generate excitement. After all, if the moneyed
interests just threw all their money at their favorite candidate, making that candidate's victory
a foregone conclusion, that wouldn't look sufficiently democratic. And so they use large sums to
separate themselves from you the great unwashed, but much smaller sums to tip the scales.
When calculating how to tip the scales, the political experts employed by the moneyed
interests rely on information on party affiliation, polling data and historical voting patterns.
To change the outcome from a "lose-win" to a "lose-lose," you need to invalidate all three of
these:
The proper choice of party affiliation is "none," which, for some bizarre reason, is
commonly labeled as "independent,"
(and watch out for American Independent Party, which is
a minor right-wing party in California that has successfully trolled people into joining it by
mistake). Be that as it may; let the Furious Sheep call themselves the "dependent" ones.
In any case, the two major parties are dying, and the number of non-party members is now
almost the same as the number of Democrats and Republicans put together.
When responding to a poll, the category you should always opt for is "undecided," up to
and including the moment when you walk into the voting booth.
When questioned about your
stands on various issues, you need to remember that the interest in your opinion is
disingenuous: your stand on issues matters not a whit (see study above) except as part of an
effort to herd you, a Furious Sheep, into a particular political paddock. Therefore, when
talking to pollsters, be vaguely on both sides of every issue while stressing that it plays no
role in your decision-making. Should you be asked what does matter to you, concentrate on such
issues as the candidates' body language, fashion sense and demeanor. Doing so will effectively
short-circuit any attempt to manipulate you using your purely fictional ability to influence
public policy. You cannot be for or against a candidate being forthright and well-spoken; nor
is there a litmus test for comportment or fashion sense. Politicians are supposed to be able
to herd Furious Sheep by making promises they have no intention of keeping. But what if the
voters (wise to the fact that their opinions no longer matter) suddenly start demanding better
posture, more graceful hand gestures, a more melodious tone of voice and a sprightlier step?
Calamity! What was supposed to be a fake but tidy ideological battleground with fictional but
clearly delineated front lines suddenly turns into a macabre beauty pageant held on a uniform
field of liquefied mud.
The final step is to invalidate historical voting patterns.
Here, the perfectly
obvious solution is to vote randomly. Random voting will produce not random but chaotic
results, invalidating the notion that the electoral process is about party platforms,
policies, issues or popular mandates. More importantly, it will invalidate the process by
which votes are purchased, in effect getting money out of politics. You just have to remember
to bring a penny into the voting booth with you. Here is a flowchart that explains how you
should decide who to vote for once you are standing in the voting booth holding a penny:
If you want to be an activist, bring a pocketful of pennies and hand them out to people
while standing in line at the polling place. You won't need to convince that many people to
produce the intended effect. Remember, in order to maintain the appearance of a democratic
process, the artificial, financially induced margin of victory is kept quite thin, and even
a small amount of added randomness is enough to wipe it out. Point out the word "liberty"
prominently embossed on each penny. Briefly explain what a Furious Sheep is, and how the
exercise of liberty is the exact opposite of being a Furious Sheep.
Then explain to them how the pennies are to be used: the first flip of the penny
determines whether you are voting for the left or the right; the second-whether you are
voting for the major or the minor candidate. Be sure to mention that this is a sure-fire
way to get money out of politics.
Try the line "This penny can't be bought." Don't
argue or debate; rattle off your "elevator speech," hand over the penny and move on.
The last detail everyone needs to remember is how to respond to exit polls, in order to
deprive the other side of any understanding of what has just happened. When asked how you
voted, say: "I voted by secret ballot."
Then you can go home, turn on the idiot box and watch a fun spectacle featuring the gnashing
of teeth, the rending of garments and the scattering of ashes upon talking heads. You won't get
to see the behind-the-scenes rancor and the recriminations among the moneyed elites, but you can
imagine just how furious they will be, having had their billions of dollars defeated by a few
handfuls of pennies.
You might think that random voting, with each candidate getting an equal share of the votes,
would be perfectly predictable, making it possible to secure a victory by hacking a few voting
machines. But this would never be the case in the real world, because not everyone will vote
randomly. You might then think that it would still be possible to manipulate the nonrandom voters
into voting a certain way. But how can anyone predict who will vote randomly and who won't? And
if every vote is, in essence, purchased, how would someone go about buying random votes, or
figuring out which candidate such a purchase would favor? In this situation, buying votes would
only serve to further confuse the outcome. Thus, the effect of added randomness on the outcome
will not be random; it will be chaotic.
And that, my fellow Americans, is how you can change a "you lose-they win" outcome to a
more just and equitable "you lose-they lose" in this particular game of strategy.
Dmitry Orlov was born in Leningrad and immigrated to the United States in the 1970's. He is
the author of Reinventing Collapse, Hold Your Applause! and Absolutely Positive, and publishes
weekly at the phenomenally popular blog
www.ClubOrlov.com
.
A very important, informative interview. Outlines complexity of challenges of modern society and
the real power of "alphabet agencies" in the modern societies (not only in the USA) pretty
vividly. You need to listen to it several times to understand better the current environment.
Very sloppy security was the immanent feature both of Hillary "bathroom" server and DNC emails hacks.
So there probably were multiple parties that has access to those data not a single one (anti Russian
hysteria presumes that the only party are Russian and that's silly; what about China, Iran and
Israel?).
Russian government would not use a "known attack" as they would immediately be traced back.
Anything, any communications that goes over the network are totally. 100% exposed to NSA data
collection infrastructure. Clinton email messages are not exception. NSA does have
information on them, including all envelopes (the body of the message might be encrypted and that's
slightly complicate the matter, but there is no signs that Clinton of DNC used encryption of them)
NSA has the technical capabilities to trace the data back and they most probably have most if not
all of deleted mail. The "total surveillance", the total data mailing used by NSA definitely includes
the mail envelopes which makes possible to enumerate all the missing mails.
Notable quotes:
"... The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday. ..."
"... Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists." ..."
"... "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails." ..."
"... Listen to the full interview here: ... ..."
"... And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer ..."
The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI
could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official,
declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday.
Speaking as an analyst, Binney raised the possibility that the hack of the Democratic National
Committee's server was done not by Russia but by a disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker concerned
about Clinton's compromise of national security secrets via her personal email use.
Binney was an architect of the NSA's surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when
he resigned on October 31, 2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency.
He was speaking on this reporter's Sunday radio program, "Aaron
Klein Investigative Radio," broadcast on New York's AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia's NewsTalk
990 AM.
Binney referenced
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S.
Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track
down known and suspected terrorists."
Stated Binney:
"Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown
of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA
database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that
NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails."
"So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now," he stated
of Clinton's emails as well as DNC emails.
Asked point blank if he believed the NSA has copies of "all" of Clinton's emails, including the
deleted correspondence, Binney replied in the affirmative.
"Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right
there."
Listen to the full interview here: ...
Binney surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S.
intelligence community angry over Clinton's compromise of national security data with her email use.
And the other point is that Hillary, according to an
article published
by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma
material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA
officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She
lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise
of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many
people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians
as the only one(s) who got into those emails.
The Observer defined the GAMMA classification:
GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive
information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was).
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He
is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "Aaron
Klein Investigative Radio." Follow him on
Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow
him on Facebook.
Most of us knew this already, but now here's proof.
Is Bernie going down fighting for his political beliefs like a real presidential
candidate would? Is he even being remotely honest with his supporters at this
point? Nope. He's keeping his mouth shut and staying on script for Hillary -
who everyone knows will be the worst kind of tyrannical dictator - saying, "I'm
proud to stand with her".
For those of us who didn't know this, Bernie was like a magical fairy unicorn.
People want so badly to believe it's real... but it just isn't... and it never
was. Feel the burn...
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance
is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright
statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal
use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Lemmy Fuque
1 day ago
For decades the Clintons have run a criminal organization of fraud, deception,
hypocrisy, conspiracy, bribes, blackmail, espionage, treason, murder, assassination,
money laundering, sex-slaves, pedophilia, etc. that would leave Capone and
Giancana in awe. Leaked DNC emails is your proof that Bernie was just another
Clinton pawn. (Add Seth Rich to the Clinton body count after leaking DNC
emails). Though Bernie attracted a lot of followers, do NOT under estimate
the stupidity of the brainwashed Libtard electorate to vote the skank criminal
cunt for POTUS. Clintons run the $100B criminal Clinton Foundation & Global
initiative and get what they want-or they will take you out. Libtards will
be the easiest and first lead to FEMA camps for NWO depopulation.
You can't blame Bernie for he is a Professional politician after all. To
survive in that game, one has to play ball with party management. Half the
trouble in this country comes from the two parties who make the decisions....Not
the people.
like jessse venture said ..politics is exactly like wrestling - In front
of the cameras they hate each other , but when it's off they eating lunch
together
Bernies reaction that night when Clinton dared to thank him said it all
,sad fact is he refuses to say they fucked him and lied and cheated because
she has offered him something or he is scared.
"... Older people–and older AAs are no exception–I think just are less receptive to the Sanders message. They've been propagandized for too long and too successfully. Actually I don't just think this, the polling data fairly screams it. It might be a waste of time chasing those AA church lady grandmothers, they are right wing conservatives in almost any objective sense who minus the identity politics woo woo would be Republicans but just need a safe space to be that way without rubbing shoulders with overt white racists, and the corporate neocon-neolib DP mainstream is a perfect fit for them. ..."
"... Obama, who pretty much could be George W Bush in blackface, is the perfect identity politics totem for that role. ..."
We will have to wait for the campaign tell-alls to understand what the Sanders
campaign believed its strategy was, and whether the campaign believes
it was successful, or not. While it is true that reform efforts in the Democrat
Party have a very poor track record, it's also true that third parties have
a terrible track record. (It's worth noting that in the eight years just past,
with the capitol occupations, Occupy proper, Black Lives Matter, fracking campaigns
all on the boil, the Green Party was flatlined, seeminly unable to make an institutional
connection with any of these popular movements. It may be that 2016 is different.
It may also be that the iron law of institutions applies to the GP just as much
as it does to any other party.) Therefore, "working within the Democrat Party"
- which Sanders consistently said he would do; the label on the package
was always there - is not, a priori , a poor strategic choice, especially
if "working within" amounts to a hostile takeover followed by a management purge.
And it's hard for me to recall another "working within" approach that garnered
45% of the vote, severed the youth of the party - of all identities - from the
base of the ruling faction, and invented an entirely new and highly successful
funding model. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, which the dominant faction
in today's Democrat Party destroyed, would be the closest parallel, and the
material conditions of working people are worse today than they were in Jackson's
time, and institutions generally far less likely to be perceived as legitimate.
And if we consider the idea that one of Sander's strategic goals was not the
office but the successful propagation of the socialist idea - as a Johnny Appleseed,
rather than
a happy warrior - then the campaign was a success by any measure. (That
said, readers know my priors on this: I define victory in 2016 as the creation
of independent entities with a left voice; an "Overton Prism," as it were, three-sided,
rather than an Overton Window, two-sided. I've got some hope that this victory
is on the way, because it's bigger than any election.)
With those views as background, most of the attacks on Sanders accuse him
of bad faith. This was the case with the Green Party's successfully propagated
"sheepdog" meme; it's also the case with the various forms of post-defeat armchair
cynicism, all of which urge, that in some way Sanders succeeded by betraying
his supporters in some way. (This is, I suppose, easier to accept than the idea
that Sanders got a beating by an powerful political campaign with a ton of money
and the virtually unanimous support of the political class.)
If Sanders had defined success as betraying his supporters, I would expect
him to act and behave like a successful man. That's not the case. Here is Sanders
putting Clinton's name into nomination:
It's a sad, even awful, moment, I agree, but politics ain't beanbag. While
it would be irresponsible to speculate that Sanders looks so strained and unhappy
because he found a horse's head in his bed (
"Mrs. Clinton never asks a second favor once she's refused the first, understood?"
), his body language certainly doesn't look like he's a happy man, a man
who is happy with the deal he's made, or a man who has achieved success through
the betrayal of others; you'd have to look at the smiling faces on the Democrat
main stage for that.
I don't know the psychology of Sanders, but, how much did he really expect
to win in the early days of his campaign? Could "getting the Socialism ball
rolling" have been his definition of success in the beginning? Like Trump,
the other disruptional candidate, could his very success in the primary
season have surprised him? If so, then his pivot back to the Senate and
Socialist coalition movement building makes perfect sense.
In this sense, the anger focused on Sanders would be a displacement
of the groundswell of anger by the general public at the sheer brazenness
of the DNC's anti public policies. The DNC has shown contempt and disdain
for the very people they purport to work for. Whoever shifted the popular
anger from the DNC onto Sanders has done a masterful job of propaganda.
Saint Bernays would be proud.
I don't think he was expecting to win when he started, but at the same
time he was probably thinking it was worth a running a primary challenge
to change the conversation. His political strategy of trying to increase
turnout of working class voters was not a bad one, considering that Democrat
primary voters have lately been the demographics who support either neoliberalism
or would be racially biased against a non-Christian candidate. He was mainly
hurt by three things, two of which were largely out of his control: (1)
he lacked the polish/media saavy to not get dragged into minor issues that
distracted from his core message (like the flap about calling Clinton unqualified,
or his visit to the Vatican), (2) he literally had the entire media and
political establishment working against him, and arguably inciting voter
suppression and fraud , and (3) his non-Christianity limited his ability
to coalesce support from older African-Americans, which hurt him in the
South and hurt him from a perception standpoint.
What remains to be seen is where his supporters go now. Dissatisfaction
with the status quo will only continue to increase. Something interesting
though, is that Tulsi Gabbard seems to be setting herself to be the continuation
of the Sanders movement. I am unfamiliar with her policies, but her positioning
is in stark contrast to the rest of the Democrat Party.
Older people–and older AAs are no exception–I think just are less
receptive to the Sanders message. They've been propagandized for too long
and too successfully. Actually I don't just think this, the polling data
fairly screams it. It might be a waste of time chasing those AA church lady
grandmothers, they are right wing conservatives in almost any objective
sense who minus the identity politics woo woo would be Republicans but just
need a safe space to be that way without rubbing shoulders with overt white
racists, and the corporate neocon-neolib DP mainstream is a perfect fit
for them.
Obama, who pretty much could be George W Bush in blackface, is the
perfect identity politics totem for that role. The good news is obviously
that this demographic is dying off and young AAs don't share their elders'
pretty extreme right wing Christian viewpoint. I don't think the left needs
to fix that "problem" or even can. Time will fix it and nothing much else
can.
"... …and vote FOR the person who voted for the invasion of Iraq, supported NAFTA and the undermining of universal health coverage in support of private insurance companies/managed care, was likely the deciding factor in overthrowing the Libyan government, was instrumental in supporting multiple dictatorships in Haiti (good pieces linked to that on NC recently), was possibly instrumental in and for sure responsible for the support after the fact of the coup in Honduras, was a founder of what might go down in history as one of the largest fraudulent charities ever (with those tentacles doing the very same things the DNC is accusing Putin of doing), has a history of quid pro quo dealings with predator international investment banks and vulture capitalists (which Elizabeth Warren has identified in speeches that are available on Youtube)… one could go on and on, but basically the candidate who has never met a nation state or corrupt business dealing that she didn't want to stick herself in the middle of the dealings with… ..."
"... I would think the xenophobe might look more attractive to non-passport holders of the American empire simply based upon a cursory reading of history. But nothing should surprise me anymore. ..."
This is some irresponsible stuff. For all of Naked Capitalism's concerns
with Clinton's neocon tendencies, you neglect to understand that we are
terrified of Trump here in Europe, and as a Brazilian, I do not know a single
person from my country who would prefer him as President. 2016 Democrats
are not "neoliberals," even as they operate in a neoliberal structure. The
only thing any of this indicates is Trump has is that he has *no record*
– Hudson thinks that every last thing that happened under the Obama government
was out of the President's personal desire to make it so. If Trump had a
political career, he would be no better, if not much worse. Trump's career
in business does not support Hudson's optimism, at all.
I do agree with you. I have many friends in Europe and Australia who
are literally begging me to vote for Clinton – and they don't like her much
either.
I love NC, but I disagree with the fawning acceptance of Trump as somehow
fit to be President. He's a racist, bigoted, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist
jerk with no really good plans in place. The so-called "ideas" or "plans"
that he has do not pencil out and would bankrupt this country should they
ever be implemented. I agree that Clinton is awful and was well nigh disgusted
with the DNC convention (but expected nothing less or different).
But voting for Trump is irresponsible in my opinion. I just cannot go
there. Yet and still in this nation today, you are free to vote for who
you want.
You would rather vote against the egomaniacal, sexist, xenophobe,
who is willing to downshift international military interventions, lessen
spending on NATO, work WITH the Russians on ISIS, possibly exit trade neoliberal
trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO (while not adopting the TPP), etc…
…and vote FOR the person who voted for the invasion of Iraq, supported
NAFTA and the undermining of universal health coverage in support of private
insurance companies/managed care, was likely the deciding factor in overthrowing
the Libyan government, was instrumental in supporting multiple dictatorships
in Haiti (good pieces linked to that on NC recently), was possibly instrumental
in and for sure responsible for the support after the fact of the coup in
Honduras, was a founder of what might go down in history as one of the largest
fraudulent charities ever (with those tentacles doing the very same things
the DNC is accusing Putin of doing), has a history of quid pro quo dealings
with predator international investment banks and vulture capitalists (which
Elizabeth Warren has identified in speeches that are available on Youtube)…
one could go on and on, but basically the candidate who has never met a
nation state or corrupt business dealing that she didn't want to stick herself
in the middle of the dealings with…
I would think the xenophobe might look more attractive to non-passport
holders of the American empire simply based upon a cursory reading of history.
But nothing should surprise me anymore.
There were some newbie walk-ins at the top of the thread who were keen
on Trump, which I agree was creepy.
But aside from our relentless jgordon, no regular LIKES Trump. The ones
who say they will vote for him weigh that choice against Jill Stein. They
see themselves reluctantly voting for Trump as the "less effective evil,"
that as an outsider, hated by his own party, he won't get much done. Think
Jimmy Carter cubed. The other reasons for being willing to consider Trump
are that Hilary clearly wants a hot war with Russia, and that she will push
for the TPP, which is a dangerous and irrevocable deal.
As someone who consistently advocates here for Trump being the lesser
evil, I want to chime in behind Yves. I do not like Trump. I just consider
putting him into the Presidency to be a far safer choice than enabling Clinton
into power, and I recognize that however I choose to vote, one of those
two people will be President. I also value highly the possibility of weakening
the hold of big finance and corporations over the Democratic Party by purging
the Clintons and leaving the party too weak to be of much use to its current
owners.
Fundamentally, I am Anyone But Clinton, a handy catchphrase that captures
my perspective exactly. I will probably end up voting for a socialist third
party no one ever discusses here, because why not support the party closest
to my own values and policy desires? But if Stein OR Trump actually got
enough traction to possibly take my state, I'd add my vote to that pile,
happily. Well, "happily" in that I would feel I was making the best possible
choice with whatever tiny amount of agency my vote represents. But the next
four years are likely to be quite grim, no matter what.
As I live in CA, which is assumed to be in the bag for HRC, my vote against
her is only of import to me.
This election is akin to someone who desperately needs a tricky surgery
and their choice of surgeons is limited to two with long records of malpractice
but with good media advertising campaigns.
When I visualize a President Hillary Clinton, my only hope is that once
she has successfully climbed the Presidential mountain she has so doggedly
pursued (as her faux "namesake" Sir Edmund did his), she might realize she
should serve the people, not the elite.
But my hope in the original trademarked "Hope" candidate Obama dissipated
rather quickly.
And Hillary has a lifetime record of serving herself, her family and
her ambitions, not the people.
Look, I live in Australia and the msm Clinton bias verges on
is ridiculous. Why is Europe more terrified of Trump than Clinton?
The media? I understand Trump is problematic, but do you know Hillary's
history? Looking forward to a hot war with Russia?
As an Argentinian, I urge you to vote for Trump.
As bad as Bush was for you and for Middle East, in Latin America we enjoy
the possibility of finding our own ways to develop, as Bush did not care
about us.
Once Obama got to office, the wave changed starting from the Honduras' coup,
followed by Paraguay coup. Now, the only countries resisting are the ones
that reformed its constitution: Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.
Policies of Democrats to Latin America, from some reason that I do not comprehend,
have been particularly bad for Latin America. The only exception I remember
is the active policies of Jimmy Carter against the violation of human rights
in Argentina.
Not surprised by the European take on Trump. I've caught bits and pieces
of CBC coverage(can't stomach much of it) and they make CNN look objective!
Trump has been neatly inserted into the bad guy role and all coverage assumes
the viewers only care about one thing: stopping Trump. You'd think they
were still covering Iraq and talking about Saddam, not Donald. I can't call
the CBC's coverage of Trump juvenile because it's barely infantile in its
simplicity. Other Canadian media outlets are pretty much falling in with
the CBC narrative. After all, you think pro-neocon/pro-war Sun Media is
going to give Trump and his anti-war rhetoric any chance?
To put it simply: Canadian media is a captured entity. No surprise as
Canada has always done what it takes to have a presence in the imperial
court(even if it's a spot in the far corner). This is Canada's reason for
being: to kiss the imperial ass. First the British Empire and now the American
Empire. As a good loyal supplicant, we've now stepped forward to combat
the latest imperial threat: Donald Trump.
The irony is delightful. Part of the national narrative here is how much
better educated we are than those ignorant Americans. I'm sure Europeans
share the same conceit. Yet we are the ones swallowing all the establishment
propaganda while Americans are seeing through all the media lies, are engaged
and demanding change. I guess this makes sense. After all, Americans have
run the world, while Europeans are the "has beens" and Canadians the "never
have been at all"!
"... They tell us that Hillary is a flawed but basically progressive candidate who shouldn't be "demonized." After all, she's spent her "entire life" advocating on behalf of "women and girls." ..."
"... As Doug Henwood has pointed out , most of what Clinton did "for women and girls" as Secretary of State was to do photo-ops with women around the world wearing colorful ethnic garb. ..."
"... The candidate herself frequently talks up the sheer number of miles she traveled as if this alone added up to some sort of praiseworthy political accomplishment. The fact is that the policies she flew around the world supporting were a disaster for poor people around the world, and especially for poor women. ..."
"... During the early years of the Obama administration, the Haitian government tried to raise the minimum wage there to all of 61 cents an hour, which works out to about five dollars a day. (The minimum wage before the proposed increase was 22 cents.) Diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks in 2011 show that the sweatshops supplying Hanes and Levi-Strauss made a huge stink, and got the State Department involved to lobby the Haitian government against their plan to go to all the way up to 61 cents an hour. ..."
"... Today, after preparing to write this article by reviewing Secretary Clinton's disgusting rhetoric about welfare mothers and reviewing the facts about workfare, benefit reductions, and the uptick in extreme poverty, I know exactly what to think. Guns should be confiscated from NRA members and redistributed to single mothers who have been kicked off of benefits. Lacking money from the now-defunct Aid to Families with Dependent Children program to help them keep the lights on and buy groceries for their kids, let's give them the ability to procure groceries by other means. ..."
"... Ben Burgis is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Underwood International College, Yonsei University. ..."
I voted for
Jill Stein in 2012, and I'll do so again as a matter of course if Hillary is nominated in 2016.
I'm cautiously optimistic that a non-trivial fraction of those currently Feeling the Bern may do
the same, just as a spillover effect from Ron Paul's liberatarian-ish Presidential campaign in 2012
seems to have contributed to the unprecedented million votes received by Libertarian Party candidate
Gary Johnson in the 2012 general election. I would argue that breaking the stranglehold of the
two-party 'duopoly' on American politics is clearly in the interests of working people-not to mention
the interests of all the people in the third world who live in fear of American bombs. As OACW union
leader Tony Mazzocchi
was fond of saying, "The bosses have two parties. We need one of our own."
But let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm wrong about all of that. Let's assume, as liberal
pundits uniformly insist, that it would be dangerously irresponsible to even consider voting for
anyone but Hillary Clinton in the general election. Even granting that premise, why not vote for
her with rubber gloves and open eyes?
Instead of emulating the French, scolding liberal commentators constantly tell us that the differences
between Hillary and Bernie shouldn't be "exaggerated." They tell us that Hillary is a flawed
but basically progressive candidate who shouldn't be "demonized." After all, she's spent her "entire
life" advocating on behalf of "women and girls."
As Doug Henwood has
pointed
out, most of what Clinton did "for women and girls" as Secretary of State was to do photo-ops
with women around the world wearing colorful ethnic garb. Indeed, it's revealing that, when
you dig beyond bumper sticker slogans like "advocacy on behalf of women and girls," Clinton supporters
rarely want to discuss the particulars of her record. The candidate herself frequently talks
up the sheer number of miles she traveled as if this alone added up to some sort of praiseworthy
political accomplishment. The fact is that the policies she flew around the world supporting were
a disaster for poor people around the world, and especially for poor women.
During the early years of the Obama administration, the Haitian government tried to raise
the minimum wage there to all of 61 cents an hour, which works out to about five dollars a day. (The
minimum wage before the proposed increase was 22 cents.) Diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks
in 2011 show that the sweatshops supplying Hanes and Levi-Strauss made a huge stink, and got the
State Department involved to lobby the Haitian government
against
their plan to go to all the way up to 61 cents an hour. The U.S. State Department has a
fairly massive level of sway in the deliberations of the Haitian government, considering the United
States' long history of meddling, backing coups, and even invading the country when governments there
displease Uncle Sam. Nor is this ancient history from the Cold War. U.S. Marines removed the democratically
elected President of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, in 2004. So when the U.S. Embassy says jump,
the Haitian government tends to ask how high. In this case, they ended up cutting the proposed minimum
wage hike of 39 cents an hour all the way down to 9 cents. It might be worth thinking hard about
the fact that the girls sewing your jeans have Hillary Clinton to thank for their current salary
of 31 cents an hour next time a liberal scold tells you not to "demonize" Secretary Clinton.
Of course, Haitians are foreigners, and black foreigners at that, so maybe they don't quite count.
(After all, Hillary's liberal supporters are willing to overlook that small matter of her support
for the invasion of Iraq.) Perhaps, in evaluating her record, we should focus on her no-doubt glorious
history of domestic progressivism.
Back in the mid-1980s, the Clintons and a lot of their friends founded something called the Democratic
Leadership Council to move the Democratic Party back to "the center." Throughout that decade, Ronald
Reagan had led the Republicans in demonizing "welfare queens" allegedly ripping off vast sums from
the hard-working taxpayers. The evidence for the claim that a non-trivial amount of money was being
lost to welfare benefits being paid out to people who simply didn't want to work was always pretty
thin, but it hardly mattered. The racial subtext was powerful and it was thinly disguised, and Reagan's
skillful use of this rhetoric paid off in a big way for the GOP.
When the Democratic Leadership Council, which still claimed to be "socially progressive," talked
about moving "to the center" on economic issues, this is precisely the center they were talking about
capturing. Bill Clinton made it explicit in 1992 with his campaign promise to "end welfare as we
know it." Unlike quite a few of his other promises, he kept this one, signing away the end of federal
welfare requirements in 1996. The impact of this "reform" on millions of desperate people was predictably
grim, even for those who did manage to hold onto some kind of benefits so they could keep the heat
on and make rent.
(Google "workfare" to see what this often looked like in practice. One of the options Google helpfully
offers you when you type that word into the search engine is workfare is a form of slave labor.)
With federal requirements abolished, the paltry funds made available for welfare were sent out as
bloc grants to the states, where bloody-minded conservative state legislatures could have their way
with the programs. In the years since "welfare reform" was passed, the percentage of Americans living
in extreme poverty has greatly increased. As Ryan Cooper
puts it, "Even after the worst economic crisis in 80 years, TANF has basically ceased to exist
in much of the country. Eligibility requirements have gotten so onerous, and benefit levels so miserly,
that many poor people haven't even heard of the program, or think it was abolished."
So, where was Hillary Clinton in all this? She was an enthusiastic supporter of her husband's
initiative, both in her role as an administration advisor and in her
many public statements on the matter, including ones that she made after Bill's Presidency ended
and she was elected to the Senate. She called single mothers on benefits "deadbeats" and talked about
them over and over again in the most offensively cliched terms, as people who knew nothing but "dependency"
and had no inkling of the value of work. So, for example, using Ronald Reagan's trademark rhetorical
technique of a supposedly representative anecdote that sounds authoritative becomes it comes with
a proper name, Clinton talked about a former welfare queen named Rhonda Costa. "Rhonda Costa's daughter
came home from school and announced, 'Mommy, I'm tired of seeing you sitting around the house doing
nothing.' That's the day Rhonda decided to get off welfare…."
Because it's just that easy, right? These people are clearly on welfare because they don't want
to work, and any time they decide that they'd like a job, one will fall in their lap. It's certainly
not as if holes on resumes matter, or workfare requirements often prevent welfare recipients from
being able to go to job interviews, or "structural unemployment" is a feature of market economies.
For lifelong upper class pundits, these statements may not actually cause much feeling inside
of them. But, as someone who actually grew up in and adjacent to the class of people being described
here, I can tell you that these are really the height of anti-poor slurs. Under Clinton's estimation,
welfare beneficiaries are dignity-lacking dependent deadbeats who are such losers that even their
own kids think they are trash. We don't talk a lot about classism in the US (and frankly I don't
like the term), but that's what this is. It is the class equivalent of calling women airhead bimbos.
Nor, of course, are the class and gender dimensions of all this entirely unrelated. Not so coincidentally,
the picture of an allegedly typical welfare recipient you get from Hillary Clinton's rhetoric on
this-the "Rhonda Costa" of her anecdote-is a single mother.
As Bernie Sanders tried to keep the focus of this year's Democratic debates on economics and his
proposals to expand the welfare state, Hillary Clinton changed the subject as often as possible to
guns. This is the one issue where the Secretary thought she had an opening to outflank Bernie Sanders
on the "left," on the grounds that Senator Sanders has sometimes been insufficiently enthusiastic
about gun control.
It's a complicated issue. On the one hand, the statistics about gun accidents, never mind gun
crimes, are pretty grim. On the other hand, the fact that "stop and frisk" started as a program to
go after illegal guns should make leftists who harbor concerns about police power and the carceral
state think twice about bold new gun regulations are likely to play out. On a normal day, I'm not
entirely sure what to think.
Today, after preparing to write this article by reviewing Secretary Clinton's disgusting rhetoric
about welfare mothers and reviewing the facts about workfare, benefit reductions, and the uptick
in extreme poverty, I know exactly what to think. Guns should be confiscated from NRA members and
redistributed to single mothers who have been kicked off of benefits. Lacking money from the now-defunct
Aid to Families with Dependent Children program to help them keep the lights on and buy groceries
for their kids, let's give them the ability to procure groceries by other means.
"... You have succeeded in making Hillary's coronation unpleasant for her. Embarrassed her with her shady past, and demonstrated on topics on which she has a firm interest in pas$$ing (TPP). ..."
"... For those of you who believe Jill Stein is worthy of a vote, I do not believe so. If she were motivated then she would be copying Bernie's fundraising activities, and not off in her own world of irrelevance (and possibly privilege). The Iron Law of Institutions hold here, she is happier in her position and has demonstrated no incentive to change things. ..."
"... Of course Clinton does not respect my views. But the idea that Donald Trump "respects my views" is patently ludicrous. ..."
I'll be blunt. You and you beliefs will be thrown under the bus, and trampled into the dust.
Hilary has plans to attract
Republican Votes
to secure the presidency, as predicted.
You have succeeded in making Hillary's coronation unpleasant for her. Embarrassed her with
her shady past, and demonstrated on topics on which she has a firm interest in pas$$ing (TPP).
Note:
The DNC has also informed Sanders delegates that they will have their credentials taken
away for holding up anti-TPP signage as well
That is not the action of a person who respects your views in any manner at all.
For those of you who believe Jill Stein is worthy of a vote, I do not believe so. If she
were motivated then she would be copying Bernie's fundraising activities, and not off in her own
world of irrelevance (and possibly privilege). The Iron Law of Institutions hold here, she is
happier in her position and has demonstrated no incentive to change things.
So who will you vote for? That's a poor question, a better question is who will you vote against?
Why do I write that? Well, you can vote for (Jill, the Looser, Stein), a person who will damage
you (Hillary the Honest), or a person who might help you (Donald the Magnificent). – Just to be
clear, sarcasm is intended in all three instances.
Good luck with that decision, mine is made, and I made it months ago (a list of preferences,
1, 2 3), 3 was ABC – Anyone but Clinton, for I believe firmly that she will do me no good, and
probably do myself and my children and my grandchildren much harm.
What I read here is people somewhere in the stages of grief. Time to move on, at least by November.
Of course Clinton does not respect my views. But the idea that Donald Trump "respects my
views" is patently ludicrous.
And is a fallacy of false choice. I'm surprised you offer that. The fact that Trump doesn't "respect
your views" doesn't make HRC a more acceptable choice.
...Although I know other people who are convinced that Clinton is the lesser evil. Anyhow,
Lesser Evilism is only relevant in swing states. Everywhere else, people ought to vote strategically.
They should look to the future, and choose a candidate who will help create positive outcomes
in future elections. We already know that the result of the 2016 election will be a disaster.
"... 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.
"... So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters. Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and them. ..."
"... His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued, and should seriously consider some rest. ..."
"... Think about all that man has put himself, his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes onto say it's not important, the issues are. ..."
"... Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm not even a Sanders supporter. ..."
"... And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues he's fighting for! ..."
For those who have a Twitter account, checkout #dncleak or #dncleaks on the
latest over the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails.
Here's one -"Hillary Clinton is now blaming the Russians for leaking the
emails. Like that makes it any better that you rigged the primary."
Sanders to Chuck Todd on the leaks -
Todd: "So just to sum up here, these leaks, these emails, it hasn't given
you any pause about your support for Hillary Clinton?"
Sanders: "No, no, no. We are going to do everything that we can to protect
working families in this country. And again, Chuc, I know media is not necessarily
focused on these things. But what a campaign is about is not Hillary Clinton,
it's not Donald Trump. It is the people of this country, blah blah blah..."
"[...] And I'm going to go around the country discussing them [issues] and
making sure Hillary Clinton is elected president."
So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally
marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most
importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership
of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints
the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the
DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters.
Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him
if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and
them.
UNFRIGGINBELIEVABLE!
His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely
bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued,
and should seriously consider some rest.
I cannot imagine learning after years of planning, hard work and personal
sacrifices being made to fulfill my lifelong ambition to get within a whisker
of achieving my goals, only to learn within weeks after capitulating, that my
entire life's effort was undermined from the beginning by the very apparatus
I aligned with, albeit as an Indy, for decades. An apparatus that must remain
neutral.
Think about his response to Todd. Think about all that man has put himself,
his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were
ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how
his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes
onto say it's not important, the issues are.
If I were a Bernie supporter I'd be starting a campaign to convince that
man to take some serious time off. Go fishing. Go for hikes whatever. Just get
away from the bubble and clear your head and soul.
Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC
put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their
Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm
not even a Sanders supporter.
And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same
party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues
he's fighting for!
Bernie Sanders Gets Booed When He Asks Delegates to Elect Hillary Clinton | 25 July 2016 |The
crowd of delegates in the convention center ballroom didn't come for unity: They came for Bernie
Sanders. Sanders, the Vermont senator whose bid to beat back Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination
fell short, took the stage this afternoon to speak to his delegates before he'll take a bigger stage
in a few hours-at the Democratic National Convention on its opening night, in a bid to promote unity
in the party as it gears up to face Republican Donald Trump in the fall. The packed ballroom cheered
and chanted as Sanders recounted the successes of his campaign...But when he finally got around to
speaking about the woman who will actually be the Democratic nominee, the crowd soured on their hero.
"... So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally
marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most importantly,
his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership of the Democratic
Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints the Director who we
all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the DNC leadership knowingly
and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters. Yet, Sanders remains loyal
and naively believes his voters will stay with him if he sticks with the party and
their chosen candidate that screwed him and them. ..."
"... His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely bonded
with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued, and
should seriously consider some rest. ..."
"... I cannot imagine learning after years of planning, hard work and personal
sacrifices being made to fulfill my lifelong ambition to get within a whisker of
achieving my goals, only to learn within weeks after capitulating, that my entire
life's effort was undermined from the beginning by the very apparatus I aligned
with, albeit as an Indy, for decades. An apparatus that must remain neutral. ..."
"... Think about all that man has put himself, his family, his workers, his
voters through this last year. His efforts were ginormous. Yet, within less than
48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how his life's work was deliberately,
with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes onto say it's not important, the issues
are. ..."
"... Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC
put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their
Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm not
even a Sanders supporter. ..."
"... And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same
party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues
he's fighting for! ..."
"... AFAICT he got very little for his support (will he get a cabinet position
for himself?). He didn't have to endorse Hillary. He doesn't have to speak at the
Convention (but he will tonight). ..."
For those who have a Twitter account, checkout #dncleak or #dncleaks on the
latest over the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails.
Here's one -"Hillary Clinton is now blaming the Russians for leaking the
emails. Like that makes it any better that you rigged the primary."
Sanders to Chuck Todd on the leaks -
Todd: "So just to sum up here, these leaks, these emails, it hasn't
given you any pause about your support for Hillary Clinton?"
Sanders: "No, no, no. We are going to do everything that we can
to protect working families in this country. And again, Chuc, I know media
is not necessarily focused on these things. But what a campaign is about
is not Hillary Clinton, it's not Donald Trump. It is the people of this
country, blah blah blah..."
"[...] And I'm going to go around the country discussing them [issues] and
making sure Hillary Clinton is elected president."
So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally
marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most
importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership
of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints
the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the
DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters.
Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him
if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and
them.
UNFRIGGINBELIEVABLE!
His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely
bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued,
and should seriously consider some rest.
I cannot imagine learning after years of planning, hard work and personal
sacrifices being made to fulfill my lifelong ambition to get within a whisker
of achieving my goals, only to learn within weeks after capitulating, that my
entire life's effort was undermined from the beginning by the very apparatus
I aligned with, albeit as an Indy, for decades. An apparatus that must remain
neutral.
Think about his response to Todd. Think about all that man has put himself,
his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were
ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how
his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes
onto say it's not important, the issues are.
If I were a Bernie supporter I'd be starting a campaign to convince that
man to take some serious time off. Go fishing. Go for hikes whatever. Just get
away from the bubble and clear your head and soul.
Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC
put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their
Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm
not even a Sanders supporter.
And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same
party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues
he's fighting for!
His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome.
You are assuming that Sanders is a victim instead of a conspirator.
Why
would anyone give any politician in our corrupt system the benefit of the
doubt? Even one that seems to be against 'the system'?
Why didn't Bernie release more than one year of tax returns?
Especially since Hillary cited this as a reason not to release
the transcripts of her speaches to Goldman Sachs.
Why didn't Bernie use the emails against Hillary after the State
Department Inspector General released their report?
This official report clearly demonstrated that Hillary
had consistently misled the nation about her emails.
Why didn't Bernie attack Obama's record on Black/Minority affairs?
Obama's support is part of the reason that Blacks/Minorities
were voting for Hillary. Obama never went to Feruson or New York
or Baltimore. Obama's weak economic stimulous and austerity policies
have been very bad for blacks/minorities. Obama bailed out banks
that targeted minorities for toxic loans. Etc.
Why does Bernie, at 74-years old, care more about Hillary (which
he calls a friend of 25 years) and the Democratic Party than his principles?
AFAICT he got very little for his support (will he get a
cabinet position for himself?). He didn't have to endorse Hillary.
He doesn't have to speak at the Convention (but he will tonight).
Trump may not know or care to know that Barack Obama has spent eight years pounding on al Qaeda,
not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but also through the use of drones and other covert campaigns in
Syria, Somalia, and Yemen. In his two terms, George W. Bush ordered 49 drone strikes against al Qaeda
and Taliban-associated targets in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Obama, during his first two years
of office, ordered 174. These are facts, but to Trump and Giuliani, they may not matter. After all,
what good does killing radical Islamic terrorists do if Obama refuses to call the enemy by its name?
1). You uncritically express the establishment line that "Obama is killing radical terrorists,"
when the most accurate description is "Obama is killing people suspected of something, and also killing
those near them."
2). 90% of drone strike victims are not the intended target.
3). Obama's militarism is founded on Full Spectrum Dominance for corporate America and allied
interests, not "fighting terrorism."
4). Chest-pounding to boast Obama is a violent bastard like the Republicans is – while true –
obscene.
W0X0F July 23 2016, 9:57 p.m.
Giuliani is one of the bad guys. He has helped cover up the 9/11 deception. Bldg 7 contained his
emergency HQ. We all know it was "pulled"!
Orville, July 23 2016, 9:05 p.m.
Alas, Guliani is still around. I remember how the media announced him as the winner of a
presidential debate, solely for going against Ron Paul's factual statement that we are hated
for our overseas meddling. (Never mind that various intelligence figures backed Paul-
including Michael Scheuer, who endorsed Paul the next day, or that the voters themselves
backed Paul in the polls and primaries.
George C, July 23 2016, 8:40 p.m.
"Man has an intense need for certainty; he wants to believe that there is no need to doubt
that the method by which he makes his decisions is right. In fact, he would rather make the
"wrong" decision and be sure about it than the "right" decision and be tormented with doubt
about its validity. This is one of the psychological reasons for man's belief in idols and
political leaders. They all take out doubt and risk from his decision making; this does not
mean that there is not a risk for his life, freedom, etc., after the decision has been made,
but that there is no risk that the method of his decision making was wrong. For many centuries
certainty
Fromm, Erich. The Revolution of Hope: Toward a Humanized Technology
photosymbiosis -> rrheard, July 23 2016, 8:45 p.m.
I don't know, I appreciate the focus on Giuliani who is an utter slimeball in the same mold
as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and the Clintons.
However, a more careful analysis of Giuliani's background in the second section ('Altar Boys')
would have had a more devastating impact. Giuliani is the perfect example of a corrupt
prosecutor; his claim to fame was prosecuting a Italian mafia drug ring – and then he went to
work for the Purdue Pharma oxycontin drug ring. He's also a close long-time associate of FBI
Director Louis Freeh, who notably went to work for the Wall Street credit giant MBNA (#2 Bush
donor after Enron) after his FBI term ended. MBNA was later bought by Bank of America, who
wrote off $60 billion in shady MBNA credit loans from 2008-2010, probably got a taxpayer
bailout for that too. Who are the crooks, again?
See David Vise's "The Bureau and the Mole" about FBI agent / Soviet mole (and Opus Dei member)
Robert Hannsen, about the Giuliani-Freeh connection.
http://blogcritics.org/spy-vs-spy-the-bureau-and/
Really, all of Giuliani's talk about "law and order" is utter BS; the guy is a crook as his
lobbying the DEA to get Purdue Pharma off criminal charges for illegal oxycontin distribution
shows. This was all done through a shady firm he set up after leaving office called "Giuliani
Partners" c.2002
Crooked Rudy Giuliani, Lyin' Rudy Giuliani – basically a con artist in the same mold as the
Clintons, cashing in with the corporate crooks every chance they can get. (Giuliani pulled in
$11 million in speaking fees in 2006 alone, outdoing Clinton I think).
Fellow Citizen, July 23 2016, 7:29 p.m.
How are Republicans going to make America great again when the problem is Democrats
becoming Republicans by destroying the American middle class, and placeing our poor in what
now has become a state of abject poverty?
"... On Monday night, aides for the former secretary of state held a private conference call with members of the Democratic National Committee's Rules Committee and laid out how the campaign would like those members to vote at an upcoming rules meeting in Philadelphia. The purpose of the conference call was to answer any questions and ensure that the Rules Committee members, picked by DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and by Clinton, remained in lockstep with the presumptive Democratic nominee. ..."
"... The stars will ultimately align and the convention will go smoothly and without a hitch. Bernie and Liddy Warren will continue their unabashed endorsement of Her, the party will be united, and the good of the American people will be top priority on the go forward. Curtain. Exit stage left. Thank you for attending another Clinton Theater production. ..."
Looks like there's a slightly different dynamic in the Clinton camp:
On Monday night, aides for the former secretary of state held a private conference call
with members of the Democratic National Committee's Rules Committee and laid out how the campaign
would like those members to vote at an upcoming rules meeting in Philadelphia. The purpose
of the conference call was to answer any questions and ensure that the Rules Committee members,
picked by DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and by Clinton, remained in lockstep with
the presumptive Democratic nominee.
The roughly 30-minute call was a glimpse into how Clinton officials have sought to shape
the party platform and party rules with minimal public drama. Campaign officials have corresponded
with members via text messages to direct them how to vote and counseled them to bring concerns
directly to the campaign, rather than follow a process laid out by the DNC for submitting amendments
and resolutions. …
The plea to keep any policy disputes in-house, and off-camera, underscores the campaign's
determination to present a united front at the convention, and stave off any conflict between
the Clinton-aligned committee members and Sanders members during the drafting process. A few
months ago, Sanders was vowing to take his policy sticking points all the way to the convention
floor.
This is nothing more than a ploy to get Sanders supporters to watch the convention coverage,
so we can become acquainted with the "new" Hillary Clinton, and thus vote for Her in November.
"Let's all tune in; maybe the Bernie delegates will turn the party upside down". Expect to
be disappointed.
The stars will ultimately align and the convention will go smoothly and without a hitch. Bernie
and Liddy Warren will continue their unabashed endorsement of Her, the party will be united, and
the good of the American people will be top priority on the go forward. Curtain. Exit stage left.
Thank you for attending another Clinton Theater production.
Oh, and none of the speeches will result in legislation that actually benefits the American
people, but at least they won't be plagiarized!
Three days after the mysterious Turkish coup that was put down almost instantly, Turkish
president Erdogan has conducted massive purges of the judiciary and the military. He even
referred to the coup as a "godsend" that would allow him to rid the government of those who are
disloyal. The purges have focused attention in Washington and Brussels, where he is being warned
that talks for EU membership - and even existing NATO membership - may be at risk if the
government crackdown gets more serious. Is the US and EU bluffing? After all, Erdogan currently
has nearly three million Syrian refugees on Turkish soil that he could send to Europe at any
time. And closing the US base at Incirlik would create havoc for US "power projection" in the
region. We examine these and more in today's Ron Paul Liberty Report:
News reports about the recently released 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks
are typically dismissive: this is nothing new, it's just circumstantial evidence, and there's no
"smoking gun." Yet given what the report actually says – and these news accounts are remarkably
sparse when it comes to verbatim quotes – it's hard to fathom what would constitute a smoking
gun.
To begin with, let's start with what's not in these pages: there are numerous redactions. And
they are rather odd. When one expects to read the words "CIA" or "FBI," instead we get a
blacked-out word. Entire paragraphs are redacted – often at crucial points. So it's reasonable to
assume that, if there is a smoking gun, it's contained in the portions we're not allowed to see.
Presumably the members of Congress with access to the document prior to its release who have been
telling us that it changes their entire conception of the 9/11 attacks – and our relationship
with the Saudis – read the unredacted version. Which points to the conclusion that the omissions
left out crucial information – perhaps including the vaunted smoking gun.
In any case, what we have access to makes more than just a substantial case: it shows that the
Saudi government – including top officials, such as then Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince
Bandar bin Sultan, and other members of the royal family – financed and actively aided the
hijackers prior to September 11, 2001.
"... The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, maintained this secrecy for several reasons. First, it was concerned that the documents would jeopardize its relations with Saudi Arabia, which, after Israel, is Washington's closest ally in the Middle East, a partner in bloody operations from Afghanistan to Syria to Yemen, and the world's biggest buyer of American arms. ..."
"... Even more importantly, it was concerned that the 28 pages would further expose the abject criminality of the US government's role in facilitating the attacks of 9/11 and then lying about their source and exploiting them to justify savage wars of aggression, first against Afghanistan and then against Iraq. These wars have claimed over a million lives. The false narrative created around the September 11 attacks remains the ideological pillar of the US campaign of global militarism conducted in the name of a "war on terror." ..."
"... The report focuses in part on the role of one Omar al-Bayoumi, who was described to the FBI as a Saudi intelligence officer, and, according to FBI files, "provided substantial assistance to hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi after they arrived in San Diego in February 2000." ..."
"... According to the report, al-Bayoumi had previously worked for the Saudi Civil Aviation Association and, in the period leading up to 9/11, was "in frequent contact with the Emir at the Saudi Defense Ministry responsible for air traffic control." Phone records showed him calling Saudi government agencies 100 times between January and May of 2000. ..."
"... Bassnan's wife also received a monthly stipend from Princess Haifa, the Saudi ambassador's wife, to the tune of $2,000 a month. As well, the FBI found one $15,000 check written by Bandar himself in 1998 to Bassnan. The report states that FBI information indicated that Bassnan was "an extremist and supporter of Usama Bin Ladin," who spoke of the Al Qaeda leader "as if he were god." ..."
"... The obvious anomalies in the Pentagon incident and the Shanksville, Pennsylvania crash merely add to the mountain of evidence that exists pointing to some cabal that ran a MIHOP operation that day. This is not new information and has been made available by the many independent investigators who have been diligently digging into this signal event for nearly 15 years now. ..."
"... Much more likely suspects would be those Americans named by Kevin Ryan in his book "Another Nineteen", and/or the Israeli Mossad and military agents (5 of whom were arrested in New Jersey while making a video record of "the event" and who were noticed by an outraged citizen who called local police who arrested them and the spent 2 months in U.S. jails, finally released by dual Israeli / U.S. citizen Michael Chertoff, 3 of them appeared later on Israeli TV and bragged about the operation in plain Hebrew). ..."
"... My father was a structural design engineer who designed heavy steel structures like the WTC and also nuclear power plants and wind tunnels for NASA. He was an expert on types of steel, how it was made and what its properties were. The moment he saw the first tower collapse into it own footprint, he said 'That's a controlled demolition." He knew that fire alone would not have been enough to even dent the steel in the WTC, let alone pulverize it. Everything in the building could have burned and the steel would have remained standing, slightly scorched, but largely intact. To believe otherwise is not to believe in the laws of physics or the science of metallurgy. ..."
"... 9/11 was/is a criminally managed event involving some of America's highest officials. ..."
"... Ahhhh yes, and no less a group of people than members of the NYFD who charged up into those buildings were not concerned about them collapsing. In fact one team of firefighters who made it up to the impact zone in one of the towers reported the fire there as "no big deal" and "easily controlled". Other firefighters and various police did, however, report many explosions, most of them deep in the buildings far below the impact zones. ..."
"... Dutch controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko, upon seeing a video of the collapse of Tower 7 immediately said (I think this comment was made in 2007) "This is controlled demolition"; of course he died in a suspicious one car accident, in which his car hit a tree head on on July 16th, 2011 (similar to how some of the JFK assassination witnesses were eliminated). A couple of videos of his comments can be seen in a "Veteran's Today" article found at < http://www.veteranstoday.com/2... >. ..."
"... One should ask why the Mossad and the extremely powerful Israel lobby have seen fit to participate in the cover-up for so long. They certainly would have ignored the U.S. government's desire for secrecy and gotten this information out (which they surely knew from their own sources) if they didn't have something to hide. But that cover-up continues. ..."
"... The true "smoking gun" of the 9/11 atrocities is the eight-second symmetrical free-fall collapse of WTC #7. The claim that this occurred because of office fires is ludicrous, entirely impossible. It was a conventional implosion, carried off in one of the most secure buildings in NYC, sheltering the CIA, FBI and the mayor's emergency bunker and would have taken weeks to prepare. ..."
"... I saw the video on TV and was surprised that it went unquestioned on why it collapsed. Even the clean symmetrical fall of the second tower to collapse, was neat and symmetric. ..."
"... In my educated opinion, supported by facts of the case conveniently omitted, the release of the small section of the Congressional report kept secret for 13 years is what they call in the CIA a "limited hangout", which is contains a mix of both truth and omissions or outright lies, and exposes the audience to a falsity more dangerous and misleading than an outright lie. ..."
"... The best evidence if this were ever taken to court, would be the stand down by the military that morning in the intercepting of these "hijackers" as they made their way to their targets. And Cheneys barking orders to a subordinate in the crisis control room beneath the white house that yes the orders still stand, as flight 175? made its way toward the Pentagon ..."
"... Excuse me, but the towers of the WTC WERE very heavy structurally. Particularly the central cores, which contained heavily redundant layers of steel, and special steel at that. ..."
The Obama White House, the CIA, the Saudi monarchy and the corporate media have all tried to portray
the documents-released on a Friday afternoon to assure minimal exposure-as somehow exonerating the
Saudi regime of any culpability in the 9/11 attacks.
"This information does not change the assessment
of the US government that there's no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi individuals
funded al-Qaeda," Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary said Friday, boasting that the main
significance of their release was its proof of the Obama administration's commitment to "transparency."
In reality, the 28 pages have been kept under lock and key since 2002, with only members of Congress
allowed to read them, in a Capitol Hill basement vault, while prohibited from taking notes, bringing
members of their staff or breathing a word of their content.
The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, maintained this secrecy
for several reasons. First, it was concerned that the documents would jeopardize its relations with
Saudi Arabia, which, after Israel, is Washington's closest ally in the Middle East, a partner in
bloody operations from Afghanistan to Syria to Yemen, and the world's biggest buyer of American arms.
Even more importantly, it was concerned that the 28 pages would further expose the abject
criminality of the US government's role in facilitating the attacks of 9/11 and then lying about
their source and exploiting them to justify savage wars of aggression, first against Afghanistan
and then against Iraq. These wars have claimed over a million lives. The false narrative created
around the September 11 attacks remains the ideological pillar of the US campaign of global militarism
conducted in the name of a "war on terror."
Media reports on the 28 pages invariably refer to the absence of a "smoking gun," which presumably
would be tantamount to an order signed by the Saudi king to attack New York and Washington. The evidence
is described as "inconclusive." One can only imagine what would have been the response if, in place
of the word "Saudi," the documents referred to Iraqi, Syrian or Iranian actions. The same evidence
would have been proclaimed an airtight case for war.
Among those who were involved in preparing the report, John Lehman, the former secretary of the
navy, directly contradicted the official response to the release of the previously censored section.
"There was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting the hijackers, and some
of those people worked in the Saudi government," he said. "Our report should never have been read
as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia."
... ... ...
The report focuses in part on the role of one Omar al-Bayoumi, who was described to the FBI
as a Saudi intelligence officer, and, according to FBI files, "provided substantial assistance to
hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi after they arrived in San Diego in February 2000."
The inquiry report deals with al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar only from after they arrived in California,
and says nothing about the circumstances under which they were allowed to enter the country in the
first place. Both were under CIA surveillance while attending an Al Qaeda planning meeting in 2000
in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and placed on a "watch list" for FBI monitoring if they came to the United
States. Nonetheless, the two men were allowed to enter the United States on January 15, 2000, landing
at Los Angeles International Airport, eventually going to San Diego. From then on, they were permitted
to operate freely, attending flight training school in preparation for their role as pilots of hijacked
planes on September 11, 2001.
Al-Bayoumi, the report establishes, "received support from a Saudi company affiliated with the
Saudi Ministry of Defense," drawing a paycheck for a no-show job. The report states that the company
also had ties to Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
According to the report, al-Bayoumi had previously worked for the Saudi Civil Aviation Association
and, in the period leading up to 9/11, was "in frequent contact with the Emir at the Saudi Defense
Ministry responsible for air traffic control." Phone records showed him calling Saudi government
agencies 100 times between January and May of 2000.
FBI documents also established that the $465 in "allowances" that al-Bayoumi received through
the Saudi military contractor, jumped to over $3,700 shortly after the arrival of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar.
During this period, al-Bayoumi initially allowed the two future hijackers to stay in his apartment
before finding them their own place-with an informant of the San Diego FBI-cosigning their lease
and advancing them a deposit and the first month's rent.
The report states that FBI investigations following 9/11 indicated that al-Bayoumi had "some ties
to terrorist elements." His wife, meanwhile, was receiving a $1,200 a month stipend from Princess
Haifa Bint Sultan, the wife of Prince Bandar, then the Saudi ambassador to the US and later head
of Saudi intelligence.
Also named in the document as a likely Saudi intelligence agent is one Osama Bassnan, who lived
across the street from the two hijackers in San Diego and was in telephone contact with al-Bayoumi
several times a day during this period. He apparently placed the two in contact with a Saudi commercial
airline pilot for discussions on "learning to fly Boeing jet aircraft," according to an FBI report.
Bassnan's wife also received a monthly stipend from Princess Haifa, the Saudi ambassador's wife,
to the tune of $2,000 a month. As well, the FBI found one $15,000 check written by Bandar himself
in 1998 to Bassnan. The report states that FBI information indicated that Bassnan was "an extremist
and supporter of Usama Bin Ladin," who spoke of the Al Qaeda leader "as if he were god."
Appearing before the Congressional inquiry in October 2002, FBI Executive Assistant Director for
Counterterrorism Pasquale D'Amuro reacted with undisguised cynicism and contempt when asked about
the payments from the Saudi ambassador's wife to the wives of the two reputed intelligence agents
involved with the 9/11 hijackers.
"She gives money to a lot of different groups and people from around the world," he said. "We've
been able to uncover a number of these… but maybe if we can discover that she gives to 20 different
radical groups, well, gee, maybe there's a pattern here." Spoken like a man who believes he is above
the law in defense of a figure that he clearly sees as untouchable.
Mr Van Auken presents a Let It Happen on Purpose (LIHOP) position in this article. Clearly it
is better to have arrived at that level of awareness than to just swallow the absurd "official
story" that is, unfortunately, the position of much of the so-called Left in the U.S., e.g. Noam
Chomsky and his ilk. The LIHOP position suffers from a fatal flaw, the 3 towers that collapsed
in Lower Manhattan that could not conceivably have done so due to just the plane impacts (on Towers
1 & 2, which were specifically designed to withstand impacts by one or more Boeing 707s full of
fuel, a plane similar in size to the 767s that did hit the towers) and/or the fairly insignificant
office fires the occurred in all three towers (this includes Tower 7 that collapsed after some
minor office fires and was never hit by a plane). Tower 7 was an absolutely classic example of
a controlled demolition / implosion, while Towers 1 & 2 are modified controlled demolitions meant
to make it look like the planes had caused the collapses. The implications of controlled demolitions
are that only a Make it Happen on Purpose (MIHOP) process can actually explain what happened in
New York on that day.
The obvious anomalies in the Pentagon incident and the Shanksville, Pennsylvania crash
merely add to the mountain of evidence that exists pointing to some cabal that ran a MIHOP operation
that day. This is not new information and has been made available by the many independent investigators
who have been diligently digging into this signal event for nearly 15 years now.
Certainly Bin Laden (dying from kidney failure and reportedly in his cave in Afghanistan) and
his team of largely dim-witted plotters (some of whom spent a lot of time at titty bars snorting
cocaine and drinking whisky) did not have the wherewithal to 1). place the explosives in the 3
towers and the Pentagon, 2). run the 45 or more related drills, over 15 of which were in operation
on that very day, including such actions as sending the bulk of the fighter aircraft to northern
Canada or the Caribbean, placing fake radar images on military and FAA radar sets, 3). order the
flight in Pennsylvania to be shot down and leave an 8 mile long debris field with absolutely no
debris where it supposedly crashed, 4). supposedly make the impossible approach to the Pentagon,
hitting the area where various accountants and Naval investigators were working on some issues,
including the trillions of dollars missing from Pentagon accounts, rather than make the easy crash
into the roof in the area where the high command offices were located, 5). ensure that the FBI
immediately confiscated all 85+ video recordings that had some view of the Pentagon crash site,
and so on and so on.
Much more likely suspects would be those Americans named by Kevin Ryan in his book "Another
Nineteen", and/or the Israeli Mossad and military agents (5 of whom were arrested in New Jersey
while making a video record of "the event" and who were noticed by an outraged citizen who called
local police who arrested them and the spent 2 months in U.S. jails, finally released by dual
Israeli / U.S. citizen Michael Chertoff, 3 of them appeared later on Israeli TV and bragged about
the operation in plain Hebrew).
The Left Forum, held at John Jay College, had several worthwhile sessions about the Deep State
and 9-11, the sessions are archived at NoLiesRadio <
http://noliesradio.org/archive... > and are well worth a watch. The evidence for MIHOP orchestrated
by the U.S. Deep State and its Zionist faction/allies is overwhelming, no doubt the Saudis played
a role in all this, but a secondary one.
My father was a structural design engineer who designed heavy steel structures like the WTC
and also nuclear power plants and wind tunnels for NASA. He was an expert on types of steel, how
it was made and what its properties were. The moment he saw the first tower collapse into it own
footprint, he said 'That's a controlled demolition." He knew that fire alone would not have been
enough to even dent the steel in the WTC, let alone pulverize it. Everything in the building could
have burned and the steel would have remained standing, slightly scorched, but largely intact.
To believe otherwise is not to believe in the laws of physics or the science of metallurgy.
To brutally manipulate public opinion, 9/11 was/is a criminally managed event involving some
of America's highest officials.
Too many characters in the 9/11 truth movement, and their
observations have often engrossed me -- until I got weary of discovering the inevitable snake
oils always up for sale.
That said, some people might find this contribution of my own interesting/amusing/puerile:
Ahhhh yes, and no less a group of people than members of the NYFD who charged up into those
buildings were not concerned about them collapsing. In fact one team of firefighters who made
it up to the impact zone in one of the towers reported the fire there as "no big deal" and "easily
controlled". Other firefighters and various police did, however, report many explosions, most
of them deep in the buildings far below the impact zones.
Dutch controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko, upon seeing a video of the collapse of
Tower 7 immediately said (I think this comment was made in 2007) "This is controlled demolition";
of course he died in a suspicious one car accident, in which his car hit a tree head on on July
16th, 2011 (similar to how some of the JFK assassination witnesses were eliminated). A couple
of videos of his comments can be seen in a "Veteran's Today" article found at <
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2... >.
This does not change my extremely high opinion of WSWS and Bill Van Auken in particular, it
was just a bit disappointing to see them still hewing to a fairly standard line on this critical
issue. The whole bottom falls out of the Global War on Terror argument if the average person realizes
who really attacked the U.S. on that day.
One should ask why the Mossad and the extremely powerful Israel lobby have seen fit to participate
in the cover-up for so long. They certainly would have ignored the U.S. government's desire for
secrecy and gotten this information out (which they surely knew from their own sources) if they
didn't have something to hide. But that cover-up continues.
We might ask the several Israeli Mossad agents (they were later interviewed on Israeli TV as such)
who were filming the atrocity from across the river in New Jersey, dancing about and high-fiving
in celebration as the towers came down. They were arrested, held for a few weeks and released
without comment.
The true "smoking gun" of the 9/11 atrocities is the eight-second symmetrical free-fall collapse
of WTC #7. The claim that this occurred because of office fires is ludicrous, entirely impossible.
It was a conventional implosion, carried off in one of the most secure buildings in NYC, sheltering
the CIA, FBI and the mayor's emergency bunker and would have taken weeks to prepare.
See my comment above regarding my father, an engineer and an expert on steel. He recognized instantly
that the building was "blown" -- i.e., controlled demolition.
I saw the video on TV and was surprised that it went unquestioned on why it collapsed. Even
the clean symmetrical fall of the second tower to collapse, was neat and symmetric.
In my educated opinion, supported by facts of the case conveniently omitted, the release of
the small section of the Congressional report kept secret for 13 years is what they call in the
CIA a "limited hangout", which is contains a mix of both truth and omissions or outright lies,
and exposes the audience to a falsity more dangerous and misleading than an outright lie.
Of course the Saudis were involved, but if you research exactly what they did, it
was simply to escort a handful of patsies around the country on behalf of the CIA and give them
money to spend, creating a story to be later used as a diversion. The fact is, half the supposed
hijackers within a week of the buildings exploding made their presence known to authorities, saying
yoo-hoo, here we are, what's all this news regarding our deaths aboard airplanes?
Second point is that airplanes loaded with fuel don't cause buildings like the Trade Towers
to collapse from heat, this is an engineering impossibility and has been proven dozens of times.
In addition, a plane constructed of a thin aluminum skin stretched on an aluminum frame with a
hollow nose can't penetrate a steel curtain wall like the ones the towers were built with. But
the YouTube videos show the planes being absorbed into the buildings as though the craft were
made of liquid.
To assume that the release of this is significant, is to be fooled by the tricks of the intelligence
agencies who were responsible for the massacres in the first place.
My friend, you are mistaken, 120 ton airliners at a speed of 500 miles an hour can and have penetrated
building facades before (Empire State Bldg). This theory by some that these planes were holograms
or some sort of visual trickery is absurd and of course a distraction.
The world trade centers towers 1 and 2 were a combination of steel curtain and precast spandrels
at spans between several floors of approx. 30'. They are not that strong. The edges of the concrete
floors consist of angle iron between the floor joists which span from 4' to 6' on centers. If
buildings were constructed strong enough to stop or substantially slow a commercial airliner,
they would 1. be too heavy structurally and 2. thus be prohibitively costly.
The best evidence if this were ever taken to court, would be the stand down by the military
that morning in the intercepting of these "hijackers" as they made their way to their targets.
And Cheneys barking orders to a subordinate in the crisis control room beneath the white house
that yes the orders still stand, as flight 175? made its way toward the Pentagon
Excuse me, but the towers of the WTC WERE very heavy structurally. Particularly the central
cores, which contained heavily redundant layers of steel, and special steel at that.
I doubt many public figures were happier than Bernie Sanders to see the seemingly endless presidential
election carnival overtaken by other news last week. Beneath the headlines on race and criminal justice,
the nominal socialist "revolution" advocate Sanders got to make his official endorsement of the right-wing
corporatist and war hawk Hillary Clinton with the public's eyes focused on different and more immediately
hideous matters.
Anyone on the left who was surprised or disappointed by Bernie's long-promised Cowardly Lion endorsement
of Mrs. Clinton one week ago hadn't paid serious attention to his campaign and career. Sanders' "democratic
socialism" has always been a leaky cloak for a mildly social-democratic liberalism that is fiscally
and morally negated by his commitment to the nation's giant Pentagon System.
More
It is pre-emptive coup :-) (fake coupe in order to clear the military deck)
It looks to me that this time Turkish political elite pulled pre-emptive coup on Turkish military
so it can purge her from the elements that are influenced by remote control from outside the country.
In one word this is Turkish version of Brexit. Basically financial, political, and military international
structures that were established after II world war are crumbling because the interests of individual
countries are so diametrical.
In one word this is Turkish version of Brexit. Basically financial, political, and military
international structures that were established after II world war are crumbling because the interests
of individual countries are so diametrical.
Oh Shit! Get ready for a new, old style caliphate and the ushering in of another couple hundred
years of dark ages… The Ottomans are coming!
Fred, Ottomans are not coming.. Chinese are coming with trade deals on Orient express train from
Beijing…via Istanbul…you guys are so misinformed about what's going in the world that you will
be in state of shock when IMF, EU, NATO close the shop all in one day.
1. Sanders: Clinton has backed "virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers
of this country millions of jobs"
2. Sanders: Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street
3. Sanders: Hillary Clinton = D.C. Establishment
4. Sanders: Democrat Establishment immigration policies would drive down Americans' wages,
create open borders
5. Sanders: Clinton supports nation-building in Middle East through war and invasion
Sanders: "And now, I support her 100%."
DurbanPoisonWillBurn
Anyone who believes Hillary is progressive deserves the horrible outcome a Hillary
presidency will bring. How ANYONE can still support Hillary is beyond me. The woman has
accomplished NOTHING except chaos & failure. Wake up folks. Hillary does NOT care about you.
She cares about power, money, and making deals that benefit HER. Vote Jill Stein
"... It appears the Army has the MIT Headquarters under siege right now with scattered reports that Army helicopters are firing on it. Too soon to tell but we might be looking at a Turkish civil war. ..."
"... The Turkish military is quite good at fulfilling it's role as the protector of the country and arbiter of the Constitution. Which usually means overthrowing Islamist governments that brazenly cross over legal lines. ..."
From a friend in Ankara minutes ago, "Oh shit, this has all the hallmarks of a fight between
two fractions within the state. It's said that Fethullah Gulen and his supporters in the military
tried this because of the imminent purge. There was a armed clash in Ankara between the military
forces (Gulen movement) and tgr police/intelligence agency (Tayyip). It's been going for a while,
this feud. Now it seems like it's grown a full blown war. Airports are also closed. "
Good observation by your friend. Broadly speaking I'd say the fight is between Islamists and
secular elements of the state. The Islamists have purged the police and MIT (intelligence) of
any secular influence under Erdogan. With the secular crowd maintaining it's traditional hold
over the military.
It appears the Army has the MIT Headquarters under siege right now with scattered reports that
Army helicopters are firing on it. Too soon to tell but we might be looking at a Turkish civil
war.
I'll just be the first with the conspiracy theory about the usual suspects: US, regime change,
Obama, and the Clinton Foundation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BClen_movement
They would like a much more compliant government in place than Erdogan.
Also interesting that Germany refused Erdogan asylum after his plane was turned away in Istanbul.
Very bad move for Erdogan to head out of town at a time like this as lots of Roman emperors could
attest.
I'm skeptical that the Gulen movement is behind this. The Turkish military is quite good at
fulfilling it's role as the protector of the country and arbiter of the Constitution. Which usually
means overthrowing Islamist governments that brazenly cross over legal lines. Furthermore Colonel Muharrem Kose ( wiki
) might've been purged for being associated with Gulen but it doesn't make the allegations true.
As a matter of principle I'm not in favor of military coups but for Erdogan I can make an exception.
Turkish Prime Minister Yildirim broadcast a statement that the situation is being dealt with
by "security forces" from an apparently privately owned TV channel, while soldiers have been reported
at the state broadcaster TRT in Ankara.
I'm wondering if the Turkish military wants more or less war than Erdogan, could be like the
generals at the Pentagon, telling the White House they didn't think a Libya war was a wise idea
while Hilary was shrieking for more blood.
(We came…we saw…he died).
Or maybe the military wants more secularism than Erdogan?
If the military still has enough left-over Kemalists inside it to be bitter at the Erdogist
degradation of secular republican Turkey into an Islamic Emirate in-the-making; those Kemalists
may indeed be making one last try to purge and erase Erdogism from all positions of power and
re-Kemalize the State.
The politics are different. This isn't the Cold War. Any coup government done without street
support (outside Istanbul, this might be tough and even then…a military coup isn't good precedence)
is going to have problems.
The issue isn't the Kemalists, but the Kemalists are too far removed from Attaturk. An Attaturk
aide will simply have more legitimacy than some, random preening general. Well, the aides are
dead by now. The successors of the aides have no legitimacy without an election.
I don't think the coup will fly without serious repercussions.
The Kemalists traditionally tend to lavish attention on Istanbul and the coastal elites while
dealing with the Kurds and their role in NATO.
The heartland (Anatolia. What's that about Constantinople?) has traditionally been ignored
by the Kemalists. The Kemalists would say they took important small steps and not to throw the
baby out with the bathwater. In the mean time, the religious nuts took power and used private
charity to do poorly what the government wasn't doing and found sympathy with the majority. I
know it sounds familiar.
External pressure especially from the EU forced electoral reforms which gave power to the majority
of the country in the heartland instead of being controlled by coastal elites.
Erdogan's policies have provoked anger, but his actions against the old guard have never seemed
to irritate even the coastal population, partially because the old guard wasn't that great. They
just received good press. Better dead than Red.
My sense is young coastal Turks are more or less like their counterparts in other European
cities, so I imagine the army making decisions won't go over too well.
Erdogan is popular in the heartland, largely because he delivered on promises to improve infrastructure,
jobs, and so forth even though he skims. For rural Turkey, everything of nothing is still nothing,
so who cares if Erdogan skims?
Erdogan. ..more like Erdo well he's not going to be there anymore.
Let's see:
-Merkels refugee plan
-NATO dealing with a coup after the fall of the USSR
-Syria
-ISIS
-Kurds
-collapse of Turkish tourism
-Erdogan was popular in the Anatolian heartland
Words of caution to everyone. There are at least four [4] armed sides participating in tonight's
chaos:
1) Military (obviously)
2) Armed National Police (pro-Erdogan)
3) Criminals (who are exploiting the situation as cover to settle scores) - Cannot prove this,
but it is consistent with prior civil unrest history in other nations.
4) Terrorists - IS / Daesh. Probably not organized, but shooting unarmed civilians on camera would
exacerbate the situation as both major sides blame each other.
______________
The RUSSIAN Reaction?
Not advocating a conspiracy theory, but ex-KGB Putin has a jet downed by Erdogan's government.
There may be Russian involvement.
Even if the Russians were surprised, the Russian Black Sea Fleet needs to be able to transit
the Bosphorus to support Syrian operations. Expect Putin to quickly make favorable offers to the
new military leadership if Erdogan falls.
You forgot Kurds as a potential player. I have no clue what PKK or TAK will do under these
circumstances but I imagine it wouldn't necessarily involve doing nothing.
I don't think Gulen is primarily behind the coup. I mean I know that's what Erdogan said but
when the military released it's first letter to the public it had Kemalist written all over it.
don't 'we' win either way?
Uhh, it's complicated. Secretary of State Kerry is in Moscow today negotiating an anti-jihadi
pact/alliance in Syria. While a few days ago Kerry publicly labeled the Saudi-back Jaish al-Islam
as no different from Al Qaeda and the neocon crowd had a hissyfit over it. The gap between how
the US and Russian governments perceive the rebel-jihadi alliance is closer than it's ever been.
Meanwhile it just so happens that the 28 pages from the 9/11 report implicating Saudi involvement
and a military coup in Turkey is overthrowing the Islamist government of Erdogan. Both governments
have supported the rebel-jihad alliance in Syria so this could just be a huge coincidence… except
I don't believe in coincidences that strain my gullibility.
Any speculation beyond that point is tin foil hat territory.
German fingerprints on turkish coup…not foily…ribbi gulan is in a very historic german german
bund part of Pennsylvania…not by my laptop to scrape reports but there have been continued reports
of sultan erdo asking for and receiving asylum from Germany…
of all the places to go hang out…
schaeubleland is not one of them…
my other thought was the sah-oodz since that little 28 page thingee was distributed on a friday,
just a few hours before the parade in istanbul…
I call it a parade as the new coup position information is there was a grand total of less
than 150 gulanis involved…
which made sense since the same photos of hardly 50 soldiers kept getting played over and over…
the saud argument is technically more foily…
but my money would be on field marshall schaeuble…
would put money down that he "resigns/retires" for health reasons in 90 dayz if sultan erdo
"holds" as he now appears to have landed his plane at the airport in istanbul…
On a technical side, two weeks from now there is the annual kiss the sultans ring moment in
the military and it has been suggested erdo was going to ax in a very publicly some gulanis…
and some colonel that has been named as a top coup boy had recently been bounced due to his
ties to the gulanis….
Bernie on Monday to his supporters : Thanks for comin', see ya!
Notable quotes:
"... Donations to Jill Stine skyrocket after Sander's endorsement. https://www.rt.com/usa/351129-jill-stein-bernie-donations/ ..."
"... And, let me guess: Sanders' much-vaunted e-mailing list has a pesky shrinkage problem. Which started on Tuesday. ..."
"... Bernie denouement is the best thing that could have happened to Stein and the Greens. ..."
"... The Stein campaign seems unprepared. They simply don't have any staff to deal with volunteers. There is a well trained group out there now, so they need gear, packets, flyers, talking points. ..."
"... Sanders will attempt to maintain his supporters by focusing their time, skills and money on his new institute. Should serve to keep a good number from paying attention to Stein. ..."
Bernie denouement is the best thing that could have happened to Stein and the Greens. If Bernie
and West had started with the Greens, they would have gotten zero traction. Another noble cause
no one's ever heard of. Instead, Bernie started something that came close to blowing up the Democrats
the way Trump blew up the Republicans.
Now a lot of the Bernie sisses and bros are looking for somewhere to go. Stein is well placed
to pick up the pieces if she knows what to do with them.
The Stein campaign seems unprepared. They simply don't have any staff to deal with volunteers.
There is a well trained group out there now, so they need gear, packets, flyers, talking points.
Sanders will attempt to maintain his supporters by focusing their time, skills and money on
his new institute. Should serve to keep a good number from paying attention to Stein.
Donald Trump comments on the end of what he called the "FBI Primary," saying that Bernie
Sanders has so far refused to drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination in hopes that
Clinton might be indicted. He says that the FBI's recommendation not to indict proves Sanders was
right when he said the Democratic primary was "rigged."
Today is the best evidence ever that we have seen that our system is totally, absolutely
rigged," Trump said at a rally in North Carolina.
"It's rigged," Trump said. "And I used that term nationally when I was running in the Republican
primaries, and I was the first to use it, and then all of a sudden it became a hot term and
everyone was using the word rigged, rigged, rigged. But if you remember, I won Louisiana. And I
didn't get enough delegate, what happened? Places like Colorado, which was so good to me, but all
of a sudden we find out that they don't have the vote... I'll be honest, if I didn't win in
landslides, I wouldn't be standing here. You would be watching some politician who will lose to
Hillary.
"I learned about the rigged system really fast. All of a sudden, Bernie started using it and now
everyone talks about the system being rigged," he said.
"I'm going to keep using it because I was the one that brought it up."
"I asked a couple of political pros," he said. "Think of Bernie Sanders. I think the one with the
most to be angry about. The one with the most to lose is Bernie Sanders, because honestly, he was
waiting for the FBI primary, and guess what? He just lost today the FBI primary!"
"He lost the FBI primary! Bernie, my poor Bernie, oh, Bernie! I feel so badly for Bernie, but you
know what? A lot of Bernie Sanders supporters are going to be voting for Trump, because Bernie
Sanders was right! Bernie Sanders was right about a couple of things. He's right about the system
being rigged, but he's also right about trade. Our trade deals are a disaster. They're killing
our jobs. They're killing our families. They're killing our incomes."
Bernie Sanders is this election's Democratic sheepdog. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic
party plays every presidential primary season when there's no White House Democrat running for
re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the left of the
establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination. Sheepdogs are herders,
and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic
fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home
or trying to build something outside the two party box.
"... Bernie supporters are crowing about his great success at influencing the Democratic Party platform. How exciting is that? Is there anything less useful than the platform of a political party? Screen doors in a submarine come to mind. A political party platform has all of the significance and impact of a good healthy a fart in the midst of a hurricane. ..."
"... bernie sanders, when it comes right down to it, is either a liar, or is willing to support hillary in spite of who and what she stands for.. trumps comments on this are indeed bang on. ..."
"... The Sanders move is straight out of the Democratic Party playbook of the last 100 years, as so many predicted. The Democrats have co-opted every grass-roots movement that has arisen in the US, co-opted and quashed it. ..."
"... The party primaries in the USA are not intended to be representative, democratic elections: they simply serve as a sort of consumer survey to see which of their candidates would be most popular in the general election. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders claims some concessions were achieved in the platform committee document. But one issue of greatest importance, on trade issues,--specifically the rejection of TPP, is a lost cause. Bernie threw in the towel. The phony sideshow of reconstituted New Deal hoopla is merely the same tired fantasy narrative that the Democrats predictably trot out for every presidential election. ..."
"... The dear old man who started this campaign with this gem of rhetoric: "What we need is a revolution in the streets", is ending his monkeyshines with a ringing endosement of one of the most politically corrupt figures in our history. ..."
"... Jill Stein, who ran for president on the Green Party platform, says that Bernie's endorsement of Hillary is the "last nail in the coffin" which turns Sanders' revolution over to a counter-revolutionary party. ..."
"... Trump would do well to attract Bernie Voters now, by exploiting areas of agreement. The TPP is one example. ..."
"... He led people to believe that he had principles - that he really was against Wall St. and SuperPACs and all that Hillary stands for. He also (late in the race) began talking about 'revolution' to play to the discontented and young idealists. ..."
"... Its all just bullshit when he ultimately supports Hillary. But those who support Hillary (like rufus does) try hard to finesse Sanders failing because they value the "service" that Sanders performed for the Obama-Hillary "Third Way" Democratic Party. ..."
"... What chance do we have with Hillary?--a back-stabbing, forked-tongue, daughter of Goldman Sachs, whose speeches to the industrialists and bankers are practically a state secret? Yes, Hillary!--who is coated from head to toe with a patina of blood, and smells of corpses? ..."
"... US corporations aren't stupid. They know bad, expensive education, decaying infrastructure and violence in the street are bad for business. They might even realize that corruption is bad for them. And that worker representation makes life easier all around. ..."
"... In fact, Sanders pulled several key punches in the race ..."
"... he failed to call Hillary out on her emails after the State Inspector General report was release and it was CLEAR that she had lied about her emails; ..."
"... he is close/friendly with all of the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him to win his Senate seat; Schumer endorses him; he calls Hillary a 'friend' of 25 years. ..."
"... Except in style, Hillary is no different than Obama, Bush II, or her husband. Whereas earlier presidents felt the need to put on a show of decency -- well, okay, Bush II let it drop now and then -- H. Clinton will be a bitch Cheney, going out of her way to rub everyone's face in it and bragging there's nothing they can do about it. ..."
"... There's a bright side however. She's dumb and knows no bounds. Think Louis XVI. That, along with her arrogance, may finally bring a tipping point of sorts. With things coming apart everywhere, a smooth-talking fraud like Reagan or Obama might be able to somehow hold it together a little longer. Hillary's nastiness could actually bring real change. God in his infinite irony. ..."
"... To say there is a deep state controlling Clinton may be an over simplification. More likely their are lots of competing and conflicting forces working in the dark, none with any clear idea or plan (or inkling of what other powers are doing) each pushing for immediate gains without a thought for the future. ..."
"... In the struggle for power everyone. including H. Clinton, is a useful fool and a potential patsy. Those hidden powers have a history of eating their own. ..."
"... Sanders has been a great disappointment. In order to prevent Trump from getting the votes, he is embracing and selling his soul and his supporters to a demon! In fact Sanders has more in common with Trump that he has with Hillary. ..."
"... "Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs" ..."
"... His followers were fools. I think some of them know that now. ..."
"... I for one, hoped for more than "sheepdog" from Sanders, but, alas, those who said so, were totally correct ..."
"... in American politics, none of these people are for dismantling the biggest budgetary fraud & boondoggle in human history: the pentagon. anybody saying they are for "small gov't" who doesn't immediately propose to slash the military/para-military budget (not the VA, not now) by 50% every year for the next 500 years is lying. ..."
"... Hillary represents a continuation of the last 8 years, or even perhaps the last 16 or 24+ years. There is absolutely no doubt about that. ..."
"... People taken in by Sanders learned no lessons from gushing over Obama. They hurt themselves again and are sociopathically indifferent to the far greater harm they have done to those who were not gullible. ..."
"... Even if she had given any "significant concession", it would have been meaningless noise with not an iota of intention to implement such concessions. She is a POS who will say anything at all to get elected. The only thing we really know is she relishes confrontation on the foreign policy scene. Otherwise nobody can rely on her to act in their interests in the domestic realm, except big corporate entities. ..."
"... It is stupid for B to keep linking to Trumps quotes exclusively. Why does b not link to Jill Stein criticism. Sure Trumps criticism of evil Hillarys corruption will gather important support, but exclusively giving torture loving warmongering Trump ammunition, strangles other better candidates in their political birth in the alternative to status quo attention. In the same way that the Sanders, Chomsky, and other shortsighted cowards react by strangle politically strangling a desperate new movement. ..."
"... Congrats to those who labeled the 'Sheepdog' so early. Such an apt description. Good call. ..."
"... Sanders released only one year of tax returns (2015). His campaign manager claimed his taxes held no surprises. Well they didn't for 2015. But why didn't Sanders release earlier years? Any serious Presidential candidate would expect to release at least 3 years of tax returns. ..."
"... Given the 'service' that he performed, it might be especially interesting to have seen his taxes for 2014, the year before he entered the race. The lack of transparency and Sanders' 'sheepdogging' raises questions of whether he received any inducements to enter the race. ..."
"... The Plan was always from the start for Bernie to hold down the Left, so Hillary could capture Center-Right, and Donald could lead the Far Right into Smackdown. Then Bernie would deliver the Left to Hillary. And so it has come to pass. ..."
"... Strange bedfellows? Not at all. The Israelis and the GCC countries, the USG and EU, are all soul brothers : tiny 'elite' minorities attempting to rule their respective roosts by technological means encompassing everything from drones to the media to their ubiquitous taps. ..."
"... in loco parentis ..."
"... In 1963 there was a coup in America. Since then the military-industrial complex has run the country. It has been most apparent in its foreign policy, which has been the conquest of natural resources (especially oil and gas) worldwide. America's resentment with the USSR/Russia has to do with their living on top of resources. ..."
"... But in order to continue the illusion of democracy in the US, it was necessary to maintain some differences between the two parties so that Americans would think that they have a choice. Meanwhile, the party that is supposed to represent the working class has been sliding into the arms of the corporatists. Essentially, in order to give Americans a "choice" Trump has been pushed as the demonic clown versus H. Clinton. Unfortunately, for good reasons as well as because of endless propaganda from the right, most Americans distrust Clinton, as well they should. Her casual announcement about enforcing a "no-fly zone" over Syria is essentially a declaration of war against Russia. ..."
"... Going back to the coup in 1963, in order to maintain control of the population it was necessary for the ruling class to continue to generate candidates each election cycle to pretend to care about the working class. I have long suspected that early on in their careers both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were recruited by US intelligence. During his time in Britain Bill's classmates assumed that he was CIA ..."
"... I suspect it was the beginning of her career in US power politics. Shortly after she wrote a pro-Vietnam speech for Melvin Laird in 1968, she was involved with the various Black Panther trials around the US. ..."
"... It's hard to believe that the Hillary who stands before us now was ever a political ally of the Panthers. Rather, I suspect she was observing for an intelligence agency, the FBI or CIA She sat through a Panther trial in New Haven, Connecticut, and then spent a summer in Oakland working for the law firm that was representing the Panthers in the Bay Area. Essentially, she was in the right place at the right time to glean information for COINTELPRO, the massive spying program directed against anti-war and black movements. A few years later she worked on the Democrats' legal team for Watergate, another good place for a government informant to be. Bill, during his time at Oxford, would have functioned like the thousands of informants who sat in on peace group meetings across American campuses. ..."
"... Later, when the CIA was dumping cocaine at Mena, Arkansas, Bill Clinton was in position to make sure state police left the operation alone. It's not surprising that George W. Bush's first head of the DEA was Asa Hutchinson, who'd been the incurious federal prosecutor over that part of Arkansas when the drugs came in. ..."
"... The Clintons were prominent in the Democratic Leadership Council, which was an organization within the Democratic Party pushing it to the right. In 1992 Bill pushed trade agreements that would destroy the American middle class. Since then the party has been hopelessly corrupted by Wall Street money. ..."
"... I cannot think of another president in memory who is more wed to military adventurism than Hillary. ..."
"... But if she polls badly enough, Democratic establishment may see the light and go for Sanders. ..."
Jun 13, 2016 |
Bernie Sanders folded. This without gaining any significant concession from Hillary Clinton on
programmatic or personal grounds. (At least as far as we know.) He endorsed Clinton as presidential
candidate even as she gave no ground for his voters' opinions. This disenfranchises the people who
supported him.
... ... ...
I expect the "Not Hillary" protest vote to be very strong in the November election. There is still
more significant dirt to be dug up about her and her family foundation. Trumps current lows in the
polls will recover when the media return to the "close race" mantra that makes them money. He still
has a decent chance to win.
It is long, long past the time to see the world we really live in; the realities of our western
faux democracies. Until and unless we recognise the facts, as they are, nothing can be changed.
The problem/s must be identified for it/them to be solved.
It doesn't take a critical mass of
people; but it takes more than a few; far more than evidenced this election cycle...
Bernie supporters are crowing about his great success at influencing the Democratic Party
platform. How exciting is that? Is there anything less useful than the platform of a political
party? Screen doors in a submarine come to mind. A political party platform has all of the significance
and impact of a good healthy a fart in the midst of a hurricane.
thanks b, for highlighting these sad realities. bernie sanders, when it comes right down to
it, is either a liar, or is willing to support hillary in spite of who and what she stands for..
trumps comments on this are indeed bang on.
the labour. party is run by a gang of thugs.. i hope the people who want corbyn are able to
overcome the mostroisity the labour party has become.
i echo @1 v. arnolds comments..
@2 bill..bernie spporters better not show how stupid they are by also voting for hillary..
The Sanders move is straight out of the Democratic Party playbook of the last 100 years, as
so many predicted. The Democrats have co-opted every grass-roots movement that has arisen in the
US, co-opted and quashed it.
Even as deliberately unplugged as I've been from this race, it's been easy to see at a glance
that Sanders magnetized the next wave of concerned citizens - of course the young people rallied
to his banner - and will now leave them broken and in disarray, or delivered to the Democrats.
He was an independent. He so simply could have turned the Green Party into a ten-percent force
in the US, making it hugely important, and advancing in one leap the cause of multi-party governance.
The party primaries in the USA are not intended to be representative, democratic elections:
they simply serve as a sort of consumer survey to see which of their candidates would be most
popular in the general election.
Registering for a party does not mean that you are a member of a particular party or even support
it, you are simply choosing to vote in their primary elections (if you live in a state with closed
primaries). That is something a lot of Bernie supporters found out much too late. But that is
not a "rigged system", those rules were in place long before Sanders decided to run as a Democrat.
And rules differ from state to state: some places allot delegates proportionally, in others
it is winner-take-all. Some states hold a general election, other hold a caucus:you have to travel
to a certain place at a certain time to cast your vote, which means you have to have the time
and money in order to participate.
I have never seen a similar system in place anywhere else. Usually it is only card-carrying,
dues-paying party members who are allowed to select their candidates.
Seventh is the real possibility Bernie has inspired of a third party – if the Democratic Party
doesn't respond to the necessity of getting big money out of politics and reversing widening
inequality, if it doesn't begin to advocate for a single-payer healthcare system, or push hard
for higher taxes on the wealthy - including a wealth tax - to pay for better education and
better opportunities for everyone else, if it doesn't expand Social Security and lift the cap
on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax, if it doesn't bust up the biggest banks
and strengthen antitrust laws, and expand voting rights.
If it doesn't act on these critical issues. the Democratic Party will become irrelevant
to the future of America, and a third party will emerge to address them.
From the first I hoped that the revolutionary left would be able to capitalize on the issues
raised by Sanders' insurgency. You will win support by winning concrete gains for real people.
Not by shrill denunciations of the masses ignorance or gullibility.
Very good observations from b. Bernie Sanders claims some concessions were achieved in the
platform committee document. But one issue of greatest importance, on trade issues,--specifically
the rejection of TPP, is a lost cause. Bernie threw in the towel. The phony sideshow of reconstituted
New Deal hoopla is merely the same tired fantasy narrative that the Democrats predictably trot
out for every presidential election.
The dear old man who started this campaign with this gem of rhetoric: "What we need is
a revolution in the streets", is ending his monkeyshines with a ringing endosement of one of the
most politically corrupt figures in our history. And once again, every 1930s, New Deal trope
and hurrah, is to be trotted out, even though the former Clinton administration drove a stake
into the heart of most of FDR's work.
Get in line sheep. Mutton will be served.
Jill Stein, who ran for president on the Green Party platform, says that Bernie's endorsement
of Hillary is the "last nail in the coffin" which turns Sanders' revolution over to a counter-revolutionary
party.
Trump would do well to attract Bernie Voters now, by exploiting areas of agreement. The TPP
is one example.
Owned by Goldman Bilderberg and the CFR, the Den of Lying Thieves and Whores - aka the Democratic
Party - now has sneakily moved forward to tee up the TPP for passage by Crooked Hillary if not
Oilbomber.
Note: The Republican Party is also a Den of Lying Thieves and Whores.
rufus: Sanders did what he said he would from the start ...
He led people to believe that he had principles - that he really was against Wall St. and
SuperPACs and all that Hillary stands for. He also (late in the race) began talking about 'revolution'
to play to the discontented and young idealists.
Its all just bullshit when he ultimately supports Hillary. But those who support Hillary
(like rufus does) try hard to finesse Sanders failing because they value the "service" that Sanders
performed for the Obama-Hillary "Third Way" Democratic Party.
Those who said that Sanders was a sheepdog from the start were right: the Democratic
Party led by "Third Way" sellouts is hopeless. Long past time to move on.
Now now Jackrabbit, go easy on rufus. You have to remember that cognitive dissonance is infinitely
extensible across a mind that is captured by delusion.
Yes Virginia, they are all hucksters -- Surely the microscopic communist party, or its
pale American likeness, of which rufus is a mustache twirling member, is less of a political fantasy,
than the Green Party!
What chance do we have with Hillary?--a back-stabbing, forked-tongue, daughter of Goldman
Sachs, whose speeches to the industrialists and bankers are practically a state secret? Yes, Hillary!--who
is coated from head to toe with a patina of blood, and smells of corpses?
So it is basically the British Trade Unions making sure their members dominate in the leadership
election?
The US democratic party is a huge income generating corporation with some worker representation.
Sanders is correct to stay inside if he wants to change politics. If Sandernistas continue the
fight (they will, it is generational, same as the Clintons were generational) seat for seat they
will change the party. They will get changed themselves in the process for sure.
It seems the Libertarian party succeeds in splitting Republicans. For Sanders to split Democrats
would be voting for Trump. He would have to live with this fame outside of the Democratic Party
with no one to team up in the Senate.
US corporations aren't stupid. They know bad, expensive education, decaying infrastructure
and violence in the street are bad for business. They might even realize that corruption is bad
for them. And that worker representation makes life easier all around.
Jill goes easy on Sanders in her statement because she wants to attract his supporters.
In fact, Sanders pulled several key punches in the race:
> he was late in calling out Hillary-DNC collusion - campaign financing got the headlines but
what about the DNC's silence about: a) media bias toward Hillary and b) voter irregularities:
AP called the race for Hillary the day before California voted based on secret polling of
Super-delegates! ;
> he failed to attack Obama's record on black/minority affairs - despite Sanders having
conducted a fake filibuster over the Fiscal Cliff/Sequester - Hillary walked away with
the black vote;
> he failed to call Hillary out on her emails after the State Inspector General report was
release and it was CLEAR that she had lied about her emails;
And Sanders is not an "independent" as any ordinary person would interpret that term:
> he has caucused with the Democrats for a very long time (nearly 20 years?);
> he runs in the Vermont Democratic Primary when running for House/Senate with the understanding
that he will not run in general election as a Democrat (this effectively blocks opposition
from a Democratic candidate);
> he is close/friendly with all of the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him to win
his Senate seat; Schumer endorses him; he calls Hillary a 'friend' of 25 years.
The strategy of lesser evilism has been an utter disaster for the 99%. Effectively unchallenged
by the left, the Democratic Party helped the Republican Party to push the agenda steadily to
the right over the past decades. As Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein has aptly
put it, "the politics of fear has delivered everything we were afraid of."
... Bernie's endorsement will be used in an attempt to prop up that same rotten establishment
... [that makes] Sanders endorsement of Clinton is [sic] a fundamental failure of leadership.
...
We can't afford to follow Bernie's error. It is time for us to move on. ... That is why I'm
endorsing Green Party candidate Jill Stein. ... There can be no doubt that Jill's campaign
is the clear continuation of our political revolution, and deserves the broadest possible support
from Sandernistas.
Mark Stoval @ 16 -- We've had a fascist economic system (since the 30s)...
Even before. At least since 1913 with the establishment of the Federal Reserve, which transferred
the holdings of the U.S. treasury to international bankers.
b, me too. For the first time I think Clinton may actually be president. Sanders never had
a chance for the simple reason -- never stated -- that he is too old. When he took office he would
have been only a few years short of the age Reagan was when he left.
(For some reason age has never come up with this elderly bunch. Both Bill Clinton (as co-president)
and Trump will be older than Reagan was on election day, and Hillary will be only a few months
younger. You'd think we'd be seeing clips of Hillary chopping logs and Trump free climbing the
face of cliffs -- the sort of stuff they put poor old Ron through.)
A scary thought is that age has never come up because the powers that pick presidents don't
intend for them to be in office long.
Except in style, Hillary is no different than Obama, Bush II, or her husband. Whereas earlier
presidents felt the need to put on a show of decency -- well, okay, Bush II let it drop now and
then -- H. Clinton will be a bitch Cheney, going out of her way to rub everyone's face in it and
bragging there's nothing they can do about it.
Her style's different, but the same game will go on.
There's a bright side however. She's dumb and knows no bounds. Think Louis XVI. That, along
with her arrogance, may finally bring a tipping point of sorts. With things coming apart everywhere,
a smooth-talking fraud like Reagan or Obama might be able to somehow hold it together a little
longer. Hillary's nastiness could actually bring real change. God in his infinite irony.
To riff off a comment by Banger a few posts back. To say there is a deep state controlling
Clinton may be an over simplification. More likely their are lots of competing and conflicting
forces working in the dark, none with any clear idea or plan (or inkling of what other powers
are doing) each pushing for immediate gains without a thought for the future.
It's often said here that the plan is chaos. Maybe, or it could be that there is such confusion
and turmoil and chaos is so prevalent, that it looks like it must be a plan. Or taking a longer
view, it could be what we're seeing everywhere is the inevitable collapse of a vast culture that
has grown too complex.
In the struggle for power everyone. including H. Clinton, is a useful fool and a potential
patsy. Those hidden powers have a history of eating their own.
Sanders has been a great disappointment. In order to prevent Trump from getting the votes,
he is embracing and selling his soul and his supporters to a demon! In fact Sanders has more in
common with Trump that he has with Hillary.
One hopes that disenchanted Sanders supporters will either abstain or vote for Trump.
Having the choice only of two candidates is an absurdity.
"Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman
Sachs" is not a valid statement.
Sanders is a long time member of The Party and Congress. One cannot be a member of those clubs
for so long -- particularly during the years spanning the turn of the last century -- and not
be rotten to the core.
His followers were fools. I think some of them know that now.
Like million and millions of Americans you have been fooled not once but repeatedly and still
believe in democracy and Democratic party. Get real, Sanders probably a better lair than most
liars but not as good as Obomo and Hillary. Understands million and millions still believe these
two liars (dun believes me look at the most recent poll).
Do the smart things vote the opposite what the masses or MSM tells you. Better still vote Trump
and end the drip, drip and drips. Buy yourself a good cheap pitchfork, snows shovel or whatever
in yr local Craigslist or yard sales. Get ready for the final solution.
I for one, hoped for more than "sheepdog" from Sanders, but, alas, those who said so, were
totally correct. Trump and HRC are 2 sides of the same coin. It matters not who wins. With
either one, workers of the world are fucked. The corporate global takeover rolls on.
jules @ 46: in American politics, none of these people are for dismantling the biggest budgetary
fraud & boondoggle in human history: the pentagon. anybody saying they are for "small gov't" who
doesn't immediately propose to slash the military/para-military budget (not the VA, not now) by
50% every year for the next 500 years is lying.
PS-I guess, to distill the question, one might say.. Should corporations serve the people, or
should people serve the corporations? As of now, "the powers that are", believe in the latter.
People taken in by Sanders learned no lessons from gushing over Obama. They hurt themselves
again and are sociopathically indifferent to the far greater harm they have done to those who
were not gullible.
"Bernie Sanders folded. This without gaining any significant concession from Hillary Clinton on
programmatic or personal grounds. (At least as far as we know.) He endorsed Clinton as presidential
candidate even as she gave no ground for his voters' opinions. This disenfranchises the people
who supported him."
Even if she had given any "significant concession", it would have been meaningless noise
with not an iota of intention to implement such concessions.
She is a POS who will say anything at all to get elected. The only thing we really know is she
relishes confrontation on the foreign policy scene. Otherwise nobody can rely on her to act in
their interests in the domestic realm, except big corporate entities.
Syriza...oops, Sanders, was always more loyal to the Democratic party then his ideology. ALWAYS.
I don't know why his supporters are surprised. Did they actually think he was lying when he said
he would support Hillary Clinton.
And not only that, he out right lied saying that the Democrats have the most progressive platform
in Democrat history !!! A fucking ludicrous lie to protect evil Hillary. Disgraceful.
Most of The left are so pathetic it's embarrassing, it's a great invitation to be dominated
by the right wing.
I believe every threat that the despicable right wing will bring, I do not believe the ideology
commitment the vast majority of the left wing in power. Miserable lying cowards.
It is stupid for B to keep linking to Trumps quotes exclusively. Why does b not link to Jill
Stein criticism. Sure Trumps criticism of evil Hillarys corruption will gather important support,
but exclusively giving torture loving warmongering Trump ammunition, strangles other better candidates
in their political birth in the alternative to status quo attention. In the same way that the
Sanders, Chomsky, and other shortsighted cowards react by strangle politically strangling a desperate
new movement.
Congrats to those who labeled the 'Sheepdog' so early. Such an apt description. Good call.
Yesterday I had two emails from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, giddy with joy
over Sanders endorsement of Clinton. Today I had another, which made me giddy with joy:
After Bernie's call for unity yesterday, we just figured Democrats would...well...unify.
But instead, everything is falling apart.
FIRST: We heard barely a peep from grassroots Democrats.
THEN: A Quinnipiac poll showed Trump and Clinton tied in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.
NOW: We're questioning whether the Democratic Party can unify at all.
Great to hear that they're falling on their faces. The DCCC recruits ex-Republicans, Republicans-Lite,
and conservative Democrats to run for Congress, and actively oppose liberal candidates. Long may
they fail. Support worthy individual candidates.
Don't know if anyone's mentioned this book: "The Clinton's war on Women." There's a good long
review posted here, http://thesaker.is/the-clintons-war-on-women/
Lots of potential mud for Trump to sling that will stick.
Sanders released only one year of tax returns (2015). His campaign manager claimed his taxes
held no surprises. Well they didn't for 2015. But why didn't Sanders release earlier years? Any
serious Presidential candidate would expect to release at least 3 years of tax returns.
Given the 'service' that he performed, it might be especially interesting to have seen
his taxes for 2014, the year before he entered the race. The lack of transparency and Sanders'
'sheepdogging' raises questions of whether he received any inducements to enter the race.
Donald Trump is even worse. He hasn't released any tax info. He claims that the IRS
is auditing him (and that they have for many years) . But why not release estimates and/or
earlier tax returns?
We have gone through the looking glass. This evening on Public Broadcasting Service television
news hour Dr. Assad was interviewed by Judy Woodruff, a talking head teleprompter reading hand
puppet. Dr. Assad was asked if Donald Trump was elected President would his lack of foreign relations
diplomacy chops hinder his administrations abilities to achieve their goals. The question was
of no import. Nor was the answer. THE FACT THAT DR. ASSAD WAS TREATED AS AN EQUAL and not "Assad
must go" is a very significant event. VERY SIGNIFICANT!
He's a democratic socialist, so such affiliations and tactics are not unusual. The Democratic
Socialists of America, for example, a Socialist International section, is wholly within the Democratic
Party.
The Plan was always from the start for Bernie to hold down the Left, so Hillary could capture
Center-Right, and Donald could lead the Far Right into Smackdown. Then Bernie would deliver the
Left to Hillary. And so it has come to pass.
I thought everyone knew Bernie, Hillary and Donald are all bought and sold by Goldman? Hillary
and Donald sold their progeny to The Tribe, and Bernie is a woo-woo already. The traitor Chosen
sold US into slavery with Gramm-Leich-Bliley, and fawning sycophant Al-Clintonim signed that bill
into 'law' (sic), in return for her US Senate seat from NY.
Badda-boom, badda-bing!
These are the Vampire Squid, the Takers, Mafia Elites 'who settled the Western Frontier' and
now are the 'Disruptors' of the Public Space into a privatized Fivrr-Uber hell. They own you.
You are owned by the Private Central Bankim. Even a small child will tell you that your only real
'free choice' is to write-in "HELL NO!" in November, then flee to the 3W.
Sanders didn't release his other tax returns even when it became an issue in the campaign
.
Hillary said that she wouldn't release the transcripts of her Goldman speeches until Sanders
had released more tax returns. Her reasoning: she had complied with what was expected of a Presidential
candidate while the other had not yet done so.
Why wouldn't he immediately release those returns - which his campaign had claimed contained
no surprises - so as to force Hillary to release the transcripts?
Not only are staffers subjected to this,
volunteers are as well. "The tight control of volunteers stands in stark contrast to not only
American political-campaign norms but also Trump's reputation for speaking his mind."
Combine that with his statement that he'd like to
change libel laws to make it easier for himself to sue news organizations that down fawn all
over him. Does he seem like the sort to encourage whistle-blowers like Manning or Snowden? Will
he be logging all his email traffic for future FOIA requests? Or maybe he'll kill that off, too.
News Flash: Israel wins U.S. election; Iran to be nuked during inauguration
Trump just picked Mike Pence as running mate. And from (((
Forward ))):
"...Pence has said his support of Israel is deeply rooted in his Christian faith, as well as
in his strong relationship with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Pence was introduced
to AIPAC members in 2009 by then-board member Marshall Cooper at an AIPAC policy conference.
"Let me say emphatically, like the overwhelming majority of my constituents, my Christian
faith compels me to cherish the state of Israel," then-Rep. Pence said.
Cooper described Pence to the audience as "Israel's good friend."..."
So whether Hillary or Trump gets the job (or Obama declares a national emergency an remains)
Israel will be the de-facto new commander-in-chief of the U.S., henceforth to be know as Palestine
West.
The new Falcon Eye surveillance system-sold to the UAE by an Israeli defense contractor-"links
thousands of cameras spread across the city, as well as thousands of other cameras installed
at facilities and buildings in the emirate," the Abu Dhabi Monitoring and Control Center said
in an official statement. The Falcon Eye will "help control roads by monitoring traffic violations
while also monitoring significant behaviors in (Abu Dhabi) such as public hygiene and human
assemblies in non-dedicated areas."
Strange bedfellows? Not at all. The Israelis and the GCC countries, the USG and EU, are all soul
brothers : tiny 'elite' minorities attempting to rule their respective roosts by technological
means encompassing everything from drones to the media to their ubiquitous taps.
Totalitarianism is alive and well in the Middle East ... and in North America, the UK, Europe
... the last thing to be tolerated, the first things to be crushed, are 'human assemblies in non-dedicated
areas' over which their corporate selves would rule.
The Powers That Are are thicker than thieves. Among mere thieves competition remains. The PTA
are acting in loco parentis ... taking 'care' of us all for their own good.
Mike Gravel used to describe our present political situation as 'adolescent': mature enough
to understand the fix we're in, too immature to do anything but complain to 'those in charge'.
We're in charge. We've just been asleep at the wheel. Time to wake up, finally? Before our
whole world become Nice?
I agree that if Sanders had gone on to the Green Party he could have gotten significant support,
enough to guarantee Clinton's loss. But that's not what he wanted to do, whatever his reasons
for running. Folks overseas who think that Trump is anything more than a loudmouth, racist who
would be controlled by the same forces as Clinton is controlled by are fooling themselves. If
Sanders ran as a "pied piper" it wasn't successful. If anything, he presented a contrast to what
the Democratic Party has become.
In 1963 there was a coup in America. Since then the military-industrial complex has run the
country. It has been most apparent in its foreign policy, which has been the conquest of natural
resources (especially oil and gas) worldwide. America's resentment with the USSR/Russia has to
do with their living on top of resources.
But in order to continue the illusion of democracy in the US, it was necessary to maintain
some differences between the two parties so that Americans would think that they have a choice.
Meanwhile, the party that is supposed to represent the working class has been sliding into the
arms of the corporatists. Essentially, in order to give Americans a "choice" Trump has been pushed
as the demonic clown versus H. Clinton. Unfortunately, for good reasons as well as because of
endless propaganda from the right, most Americans distrust Clinton, as well they should. Her casual
announcement about enforcing a "no-fly zone" over Syria is essentially a declaration of war against
Russia.
Going back to the coup in 1963, in order to maintain control of the population it was necessary
for the ruling class to continue to generate candidates each election cycle to pretend to care
about the working class. I have long suspected that early on in their careers both Bill Clinton
and Hillary Clinton were recruited by US intelligence. During his time in Britain Bill's classmates
assumed that he was CIA At about this time Hillary, who'd been raised a rabid Republican, went
to both the Republican and Democratic national conventions in 1968. Not only was it a rather expensive
thing to do for a college student, but most people who are interested in one party aren't interested
in the other. I suspect it was the beginning of her career in US power politics. Shortly after
she wrote a pro-Vietnam speech for Melvin Laird in 1968, she was involved with the various Black
Panther trials around the US.
It's hard to believe that the Hillary who stands before us now was ever a political
ally of the Panthers. Rather, I suspect she was observing for an intelligence agency, the FBI
or CIA She sat through a Panther trial in New Haven, Connecticut, and then spent a summer in
Oakland working for the law firm that was representing the Panthers in the Bay Area. Essentially,
she was in the right place at the right time to glean information for COINTELPRO, the massive
spying program directed against anti-war and black movements. A few years later she worked on
the Democrats' legal team for Watergate, another good place for a government informant to be.
Bill, during his time at Oxford, would have functioned like the thousands of informants who sat
in on peace group meetings across American campuses.
Later, when the CIA was dumping cocaine at Mena, Arkansas, Bill Clinton was in position
to make sure state police left the operation alone. It's not surprising that George W. Bush's
first head of the DEA was Asa Hutchinson, who'd been the incurious federal prosecutor over that
part of Arkansas when the drugs came in.
The Clintons were prominent in the Democratic Leadership Council, which was an organization
within the Democratic Party pushing it to the right. In 1992 Bill pushed trade agreements that
would destroy the American middle class. Since then the party has been hopelessly corrupted by
Wall Street money.
It's now Hillary's turn. If you've always wanted to take a vacation somewhere or wanted to
do something before you die, I suggest you make time for it this year. I cannot think of another
president in memory who is more wed to military adventurism than Hillary.
Proportional representation etc. is not a panaceum. I think that party solidarity, even if the
party is only partially satisfactory is a good tool. What is happening is that Sanders who represents
"turn left" for Democrats is now more electable than Clinton. This has a potential for a big change,
much bigger than ephemeral "relative success" of the Greens, who are fated to collect less votes
than Libertarians (they may have their best year in a long, long time).
Of course, the "right wing of the left" discards party solidarity with ease. They more or less
rejected McGovern and Carter. Hillary's health care reform had the same fate. But they have very
hard time copying with change. Hillary basically promised good old times, and this is not good
enough. I suspect that her game plan is to unload full blast of "Trump's corruption" ads closer
to elections and keep the "positive tone" for now, and that may even work.
But if she polls badly enough, Democratic establishment may see the light and go for Sanders.
"... The mainstream US news media have never liked the brash billionaire Trump. He makes good circulation figures for sure, but the large coverage the Republican contender has received from the outset is preponderantly negative. ..."
"... Trump's campaign has instead been buoyed by the popular vote, not by endorsement from the elite establishment, including the Republican Party leadership and the corporate media. Now that the race for the presidency is turning into a two-horse contest between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Trump, the media's antipathy towards Trump is moving to an all-out barrage of attacks. Attacks, it has to be said, that are bordering on hysteria and which only a corporate machine could convey. ..."
"... Trump vehemently rebuffed the claims. He said it was simply a star, like the ones that US Marshals use. When his campaign team reacted to the initial media furor by replacing the red star with a circle it only served to fuel accusations against Trump because he was seen to be acting defensively. However, he later defiantly rebuked his campaign team and said they should have stuck with the star image and let him defend that choice of image as simply an innocuous star shape. For what it's worth, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is Jewish, subsequently rallied to the tycoon's defense and said he was not racist nor anti-Semitic and that the controversy was a media-contrived storm in a teacup. ..."
"... Trump makes a valid point that Clinton's abuse of state secrecy – whether intentional or negligent – has in fact posed a national security threat. Yet the media focus is decidedly not on his Democrat rival. It is rather centered on overblown concerns about the wealthy real estate developer. ..."
"... Trump is right. The political system in the US is rigged . Not just in terms of double standards of the justice system, but in the bigger context of how candidates are screened and vetted – in this case through undue vilification. ..."
"... Trump's reactionary views on immigration, race relations and international politics are certainly questionable. His credibility as the next president of the US may be dubious. But is his credibility any less than that of Hillary Clinton? Her melding of official capacity with private gain from Wall Street banks and foreign governments acting as donors to her family's fund-raising Clinton Foundation has the pungent whiff of selling federal policy for profit. Her penchant for criminal regime change operations in Honduras, Libya, Syria and Ukraine speak of a political mafia don. ..."
"... American politics has long been derided as a "dog and pony show" ..."
"... But what we are witnessing is a brazen display of how the powers-that-be (Wall Street, media, Pentagon, Washington, etc) are audaciously intervening in this electoral cycle to disenfranchise the voting population. ..."
Presidential hopeful Donald Trump is right: the 'system is 'rigged'. The media barrage against
the billionaire demonstrates irrefutably how the power establishment, not the people, decides who
sits in the White House.
Trump is increasingly assailed in the US media with alleged character flaws. The latest blast
paints Trump as a total loose cannon who would launch World War III. In short, a "nuke nut".
In the Pentagon-aligned Defense One journal, the property magnate is described as someone who
cannot be trusted with his finger on the nuclear button. Trump would order nuclear strikes equivalent
to 20,000 Hiroshima bombings as "easy as ordering a pizza", claimed the opinion piece.
If that's not an example of "project fear" then what is?
The mainstream US news media have never liked the brash billionaire Trump. He makes good circulation
figures for sure, but the large coverage the Republican contender has received from the outset is
preponderantly negative.
Trump's campaign has instead been buoyed by the popular vote, not by endorsement from the elite
establishment, including the Republican Party leadership and the corporate media. Now that the race
for the presidency is turning into a two-horse contest between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Trump,
the media's antipathy towards Trump is moving to an all-out barrage of attacks. Attacks, it has to
be said, that are bordering on hysteria and which only a corporate machine could convey.
Like a giant screening process, the Trump candidacy and his supporters are being systematically
disenfranchised. At this rate of attrition, by the time the election takes place in November the
result will already have been all but formally decided – by the powers-that-be, not the popular will.
The past week provides a snapshot of the intensifying media barrage facing Trump. Major US media
outlets have run prominent claims that Trump is a fan of the former brutal Iraqi dictator Saddam
Hussein. Those claims were based on a loose interpretation of what Trump said at a rally when he
referred to Saddam's strong-arm suppression of terrorism. He didn't say he liked Saddam. In fact,
called him a "bad guy". But Trump said that the Iraqi dictator efficiently eliminated terrorists.
A second media meme to emerge was "Trump the anti-Semite". This referred to an image his campaign
team tweeted of Hillary Clinton as "the most corrupt candidate ever". The words were emblazoned on
a red, six-pointed star. Again, the mainstream media gave copious coverage to claims that the image
was anti-Semitic because, allegedly, it was a Jewish 'Star of David'.
Trump vehemently rebuffed the claims. He said it was simply a star, like the ones that US Marshals
use. When his campaign team reacted to the initial media furor by replacing the red star with a circle
it only served to fuel accusations against Trump because he was seen to be acting defensively. However,
he later defiantly rebuked his campaign team and said they should have stuck with the star image
and let him defend that choice of image as simply an innocuous star shape.
For what it's worth, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is Jewish, subsequently rallied to
the tycoon's defense and said he was not racist nor anti-Semitic and that the controversy was a media-contrived
storm in a teacup.
Not only that but the Trump-risks-Armageddon article also refers to him being in the same company
as Russian leader Vladimir Putin and North Korea's Kim Jung Un who, we are told, "also have their
finger on the nuclear button".
Under the headline, 'How to slow Donald Trump from pushing the nuclear button', a photograph shows
the presidential contender with a raised thump in a downward motion. The answer being begged is:
Don't vote for this guy – unless you want to incinerate the planet!
This is scare-tactics to the extreme thrown in for good measure along with slander and demonization.
And all pumped up to maximum volume by the US corporate media, all owned by just six conglomerates.
Trump is having to now spend more of his time explaining what he is alleged to have said or did
not say, instead of being allowed to level criticisms at his Democrat rival or to advance whatever
political program he intends to deliver as president.
The accusation that Trump is a threat to US national security is all the more ironic given that
this week Hillary Clinton was labelled as "extremely careless" by the head of the FBI over her dissemination
of state secrets through her insecure private email account.
Many legal experts and former US government officials maintain that Clinton's breach of classified
information is deserving of criminal prosecution – an outcome that would debar her from contesting
the presidential election.
Why the FBI should have determined that there is no case for prosecution even though more than
100 classified documents were circulated by Clinton when she was Secretary of State (2009-2013) has
raised public heckles of "double standards".
The controversy has been compounded by the US Attorney General Loretta Lynch also declaring that
no charges will be pressed and the case is closed – a week after she met with Hillary's husband,
Bill, on board her plane for a hush-hush chat.
Trump
makes a valid point that Clinton's abuse of state secrecy – whether intentional or negligent
– has in fact posed a national security threat. Yet the media focus is decidedly not on his Democrat
rival. It is rather centered on overblown concerns about the wealthy real estate developer.
Trump is right. The political system in the US is
rigged. Not just in terms of double standards of the justice system, but in the bigger context
of how candidates are screened and vetted – in this case through undue vilification.
Trump's reactionary views on immigration, race relations and international politics are certainly
questionable. His credibility as the next president of the US may be dubious. But is his credibility
any less than that of Hillary Clinton? Her melding of official capacity with private gain from Wall
Street banks and foreign governments acting as donors to her family's fund-raising Clinton Foundation
has the pungent whiff of selling federal policy for profit. Her penchant for criminal regime change
operations in Honduras, Libya, Syria and Ukraine speak of a political mafia don.
American politics has long been derided as a "dog and pony show", whereby powerful lobbies
buy the pageant outcome. Trump's own participation in the election is only possible because he is
a multi-billionaire who is able to fund a political campaign. That said, however, the New York businessman has garnered a sizable popular following from his
maverick attacks on the rotten Washington establishment.
But what we are witnessing is a brazen display of how the powers-that-be (Wall Street, media,
Pentagon, Washington, etc) are audaciously intervening in this electoral cycle to disenfranchise
the voting population.
Clinton has emerged as the candidate-of-choice for the establishment, and the race to the White
House is being nobbled – like never before.
It is difficult to imagine how the Trump rank and file and the party's corporate
"establishment" will paper over their irreconcilable differences, rooted in the party's failure
to preserve skin privilege and good jobs in a White Man's Country.
Just as brazenly, Trump, the rabble rousing billionaire, has violated the most sacred ruling
class taboos by rejecting the
national security rationale for the hyper-aggressive, ever-expanding, global U.S. military
presence. If Trump fails to convincingly recant such heresies, the rulers will deal with him with
extreme prejudice.
Thanks. A quick visual inspection suggests that they "only" blacked
out about 10% of the document. Some pages almost everything is visible,
and on a few, almost half of the text is obscured.
A couple of days ago there was a discussion of infantilization by
politicians via the use of emojis. I think that preventing people from
reading the full report is a far more serious form of infantilization.
Only the elite philosopher kings are allowed access to information. The
rest of us children might be traumatized if we could read the full
report.
The information about the dry-run of 1999 on America West flight from
Phx to DC Saudi Embassy party was especially interesting to me. I suspect
that Saudi Arabia played both sides (al-quaeda and the US) in order to
bring about the Sunni alliance we are currently being worked out in Libya
and Syria. Iraq was on this analysis definitely an expected casualty of
the events of 9/11, which suggests that the Saudis had good reason to
believe that US officials were already waiting for any excuse to take
over that country.
There's this sort of hole prior to 9-11-2001 where it sounds like no
one knows anything but actually, the Joint Forces intelligence group knew
quite a bit. The Joint Inquiry never interviewed anyone from DO-5.
So strange! Why it seems just yesterday Chancellor Merkel and
other wise EU leaders were trying to get Turkey admitted to the
European Union, enabling Turks to move freely about the Continent,
and they were pressing that nice Mr. Erdogan to accept billions of
Euros to handle Muslim refugees for them. How could a stable
European society like Turkey still be experiencing things like
military coups? There must be a more polite explanation for what's
really going on over there.
"... I think that dissent will continue as long as the United States continues. We don't know exactly what forms it will take, or what causes dissenters will take up. But we do have a pretty good idea from history that dissenters will always push for more freedom, more liberty, more economic equality, and that there will be counter-dissenters who will seek to deprive them of these goals. There always seems to be that for every two steps forward, there's one step back. ..."
What do you foresee as far as the future of dissent is concerned in the United States?
I think that dissent will continue as long as the United States continues. We don't know exactly
what forms it will take, or what causes dissenters will take up. But we do have a pretty good idea
from history that dissenters will always push for more freedom, more liberty, more economic equality,
and that there will be counter-dissenters who will seek to deprive them of these goals. There always
seems to be that for every two steps forward, there's one step back.
What is gained for leftist movements today by anchoring themselves a positive account of the
nation's founding (accounts that suggest that this nation has leftist impulses at its core)?
I think that leftist movements today have a deep, abiding faith in "democracy." And in that way,
they are the true heirs of the American Revolution. Even if most of the "founding fathers" like [George]
Washington and [Alexander] Hamilton and [Thomas] Jefferson were elites who distrusted the masses,
they did give lip service to liberty and equality, and they did formulate fundamental arguments promoting
the idea of a government of the people. Today, their ideas are more broadly conceived than they themselves
conceived them. Because leftists today believe in the value of democracy, what they are in essence
doing is holding America's feet to the fire. They are demanding that the United States live up to
those ideals ensconced in our founding documents. "Be true to what you said on paper," as Martin
Luther King Jr. expressed it in his last speech on April 3, 1968, in Memphis.
What is inevitably lost or papered over when one embraces a positive founding narrative about
a nation-state?
What is papered over is that the majority of the "founding fathers" were slave owners. And the
institution of slavery gave them the leisure time to devote to thinking and writing about such high-fallutin'
and precious concepts as democracy, liberty and republican forms of government. Historian Edmund
S. Morgan, in his book American Slavery, American Freedom, makes a compelling argument that the notions
we have of freedom, that the basis for American freedom is slavery. If it weren't for slavery, we
would never have developed as we have. So it is rather presumptuous of us, even for the left, to
feel that we've embraced freedom and believe in equality for all. Still, despite that, it doesn't
mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water. What it does mean is that we should aspire
to those ideals, even if the "founding fathers" didn't fully believe in them themselves, even if
they were disingenuous hypocrites who framed a constitution solely to benefit and protect the property
rights and aristocratic status of their class.
Today, we need to take those ideals seriously and work toward making the reality of American society
more closely resemble the ideals they espoused in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
"... "We have been offering Bernie Sanders, basically to sit down and talk and to explore how we might be collaborate, because I can't give away the nomination," ..."
"... "could certainly work with him for all sorts of possibilities, including leading the ticket." ..."
"... "truly saw the light," ..."
"... "the green light, that we do need independent politics." ..."
"... "the revolution is now being stuffed back into a counter-revolutionary party," ..."
"... "leading the charge for Wall Street, for wars and for the Walmart economy." ..."
"... "Bernie said let's forget the past, but I don't think people can forget this movement that they've worked so hard to build," ..."
"... "there were a lot of people who were watching this endorsement in complete and utter disbelief." ..."
"... "I think there are a lot of broken hearts out there among the Bernie campaign. A lot of people who are feeling burned by the Democratic Party, who are not going to simply resign themselves to an election that offers them either a billionaire, one hand, or a cheerleader for the billionaires," she added. ..."
Following Sanders officially dropping out of the race, Stein reminded RT viewers
of her proposal to step aside in order to offer him the nomination in her Green
Party.
"We have been offering Bernie Sanders, basically to sit down and
talk and to explore how we might be collaborate, because I can't give away the
nomination," Stein told RT, stressing that even though she cannot take
the delegates' role of assigning nominations, she "could certainly work
with him for all sorts of possibilities, including leading the ticket."
This could be possible, she said, if Sanders "truly saw the light,"
meaning "the green light, that we do need independent politics."
In Stein's view, "the revolution is now being stuffed back into a counter-revolutionary
party," whose standard bearer, Clinton, she scorns for "leading the
charge for Wall Street, for wars and for the Walmart economy."
"Bernie said let's forget the past, but I don't think people can forget
this movement that they've worked so hard to build," Stein said, adding
that on Tuesday "there were a lot of people who were watching this endorsement
in complete and utter disbelief."
.... ... ...
Sanders supporters have taken to social media in a stern backlash against
the former Democratic presidential candidate.
"They also can't forget Hillary Clinton's record, which is very much the
opposite of what they have been working for the past year," Stein says.
"I think there are a lot of broken hearts out there among the Bernie
campaign. A lot of people who are feeling burned by the Democratic Party,
who are not going to simply resign themselves to an election that offers
them either a billionaire, one hand, or a cheerleader for the billionaires,"
she added.
She says that after primaries in California where "it became clear that the
Democratic Party was really shutting [Sanders] out," her Green Party began to
see people's interest surge.
"We are seeing that now, in the last 24 to 36 hours as well, as people realize
that the game is over," Stein said.
@MajorCallowayLeader
Well, now it's Stein or Trump - time will tell.
Sanders is the worst kind of turncoat.
How can he possibly support the Laughing Butcher of Libya? He must have
been a lost soul to begin with, or sold it long ago.
"... In late April I was among the 25 Vermonters who occupied Congressman Bernie Sanders' Burlington office to protest his support of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and the ongoing war against Iraq. Calling ourselves the "Instant Antiwar Action Group," we decided to bring our outrage at Bernie's escalating hypocrisy directly to his office, an action that resulted in 15 of us being arrested for trespass. ..."
"... Dissident Voices ..."
"... Despite his own claims, Sanders has not been an antiwar leader. . . . His hawkish [stance] drove one of his key advisers, Jeremy Brecher, to resign from his staff. Brecher wrote in his resignation letter, "Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support?" ..."
"... Dissident Voices ..."
"... Under the Bush regime, Sanders' militarism has only grown worse. While he called for alternative approaches to the war on Afghanistan, he failed to join the sole Democrat, Barbara Lee, to vote against Congress' resolution that gave George Bush a blank check to launch war on any country he deemed connected to the September 11 attacks. ..."
"... After thousands of people are killed in the World Trade Center and Pentagon, President George Bush and Congress declared war on Afghanistan. Sanders joined the bandwagon and voted to adopt the joint resolution that authorized the President to use the United States Armed Forces against anyone involved with the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and any nation that harbors these individuals. ..."
"... While Sanders voted against the original authorization to use military force against Iraq, he followed that vote with several subsequent votes authorizing funding of that war and the debacle in Afghanistan. ..."
What also stands out in the above criticism is that Sanders, seeking the
Democratic nomination as a Tea Party of the Left outlier, has a long-standing
history of supporting presidential military forays: anathema to aggressive
progressives.
In 1999, Congressman Sanders signed onto President Bill Clinton's military
interventions into Kosovo. Peace activists crashed his Burlington, VT Congressional
Office. One of the protesters commented on
the Liberty Union Party website :
In late April I was among the 25 Vermonters who occupied Congressman
Bernie Sanders' Burlington office to protest his support of the NATO bombing
of Yugoslavia and the ongoing war against Iraq. Calling ourselves the "Instant
Antiwar Action Group," we decided to bring our outrage at Bernie's escalating
hypocrisy directly to his office, an action that resulted in 15 of us being
arrested for trespass.
Dissident Voices blasted Sanders not just for cozying up with
the Democratic Party, but war authorizations throughout his tenure in the
House of Representatives.
Despite his own claims, Sanders has not been an antiwar leader. .
. . His hawkish [stance] drove one of his key advisers, Jeremy Brecher,
to resign from his staff. Brecher wrote in his resignation letter, "Is there
a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in
or support?"
Under the Bush regime, Sanders' militarism has only grown worse.
While he called for alternative approaches to the war on Afghanistan, he
failed to join the sole Democrat, Barbara Lee, to vote against Congress'
resolution that gave George Bush a blank check to launch war on any country
he deemed connected to the September 11 attacks.
Indeed,
Barbara
Lee (D-CA) was the lone vote against granting this extended power to
President Bush. Sanders joined with both parties on this issue. Of course.
While Presidential candidate Sanders
has
relaunched his speech on the House floor opposing the War on Iraq in
2002,
Counterpunch has already exposed Sanders' connections with
Bush 43's military ventures:
After thousands of people are killed in the World Trade Center and
Pentagon, President George Bush and Congress declared war on Afghanistan.
Sanders joined the bandwagon and voted to adopt the joint resolution that
authorized the President to use the United States Armed Forces against anyone
involved with the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and any nation that harbors
these individuals.
And then:
While Sanders voted against the original authorization to use military
force against Iraq, he followed that vote with several subsequent votes
authorizing funding of that war and the debacle in Afghanistan.
Sanders has followed a pattern of voting against initial efforts to expand
government resources into the War on Terror, then voted for funding them
afterwards.
The Democratic Party's 2016 Presidential bench is a clown-car of political
dysphoria. From Hillary Clinton's early yearning for Republican Barry Goldwater,
to Lincoln Chafee's former GOP US Senator status, and Jim Webb's service
in the Reagan Administration, now left-wing partisans can argue that "Weekend
at Bernie" Sanders
is right-wing warmonger .
Sanders has spent a lot of time and energy convincing voters that Clinton had
no place in the Oval Office.
The following are just a few examples.
1 – "Are you qualified to be President of the United States when
you're raising millions of dollars from Wall Street whose greed, recklessness
and illegal behavior helped to destroy our economy?" – Philadelphia rally,
April 2016.
However, Sanders may be singing a different tune when he is back in Philadelphia
for the Democratic National Convention. His change of heart Tuesday included
telling the audience: "I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to
why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president."
2 – "I proudly stood with the workers. Secretary Clinton stood
with the big money interests" – Youngstown, Ohio March 14
Sanders has frequently attacked Clinton's use of Super PACs and potential
interest from elite banks. While the former secretary of state has been endorsed
by many unions, such as the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees,
Sanders' speech swapped that rhetoric for something a little more flattering.
In his endorsement speech, he said: "Hillary Clinton understands that we
must fix an economy in America that is rigged and that sends almost all new
wealth and income to the top one percent."
3 – "Do I have a problem, when a sitting Secretary of State and
a Foundation ran by her husband collects many millions of dollars from foreign
governments, governments which are dictatorship… um yeah, do I have a problem
with that? Yeah I do."
Sanders passionately attacked the Clinton Foundation in June, calling its
reception of money from foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia a "conflict
of interest." However, on Tuesday he told the audience that Clinton "knows that
it is absurd that middle-class Americans are paying an effective tax rate higher
than hedge fund millionaires, and that there are corporations in this country
making billions in profit while they pay no federal income taxes in a given
year because of loopholes their lobbyists created."
4 – "She was very reluctant to come out in opposition. She is running
for president. She concluded it was a good idea to oppose the TPP, and she did."
Clinton's slow opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) raised the
ire of both Sanders and his supporters. Perhaps through intense negotiations
to make Clinton's campaign more progressive, he is now willing to focus more
on Clinton's interior economy, saying, "She wants to create millions of new
jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure – our roads, bridges, water
systems and wastewater plants."
5 – "Well, I don't think Hillary Clinton can lead a political revolution"
Commenting on Clinton's potential to carry the torch for the political revolution
he claimed he was spearheading, Sanders lacked faith in her ability to make
the changes he deemed necessary back in June, when he was on CBS's "Face the
Nation."
However, perhaps through negotiating the terms of his endorsement, Clinton's
platform sounds more and more like Sanders' when he talks about it. Describing
new platforms such as lowering student debt and making free education attainable
without accruing massive amounts of debt, along with expanding the use of generic
medicine and expanding community health centers all sound like shades of Sanders.
6 – "When you support and continue to support fracking, despite
the crisis that we have in terms of clean water… the American people do not
believe that that is the kind of president that we need to make the changes
in America to protect the working families of this country."
Back in an April debate, many voters were frustrated when Clinton gave a
lengthy, difficult explanation about her stance on fracking. Sanders, a longtime
opponent of hydraulic fracturing.
However, since the CNN Democratic Debate, Sanders and Clinton may have both
shifted their positions on the matter that was once clear cut for the senator
from Vermont.
According to Sanders, "Hillary Clinton is listening to the scientists who
tell us that if we do not act boldly in the very near future there will be more
drought, more floods, more acidification of the oceans, more rising sea levels."
7 – "When this campaign began, I said that we got to end the starvation
minimum wage of $7.25, raise it to $15. Secretary Clinton said let's raise it
to $12 ... To suddenly announce now that you're for $15, I don't think is quite
accurate."
At the same CNN debate in Brooklyn, Sanders hammered on Clinton's inconsistent
stance on raising the minimum wage. While her opinion has shifted from debate
to debate, it seems that Sanders' has as well.
"She believes that we should raise the minimum wage to a living wage," Sanders
said, without specifying what the minimum wage would be increased to under her
more progressive campaign.
8– "Almost all of the polls that… have come out suggest that I
am a much stronger candidate against the Republicans than is Hillary Clinton."
Sanders might be eating crow for this one. His entire endorsement speech
often focused on the party's need to defeat presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump.
Throughout the speech, Sanders contrasted the new and improved Clinton strategy
that includes more of Sanders' talking points with those from Trump.
Sanders went as far as to place the importance of the election on keeping
Trump away from the Supreme Court, saying, "If you don't believe this election
is important, take a moment to think about the Supreme Court justices that Donald
Trump will nominate, and what that means to civil liberties, equal rights and
the future of our country."
9 – "[Super predators] was a racist term and everybody knew it
was a racist term."
Clinton's involvement with the criminal justice reform of the 1990s that
contributed to the mass incarceration has frequently been a contentious point
in this election. In 1996, she went on to warn the public about the existence
of "super predators," or children with "no conscience, no empathy, we can talk
about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel."
However, both Clinton and Sanders have a track record of working with the
civil rights movements, and now Sanders may not be so quick to put Clinton and
racist in the same sentence.
"Hillary Clinton understands that our diversity is one of our greatest strengths,"
he said Tuesday.
Note the NYT was afraid to open comment section for this article :-)
Notable quotes:
"... "Intelligent Bernie supporters will NEVER support her because she stands for everything were fighting against," he said. "Just because Bernie has left our movement does not mean it is over." ..."
"... Despite Hillary's penchant for flip-flopping rhetoric, she's spent decades serving the causes of the Wall Street, war, & Walmart economy. ..."
Daniel Whitfield, of Discovery Bay, Calif., insisted that the political revolution Mr. Sanders
had championed did not have to end just because the senator had given up. However, he said that
voting for Mrs. Clinton was not an option.
"Intelligent Bernie supporters will NEVER support her because she stands for everything were
fighting against," he said. "Just because Bernie has left our movement does not mean it is over."
... ... ...
Some of the lesser-known candidates running for president sought to capitalize on the moment.
Jill Stein, the Green Party's presidential nominee, sent out a barrage of Twitter posts as Mr.
Sanders made his endorsement arguing that Mrs. Clinton's policies were antithetical to a liberal
progressive agenda.
Dr. Jill Stein
✔ @DrJillStein
Despite Hillary's penchant for flip-flopping rhetoric, she's spent decades serving the causes
of the Wall Street, war, & Walmart economy.
Gov. Gary Johnson
✔ @GovGaryJohnson
If joining Sen. Sanders in the Clinton Establishment isn't a good fit, there IS another
option... #afterthebern
For those who believed that Mr. Sanders still had a chance to snatch the nomination at the
convention in Philadelphia, it was too soon after his endorsement to consider alternatives. It
would take time for the mix of anger and disbelief to subside.
"You chose her over us," Jessica Watrous Boyer, of Westerly, R.I., wrote on Mr. Sanders's
Facebook page, lamenting that he had broken his promise to take the fight to the convention.
"Truly shocked and saddened by this."
Some of Bernie Sanders' most loyal backers have turned into his biggest bashers on the heels
of his Hillary Clinton endorsement.
The Vermont senator, who slammed Clinton repeatedly during the presidential primary campaign,
offered his unwavering support to the presumptive Democratic nominee at a rally in New Hampshire
Tuesday.
"Hillary Clinton will make a great president and I am proud to stand with her today," he said.
What followed was an avalanche of angry tweets, blogs and other social media posts from those who
had been feeling the 'Bern' -- and now just feel burned.
In New York, Monroe County Sanders activist Kevin Sweeney told the Democrat & Chronicle he's
shifting his donations to Green Party candidate Jill Stein. "A lot of Bernie supporters are
making $27 donations to Jill Stein's campaign today," he said.
Others were more direct, as the hashtag #SelloutSanders and others took off on Twitter....
... ... ...
Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, jumped in on the action.
He tweeted, "Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street
endorsing Goldman Sachs. "
brendajc
Bernie supporters.......trump welcomes you
1. We are and have been socialist since FDR....welfare...unemployment ...medicare....social
security. ...,studebt loans....these a3 socialist programs.
nobody wants these socialist programs gone
We just don't want communism
And we want fiscal responsibility.
Come join us.
are122
I sometimes think Bernie was nothing more then a setup or a patsy encouraged to run by the
DNC. With all the "superdelegates" supporting HC, the Bern had to know he virtually had no
chance to win but put on a show anyway. He's suddenly very nice to all those that basically
shafted him in advance.
hotdogsdownhallways
Cannot wait until we find out how much the Clinton Foundation gave him.
From Twitter: Bernie Sanders, We didn't donate $230M to vote for a warmonger with 4 superPACs,
scam charity and $150M speeches who sabotaged your campaign
Notable quotes:
"... Today, you decided to officially express your support for Hillary Clinton in the race for president of the United States. Unlike many, I will not label you a "sellout." Though I'm disappointed in your decision, I would also like to thank you for your contribution to American politics. ..."
"... But I reject the political hive-mind's notion that you had to endorse Hillary. You did not. You've been an independent for decades, refusing to officially associate yourself with a party that you didn't fully believe in. ..."
Today, you decided to officially express your support for Hillary Clinton in the race for
president of the United States. Unlike many, I will not label you a "sellout." Though I'm
disappointed in your decision, I would also like to thank you for your contribution to American
politics.
... ... ...
Like me and many other conservatives, your supporters now stand without a candidate to believe
in. And, like me, they are disappointed in your decision to bow to the pressure exerted by the
political muscle that the Clintons have been flexing for decades. I understand that your arm has
been twisted by every establishment Democrat from the top down...
But I reject the political hive-mind's notion that you had to endorse Hillary. You did
not. You've been an independent for decades, refusing to officially associate yourself with a
party that you didn't fully believe in. Throughout the campaign, you highlighted all of the
problems with your opponent, and even went so far as to declare her "unfit" for the office of the
presidency. You told America that you were starting a political revolution. By its very nature,
though, a revolution refuses to be cowed by the protectors of the status quo. It can concede
temporary defeat in certain battles, sure, but it can't survive if betrayed by its leaders. It is
disingenuous for you to pretend that you will continue your revolution despite your endorsement -
or even worse, imply that Hillary will. I thought you were better than that.
...During your endorsement speech, once more you called out the Wall Street billionaires for
whom you've so often expressed unqualified loathing over the last 14 months. But this time,
something was wrong: There stood, bobbing her head next to you, someone who has made a career out
of selling favors to those very same billionaires. I thought you were someone who put principles
before politics, and that you would never hesitate to stick to your guns, regardless of the
pressure. I guess not. Despite feeling disappointed and deflated, I want to thank you for helping
to rekindle my faith and interest in politics.
... ... ...
Sincerely, Andrew - Andrew Badinelli is an intern at National Review.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437758/bernie-sanders-wrong-beliefs-ideologically-principled
Alessandro Bianchi:
I would start from a brutal question: what kind of country
has become one that offers Donald Trump as the best candidate?
Peter Koenig:
The United States is a country, almost hermetically closed to the
rest of the real world, brainwashed to the core with lies and propaganda – and every day being told
how great America is. This propaganda is not new, though. It has been going on for as long as the
US exists, but has rapidly intensified after WWII and especially during the Cold War – and then again
after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
And thus, Americans, meaning North Americans – not mixing them up with Latin America which is
also part of the Americas – the vast majority of the US citizens cannot see what is really going
on. They are blinded by propaganda – and immobilized by their comfort. They love comfortable lives,
many of them – and although they do realize that something is not as it should be, it would give
them an uneasy feeling searching for the truth. The truth they suspect is too hard to swallow.
In such an ambiance someone like Donald Trump can flourish. He is different and he has a personality
the populace in general lack. The populace is unhappy with what's going on in their country, though
they are 'comfortable' how they live and how they lived all their lives. Change is uncomfortable.
Trump personalizes their change, without having to do anything. And Trump reconfirms their values
– of a great country – supremacy above all. – Trump is an 'old Nazi', while Hillary, better called
'Killary' is a new Nazi, or a neo-Nazi.
You see – fascism is difficult to escape in the US of A.
But what's the alternative to Trump? – Killary? –
With her you know whom she is working for – the Zionists, of whom she is actually part; neoliberals,
of whom she is part; corporate and financial elites by whom she is paid; Israel, as the Israeli influence
through AIPAC in the US and the US Congress is unparalleled and unbeatable to the point of the going
saying that "the tail (Israel, the Zionists) wags the Dog (US)". They, the Zionists support her,
she supports them. The circle is perfect. And both go to war. They want the total chaos in the Middle
East, to be dominated by the Israel of Netanyahu and Washington. Killary is the war candidate – perfect
for the Pentagon and the Military Industrial Complex.
So – I believe, the 'system' – the 'elite system' behind the mysterious Lucifer eye on top of
the pyramid on the dollar bill, this system will make Killary their next president. She is perfect
for them. She and trump are but two sides of the same coin. Therefore, no chance that anything will
change towards peace in the US of A in the coming years. Change may come only if people at home wake
up and take politics in their own hands – seeking peace, seeking true unification – not dominion
– with the rest of the world.
Peoples of the world do not need a sledgehammer, a dictator – one that enslaves them, robs them,
rapes and exploits them, kills them if they don't behave as the Masters in Washington deem necessary.
People in the US suffer the same from a Trump or Killary as would the rest of the world. Poverty
and injustice, the advancement of the police- and military dictatorship in the US is alarming, depriving
citizens of their rights, their livelihood, their freedom. But they must wake up to stop this process.
AB:
In a recent survey over 53% of Americans were against both Hillary Clinton
and Donald Trump. How long will we continue to consider the United States a democracy? And why, in
your opinion, abstention is the only form of "rebellion" of a completely excluded from the decision-making
stage population?
PK:
I don't know anyone, other than the mainstream media (MSM), that considers
the US a democracy. Indeed, the last form of 'rebellion' – of active protest that no military can
stop, is abstention from voting, not going to the polls – staying home. In a system where the people
are given the candidates that the evil eye pre-selects for them – and where none of theirs would
stand a chance – in such a system NOT voting may be the only solution, the only way to send a strong
message of disagreement. It would, however, take an organization of campaigning much harder than
folding into the mood of every four years, listening to the same lies and propaganda over and over
again – and what's worse, taking the candidates seriously. Debating Killary and Trump is already
taking them too seriously, giving them credit they don't deserve. They are both criminals – with
Killary being a murderer.
AB:
Bernie Sanders was really the change that many in Europe have described?
PK:
Not at all. Bernie is a fake. He was and I guess, still is a test case for
the system. Lucifer wants to see how far he can go – and what is it that the people want to hear.
Accordingly, will be adjusted the discourse of the two candidates. Sanders has a (Senate) voting
record which does not portray what he pledges to stand for. He is someone who when it suits him to
be politically correct, calls Chavez a dead dictator, distancing himself from this great mentor of
a free world.
What kind of a worthy candidate would do that?
Sanders, early on has said that if he should not succeed, he would support Killary. Hello! what message
does that convey? – That he would support a warmonger par excellence? – Europeans like many Americans
have been fooled by Bernie's charm and rebellious appearance. All fake!
AB:
What would happen to the world with a Hillary Clinton's presidency?
PK:
The short answer – WWIII – if it hadn't already started as one of Obama's
last agenda item to be achieved before leaving office. Killary and Israel – they would certainly
not stop from annihilating the Middle East on the way to achieve The PNAC's (Plan for a New American
Century) sole objective – Full Spectrum Dominance – controlling the world. To do so, wars with Russia
and China are unavoidable. I still hope – Hope dies last! – that Presidents Putin and Xi, the real
visionaries and excellent chess players in this geopolitical game, will be able to gently pull out
all the plugs from the monster octopus, deflating the beast economically – so as to spill as little
blood as possible -and, so as the rest of the world can continue living with a peaceful economic
and monetary system, the one being designed by Russia, China, India (the BRICS, now without the 'B'),
the central and eastern Asian countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and those also
belonging to the EEU (Eurasian Economic Union) covering some 50% of the world population and controlling
about a third of the world's economic output.
AB:
What did you feel when you saw Obama speaking recently at Hiroshima not apologizing
for what was done by his country and declaring almost sarcastically – as the head of the world's
first atomic power – to hope for a world without nuclear weapons?
PK:
Utter disgust – a hypocrite on top of his class.
AB:
Will the growing US expansionism come to a breaking point and collision with
China?
PK:
As I said before, let's hope China and Russia will be able to deflate the
monster's steady aggressions through encroachment of Russia by NATO and China by the US Navy fleet
in the South China Sea. They are a constant provocation. But so far Russia and China haven't fallen
into the trap.
What is more worrisome – the European vassals, especially Germany, France and the UK, they are totally
enslaved- or bought? – by Washington. They let the expansion of NATO going on, even pay for it!!!
– while not realizing – are they really so blind? – that the next war, WWIII, would play out again
in Europe? – Europe the third time in 100 years the theatre of war, destruction and annihilation.
This time to the end of life – very likely.
AB:
Although it is NATO that is bringing his installations more and more to the
east, in Europe our information feeds a danger of an aggressive Russia. Who benefits feed this feeling
of Russophobia?
PK:
The information in Europe and elsewhere in the western world is controlled
to literally 90% by 6 giant Anglo-Zionist media corporations. Every piece of propaganda news – LIES
– is repeated at nauseatum by all the MSM outlets. It's an old doctrine, Hitler and many before him
knew, when you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. That's happening to an agonizing
degree in Europe – a sheer continent of vassals. – They harm themselves most – and, of course, support
Lucifer behind his clandestine eye on top of the pyramid.
AB:
Since the advent of the so-called Arab Spring, which began with the famous
Obama's speech at the University of Cairo in 2009, the Eastern Mediterranean has become a powder
keg. Was it an external plan planned destruction of states hostile rulers in Washington, Libya and
Syria in particular, or real quest for democracy and freedom?
PK:
Well, my friend, you know that it had and has nothing to do with democracy.
The 'Arab Spring' was as planned by the CIA, Mossad and other secret services of the evil powers
as were the so-called Color Revolutions in the former Soviet Republics – and of course, the last
one we have witnessed to the extreme, Ukraine, where Washington didn't relent before a pure Nazi
Government was installed; a Nazi Government – for which such (in)famous newspapers like the Swiss
NZZ (Neue Zürcher Zeitung) seek support by asking the west to go to war against Russia. Can you imagine!
None of the destroyed states were 'hostile' to Washington. It is, as always, the
other way around, hostility is instigated by Washington, to provoke wars and 'regime change' that's
precisely what has happened in the Middle East – and continues to happen until all those countries
that have to fall – as it is planned in the PNAC – will eventually fall. The only ones that can stop
that merciless killing machine are Russia and China.
AB:
Is right to define today Aleppo as the "Stalingrad of Syria" and "the cemetery
of the dreams of fascist Erdogan" as stated by the Syrian President Assad?
PK:
Yes, President Assad may be right. This is an interesting allegation and
association. But then again – Aleppo still stands today and Mr. Putin will not let it fall.
AB:
What do you think will be the final scenario for Syria. It risks a crystallization
like Cold War-style situation between the two blocks – Damascus, Russia and regional allies, on the
one hand, and Kurds with the United States on the other – with Raqqa which will become a new Berlin?
PK:
It's very difficult to predict the outcome of the Syria conflict – a US instigated
conflict, let me make that very clear. In any case, as it stands now, the axis Syria-Iran is still
alive and well. China, the single largest client of Iran's hydrocarbons, will not let Iran fall.
Mr. Putin, likewise, will, in my opinion, not let Mr. Assad be overthrown by Lucifer and his minions.
And let's hope that they prevail. To prevail, however, Washington would have to take some major blows,
some weakening blows. This is currently the case. The empire is on its last legs, as many say – breathing
heavily, like an angry beast in agony – it lashes around itself and kills indiscriminately whatever
it can, so nobody may survive its demise. This could well happen. The US triggering WWIII – a nuclear
annihilation. But let's hope it will NOT happen.
AB:
What role, in your opinion, the human rights NGOs play in the current international
context?
PK:
What Human rights NGOs? – There is none left that deserves the term. They
are all bought. Have you ever seen, for example, Amnesty international accusing the empire of whatever
human rights abuses they have carried out – the most flagrant human rights abuser in the universe
is never mentioned by AI? – What a joke! – Same with Human Rights Watch and others. They are all
subdued, even Green Peace – probably all financed by the dollars of which the FED has taken on its
own the power to create unlimited quantities from thin air.
AB:
14 years ago, the coup in Venezuela against the democratically elected President
Hugo Chavez failed and began the US exit from Latin America. Shortly after, the US invaded Iraq.
Today that the hegemony in the eastern Mediterranean wobbles, Washington uses all its weapons known
to return in Latin America. Was in your opinion the President Rafael Correa right when he says that
we are facing a new Plan Condor in the region?
PK:
Of course, President Correa is right, when he refers to a new Plan Condor.
It is happening very fast. Thinking of it makes one sick. We – those who foster hope to the end –
have been hoping that at least one important part of the world, Latin America, or especially South
America, will withstand the pressure of Washington. But no. These governments, Brazil, Argentina,
Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, they seem to be too honest – maybe not astute enough – to use the same
weapons the neoliberals do. For example, it goes beyond me that Dilma Rousseff did not stop the propaganda
media, kick them out, declare Martial Law to reinstate the rule of Law, of the democratically elected
Government. Macri, as you know, closed immediately TeleSUR, the only media that brings the truth
to South America. He got away with it. He is the neo-Nazi leader of Argentina.
The same with Mr. Maduro. Why does he not order the military to distribute food to the stores
and assure that the electricity grid functions? We know that food is available, but the distribution
is interrupted by the local rightwing forces supported and trained by Washington. The same that the
CIA did in Chile to organize a coup against President Allende – they interrupted the food chain,
and people took to the streets. It's all orchestrated from Washington. Old methods in new clothes.
Especially if it worked the first time, why wouldn't it work a second and third time? – People have
very short memories.
AB:
And if so, considering also what happened in Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia,
which techniques are used today?
PK:
The techniques of infiltration. Vulnerable, buyable locals from the opposition
are bought, trained in the US or even sometime on location, by the CIA and other foreign and western
forces – some in the form of foreign do-gooder 'NGOs', to create and instigate peoples' unhappiness
– through strikes, blockages, as mentioned before, interruptions of food chains. The media propaganda.
In all these countries the foreign media is by far domineering. And the local media are in the hands
of oligarchs, the elite, and of course want any left-leaning government to disappear as fast and
lasting as possible. And they get the steady support from Washington. The 'election coup' in Argentina
was orchestrated largely by the media. Although there was some fraud going on during and after the
elections. But most of it was done by the western rightwing media.
The 'parliamentary coup' in Brazil, and before in Paraguay in 2012, were remote-guided from Washington.
That is not surprising. But what is surprising to me is that people just let it happen, that Dilma
Rousseff just looked on as her government was being destroyed – by corrupt scoundrels who themselves
should be and will eventually be in prison. Michel Temer, Brazil's interim President, is constitutionally
not allowed to stand for public office for the next at least 8 years, as he is convicted for corruption
in the 'Car Wash' scandal. Yet, he heads Brazil's interim government. What a farce. It's like kids'
play – they – Lucifer's vassals – go as far as they can, until somebody stops them. Nobody, inside
or outside Brazil has had the guts to say 'stop' and take the necessary actions.
Never forget, money is plentiful. May it cost whatever ridiculously astronomic amount is needed to
influence and buy people, money is just being produced by the empire which still has the dollar monopoly
– that the rest of the world – except Russia and China – adheres to. So, that's how everything is
financed – weapons, including a destructive media bulldozer. Other, 'normal' countries do not have
access to unlimited amounts of money. Therefore, they will not win a media war. Unless, they do what
they are allowed to do: stop a slander and lie-driven media campaign, by force. This has nothing
to do with free-press or freedom of expression. The Government has a democratic and constitutional
right to stop lies and slander. Dilma did not use her power to stop the media lies and slander.
AB:
The future of the world offers at the moment two possible tracks: a US unilateralism,
particularly in the event of Clinton's presidency, made up of areas of "free" trade treaty around
the world on the NAFTA model (such as the TTIP in Europe), with millions the desperate poor products,
profits only for multinationals and the planned destruction of all countries who rebel against this
vision in Libya and Syria style; or, second hypothesis, a period of multilateralism, respect for
sovereignty, self-determination and peace if to prevail is the alternative project to the Washington
Consensus of the Brics and the regional integration in Latin America designed and built by Chavez,
Lula and Kirchner. Are we a lot far from reality? And which of the two views will prevail in your
opinion?
PK:
US unilateralism, or a free world of sovereign countries, peacefully trading
with each other well, you know which one should prevail, and I must say that a positive outlook
has a lot to do with what eventually will happen. The 'power of the mind' effect of human thinking
and will-power is amazing. But, indeed, it may take a long time until we will be living in a world
of peace, justice and equality. Foremost, it will take awakening of the "We, the People" to a different
consciousness. Even if darkness will prevail for a while longer – light will overwhelmingly outshine
darkness, eventually.
Peter Koenig
is an economist and geopolitical analyst.
He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment
and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, Chinese
4th Media, TeleSUR, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of
Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed
– fiction
based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author
of
The World
Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance
.
Of course Bernie Sanders appears to have sold out emerging from a White
House meeting with President Barack Obama vowing to work together with Hillary
Clinton to defeat Donald Trump in November. Bernie would rather endorse
a traitor who has sold her influence as Secretary of State just to save
the Democratic Party. Obama assured Bernie, no doubt, that he would not
allow Hillary to be indicted. And to further rig the game, the State Department
refuses to release her emails until
AFTER the election. But the actual date they gave was
November 31st, 2016, which does not exist since November has only 30 days.
Once she is president, no doubt they will vanish altogether.
It appears that Bernie is betraying all those who supported him. Hillary
will raise $1 billion to buy the White House. That kind of money does not
come from bankers without strings. Wall Street supports Hillary – not Trump.
That says it all. How Bernie can just give up is amazing. What happened
to his "revolution" will never be discussed.
"Text of Bernie Sanders' speech endorsing Hillary Clinton" [MarketWatch].
Lambert here: Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin. The moment had to come,
and now it has come. Will Sanders, in practice, have proven to be a sheepdog?
Will Sanders' endorsement decapitate his movement? To me, the open question
is what actions Sanders voters will take, going forward, beyond the ballot
box, and as organizers. I'm not really sanguine about that, because the
Chicago conference didn't give me confidence the left could unsilo itself,
and distinguish itself, as a single institutional force ready to take power,
from the (neoliberal) liberals (mostly Democrats) and the (neoliberal) conservatives
(some Democrats, mostly Republicans). That said, the Sanders campaign did
more than the left could have expected in its wildest dreams. To the text:
[SANDERS:] I have come here today not to talk about the past but
to focus on the future. That future will be shaped more by what happens
on November 8 in voting booths across our nation than by any other event
in the world. I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to
why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next
president.
During the last year I had the extraordinary opportunity to speak
to more than 1.4 million Americans at rallies in almost every state
in this country. I was also able to meet with many thousands of other
people at smaller gatherings. And the profound lesson that I have learned
from all of that is that this campaign is not really about Hillary Clinton,
or Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, or any other candidate who sought
the presidency. This campaign is about the needs of the American people
and addressing the very serious crises that we face. And there is no
doubt in my mind that, as we head into November, Hillary Clinton is
far and away the best candidate to do that.
I'd prefer the position that Clinton hasn't won the nomination until
there's a vote on the convention floor, which I had understood to be the
position of the Sanders campaign.
[SANDERS:] Hillary Clinton understands that we must fix an economy
in America that is rigged and that sends almost all new wealth and income
to the top one percent.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
[SANDERS:] This election is about the grotesque level of income and
wealth inequality that currently exists, the worst it has been since
1928. Hillary Clinton knows that something is very wrong when the very
rich become richer while many others are working longer hours for lower
wages.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
[SANDERS:] I am happy to tell you that at the Democratic Platform
Committee which ended Sunday night in Orlando, there was a significant
coming together between the two campaigns and we produced, by far, the
most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party. Our
job now is to see that platform implemented by a Democratic Senate,
a Democratic House and a Hillary Clinton president - and I am going
to do everything I can to make that happen.
Platform as a highly inadequate baseline and a method to hold Clinton's
feet to the fire? Yes. Not negligible, but not much. And
Clinton immediately showed - before the rally! - that she didn't
take it seriously.
[SANDERS:] Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and
I am proud to stand with her here today.
I don't see how the institutionalized corruption of both legacy parties
generally and the Clinton Dynasty in particular make any of this possible.
One door closes, another opens…
"'I can't help but say how much more enjoyable this election is going
to be when we are on the same side,' [Clinton] said. "You know what? We
are stronger together!'" [CNN].
Whichever Clinton operative decided to deploy the "stronger together" slogan
shouldn't be expected to have known that it's also a slogan developed by
the military junta in Thailand. But whatever.
"Tuesday's rally drew supporters of Clinton and Sanders, some of whom
chanted 'Bernie' while others chanted 'unity.' Some Sanders supporters left
their seats when Sanders endorsed Clinton. Earlier, when New Hampshire Sen.
Jeanne Shaheen said 'we need to elect Hillary,' she was interrupted by shouts
of 'No!' and chants of "Bernie, Bernie' [USA
Today]. "But there were deafening cheers as Sanders said Clinton would
'make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today.'"
"The most ringing portion of the endorsement came at the end, with Sanders
bringing up some of the personal reasons why he had chosen to support Clinton.
But even this portion felt a bit lifeless, with Sanders citing Clinton's
intellect and passion on children's issues, and failing to address her integrity,
which he directly challenged during the campaign and which will continue
to be an issue the Republicans attack in the wake of the conclusion of the
FBI's investigation into her email scandal" [Slate].
And what happened here?
Do we have any readers who were on that conference call?
"[I]n a nod to Sanders's successful fundraising efforts that brought
in millions of dollars from small donors, with at one time an average donation
of $27, Clinton's campaign has made $27 an option on its online donor page"
[CNN].
"About 85 percent of Democrats who backed Mr. Sanders in the primary
contests said they planned to vote for her in the general election, according
to a Pew poll released last week. Yet she has struggled to appeal to the
independents and liberals who rallied behind the senator's call for a 'political
revolution' to topple establishment politicians, Mrs. Clinton included"
[New
York Times]. 85% of declared Democrats. Not such a good number from
a third of the electorate.
"I am not voting for Hillary Clinton, regardless of her endorsement by
Bernie Sanders. My decision isn't because of the scandal around her emails
or because of some concern over her character. My reasons are pretty straightforward.
I don't agree with her ideologically" [Eddie S. Glaude,
Time].
The Trail
"The final amendment to the Democratic Party platform was meant to sprinkle
Hillary Clinton's name throughout the document, putting a contentious and
drawn-out primary process to rest in favor of a unified party. It never
came up for a vote" [Bloomberg].
"Despite having the support of both the Clinton and Bernie Sanders campaign
staffs, the amendment hadn't been run by committee members or Sanders supporters
in the audience, some of whom angrily shouted down the language because,
they argued, Clinton isn't the official nominee yet. The moment highlighted
the state of the party after a long weekend of intense debates in Orlando,
Florida, that left some tempers frayed, and extensive back-room policy negotiations
between the two campaigns…."
"On Tuesday, the [Trump and Indiana Governor Mike Pence] will put their
compatibility to the test when they appear together at a rally near Indianapolis,
the latest in a string of public auditions for the running mate role" [RealClearPolitics].
""Hillary Clinton's campaign is vetting James G. Stavridis, a retired
four-star Navy admiral who served as the 16th supreme allied commander at
NATO, as a possible running mate" [New
York Times].
From the Wikipedia entry, which seems to have been written by a Clinton
operative: "Stavridis has long advocated the use of "Smart Power," which
he defines as the balance of hard and soft power taken together. In numerous
articles[17] and speeches, he has advocated creating security in the 21st
century by building bridges, not walls." I mean, come on.
jo6pac
Those that sent money to Bernie please let Lambert and us know if dddc
or dnc ask for $$$$$$. Then may be it will just be a letter from the foundation
asking for $$$$$$$$$$$$.
Roger Smith
I will update should I receive anything. I am curious about the list
as well.
Arizona Slim
I just unsubscribed from Bernie's e-mailing list.
Rick
As did I. I will keep the poster I bought from his campaign as a reminder
of a now passed moment of hope.
cwaltz
The moment hasn't passed unless you were expecting Bernie Sanders to
do all the heavy lifting.
The reality is that each and every person disappointed today should make
a concerted effort to let the DNC know in no uncertain terms did their lying,
cheating and outright rigging of this primary mean that they'll be getting
a vote this November. It also means that each and every person find their
spine and support someone other than the Democratic nominee. Expect to hunker
down for 4 years no matter what because if Clinton or Trump are the nominees
then you can pretty much expect there won't be many benefits for average
Americans.
"... "A Sanders endorsement of Clinton would be the ultimate betrayal of his supporters, especially those of us that poured money into his campaign." ..."
"... "Bernie, if you endorse Hillary Clinton, after is NOW A PROVEN FACT she lied to the American people, then you sir are a FRAUD." ..."
"... "Bernie, endorsing Clinton destroys every point you made and everything you stood for in the race. You are letting the people who supported you down. You made a promise to fight in the end, but instead you are conceding. You are not the elected leader you lead us to believe in. Shame on you." ..."
"Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand
with her here today," Sanders said at the end of the rally.
This proclamation is a far cry from how his stance was a couple months
ago, when he claimed that Clinton wasn't qualified for the presidency.
"I don't believe that she is qualified," Sanders said in a Philadelphia
rally back in April, as reported by thinkprogress.org. "[I]f she is, through
her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds.
I don't think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street
through your super PAC."
Trump was one of the first to call Sanders a sell-out on Twitter, comparing
his endorsement of "Crooked Hillary Clinton" to Occupy Wall Street endorsing
Goldman Sachs.
"I am somewhat surprised that Bernie Sanders was not true to himself
and his supporters," Trump tweeted. "They are not happy that he is selling
out!"
While some Democrats are happy that the party has seemed to have finally
united, like the Communications Workers of America who have now changed
their endorsement from Sanders to Clinton, other supporters share Trumps
sentiments, feeling outraged and disappointed at Bernie's sudden change
of heart.
"A Sanders endorsement of Clinton would be the ultimate betrayal
of his supporters, especially those of us that poured money into his campaign."
"Bernie, if you endorse Hillary Clinton, after is NOW A PROVEN FACT
she lied to the American people, then you sir are a FRAUD."
"Bernie, endorsing Clinton destroys every point you made and everything
you stood for in the race. You are letting the people who supported you
down. You made a promise to fight in the end, but instead you are conceding.
You are not the elected leader you lead us to believe in. Shame on you."
These are just some of the comments people have been leaving on Sander's
Facebook page, as reported on the Forward Progressives website.
Other supporters have asked him to wait for the Democrats Party convention,
to run in a third-party or to join Jill Stein in the Green Party ticket.
Now that Sanders has endorsed Clinton, Clinton's campaign will most likely
focus on convincing his supporters to join them in their fight for the presidency.
Bernie is anti war, anti Wall St., anti TPP. If that is not a betrayal of his
supporters and his principles what is it then. Endorsing Clinton is like taking
a job at Goldman-Sachs.
So why exactly he endorses her? We still don't know.
The Democrats has good political operatives. There is Barack, the "change-no-change"
"black not for blacks" candidate, and Bernie, The Revolutionary who stands
staunchly behind Goldman Sachs and everything it presents.
Of course the real governing task is delegated to Hillary Clinton and
the "experts" from the banks.
Hey guys. Good job. Just remember: ultimately there is that cliff you're
marching towards.
Why is he not doing as he promised and taking his message and challenge
all the way to the convention? The super delegates are still an play and
I doubt they've even finished counting California...This is very disheartening...
Prepare for eternal war.
I'd like to formally thank Bernie Sanders for endorsing my wife Hillary
today. I know how tough it was for Bernie to stump for her today. Especially
considering Hillary is even more crooked than my 4-inch yogurt slinger.
As many of my young interns know, that's really crooked!
I'd also like to formally apologize to Bernie for all the death threats
and that severed horse's head my guys left in his bed. lol whoops! Ok, gotta
go make another phone call to my good friend Trump now.....
You could just crawl back into your socialist hole and not say anything
Bernie, but no, you're just another fool brought by Clinton because she
needs your votes like she needs air. Congratulations on becoming another
member of the Clinton foundations bankroll
The problem isnt her most recent rhetoric, it is her person, and trusting
to do the things she says (as she has held every side of every position).
The endorsement doesn't fix the problem that we still don't want her...
I think many of us will be looking for at the third party alternatives.
If we give into this lesser of two evils every election cycle, we'll soon
find candidates worse than Trump.
1. Party platforms are consolation bullshit. They mean nothing, especially
when the big money funding the campaign is against the platform. This is
just a political fact.
2. Therefore, Bernie's campaign has not started a revolution, but rather
has dead-ended with a big bowl of nothing.
3. Parties are the vehicles through which policies get pushed and accomplished.
Since it was re-engineered by the Clinton's in the 1990's, the Democratic
Party is like a vehicle with its steering welded to turn right.
4. Therefore the only way to achieve a successful and peaceful political
revolution is to re-engineer the vehicle; and this requires breaking it
down and putting it back together.
In other words, for the sake of progress, the D.N.C. as presently constituted
and managed had to be destroyed.
5. The only way to destroy the D.N.C. would have been to hand Hillary
a defeat on a platter. This would have driven home, in the only way politicians
understand, that progressive Americans will not be played and fooled.
6. The willingness to do this requires strategic fortitude -- a willingness
to think in long term objectives and to endure immediate and temporary inconveniences.
Four years of Trump will not be the "sky-is-falling" disaster the Hillary
Hens are clucking over. Eight years of Hillary will only solidify the grip
corporations, banks and neo-con militarists, have on the country.
7. Bernie should have run as an independent, precisely in order to defeat
Hillary. Only then could a four year hiatus be used to clean out the D.N.C.,
and revitalize it with real progressive blood. Then and only then will progressives
get the "platform" they want. Is four years of Clown Trump worth it? You
bet.
I disagree. Chris Hedges believes that Sanders intended to mislead voters
and intentionally funnel them back to Hillary Clinton under the belief that
they would uncritically support her. That seems to be completely false,
and even if it were true, it's seems he made a terrible sheepdog as many
of us will not support Hillary. The problem was that although he saw no
chance for an independent to win, the Democratic Party is a dead end for
real change as well. I guess we all know that now.
When it comes to intention I guess that I believed that he was genuine
in his attempt to win and bring about change (except on the nation that
cannot be criticised and on foreign policy) but the endorsement of HRC is
another blow for the massive desire to remove these two corporatist parties.
With the DNC having decided to support fracking, settlements etc the
American people (and the world) are in for more of the same, war, privatisation,
alienation of the poor, secret trade deals that give more power to corporations
and environmental destruction etc. etc. etc
"He's lending credibility to a party that is completely corporatized.
He has agreed that he will endorse the candidate, which, unless there
is some miracle, will probably be Hillary Clinton."
You bottled it in the end. Sad. I never liked him much, but in running
as an independent or siding with the Greens he could have showed that he
stands for something. Endorsing Clinton is like taking a job at Goldman-Sachs.
Oh, so he admitted it'd be better to support a lesser evil? How should you
support an evil anyway? How about quietly withdrawing from the race and
not saying anything that violates his own principles? I don't see what that's
difficult to understand myself!
There was never a doubt that Democrats would eventually unite behind whoever
ended up being the nominee. The problem is that all those NON-Democrats
who so passionately supported Bernie will not. He was the real deal, and
our best hope of actually engaging them, expanding our party, and having
the wave election we need to actually get progress done.
I have been actively trying to recruit folks like this into our ranks
for many years now, so trust me when I tell you that we are in very serious
trouble this year. No matter what Bernie says or does, these non-Dems will
not feel the bern for her. We are heading to a low voter turnout election
with two major candidates that have record low net favorability ratings,
and Republicans usually do best in situations like that since they have
the most reliable voting base.
In my book, when you've run against somebody, you must think that guy would
be a bad choice. When you think a person is a bad choice, how come you endorse
that person? Bernie lost my respect (even though he doesn't care)!
F*** this lesser-of-two-evils rubbish. We paid for his campaign, to resist
this criminal and what she represents with every fibre of his body and he's
sold us out. Jill Stein offered him something that could have brought real
change and he sold us out. He is there because of the money and faith we
put in him.
What a turncoat bastard. I am disgusted.
For a vast library of information detailing the many crimes of the ghastly
Clinton crime syndicate, please see the following link.
http://www.arkancide.com
Super delegates have yet to vote, Hillary has not made it past the threshold,
so if Sanders torpedos her, he gets booted out as a Dem nominee by party
rules. So in order to stay to the convention he is doing what he has to.
Has he conceded? No! If Bernie showed and asked me to vote for Hillary
I would tell him no.
At this point, Bernie's endorsement of Hillary does not matter at all. The
genie of his movement is already out of the bottle, and it cannot be put
back in.
The movement never belonged to him, he belongs to the movement, and Bernie
knows it. He knows it even as he pronounces the endorsement. He has played
his enormously important part in that movement through his candidacy and
now he will go back to fighting for the progressive cause from inside the
Democratic party, because that is what he has been doing for twenty years
and before he launched that candidacy. But the forces that he has unleashed
will keep growing and gathering strength on their own.
Same old shit then. The Plutocrats won again and can freely go on
selling 'war for profit' as 'fighting for freedoms.'
With the useful benefit that La Clinton can now swan about on stage draped
in a coat made from the hide of an old leftie.
"We came, we saw we skinned it." And oh how the laughter rang out the entire
length of Wall Street.
So the warmongers and wall street win again. For the moment at least. The
struggle continues. A new front opens under the banner of the Greens. In
the UK the Grassoots on the left now have the whole power of the elite arrayed
against them, with dirty tricks and media lies. The right wing blairites
are using every trick in the book to split our Labouur Movement and remove
our democratically elected Leader Corbyn. We are hanging in. Wish us luck,
American friends! Looks like we are going to need it. No surrender!
There was never any doubt, in any election ever fought in the USA, that
the military-industrial-financial complex would be the winner. They always
are.
The left in the UK are tearing themselves apart Life of Brian
style (how prescient that film was!). It will be generations before they
every wield power in this country, if ever. I'll probably see out my days
under a vicious Tory administration.
It's a shame it has come to this but kind of expected.
Bernie wants to stop Trump now, and he believes that his is the way to
do it. I don't personally this will have the desired effect enough people
despise Clinton, but we will see.
If I was a US citizen and had a vote, I would have thrown my full support
behind Bernie, but this endorsement certainly would not make me vote for
Hillary either (I certainly wouldn't support Trump, I'm not totally insane),
I'd prefer to abstain completely.
Strategic voting is an expression of support for the rigid, corrupt and
self-serving political system that led to self-serving cretins like Trump
and Clinton being among the elite ruling class in the first place.
All it does is prolong the death rattles of the lower orders of society.
Fellow Americans: Our country was demolished by Clinton, and Obama has been
running a kill list for extra judicial killins, and he is the sitting president
under wich a police force appears to be on a rampage to coloured people.
The first black president leading a nation of multiple racist killings.
Do
Not
Ever
Vote
Democrats
Again
The word lie doesnt cover it. The word lying says it doesnt want anything
to do with Democrats. Trump, or any other republican, is a far better bet.
bring back George Bush jr for all I care. Anyone but a Demorcratic president.
Dont do it.
To endorse Hillary Clinton is to be in alliance with a cynical and utterly
corrupt liar who is willing to say anything to get elected. By endorsing
Hillary you, Bernie, have become a part of everything you have been complaining
about. Never mind. It never was about you and your endorsement isn't worth
shit.
After the progressive cause was successively sold out to Goldman Sachs by
Paul Krugman, Gloria Steinem, John Lewis and the Congressional black caucus,
Lena Dunham, Beyonce, George Clooney and Elizabeth Warren (Did I forget
any of the earlier hate figures here?) it was inevitable that Bernie would
ultimately also be revealed as a neoliberal sellout.
Has to be viewed in the context of the global threat of Donald Trump
though
yeah imagine anyone daring to public oppose further neo-conservative
onslaught.
Obviously the man's unhinged and has to be stopped pronto.
fortunately bill kristol, victoria nuland, robert kagan et al are hot on
the case and 100% on board with hillary (& bill) on this
Sanders and Warren are now subsumed into the maw of the Empire of the Exceptionals
and are pledging their loyalty to it. Just like Obama all hopie changie
during campaigns but when the chips are down they show their true colors
as Neoliberal sycophants and support every policy the claimed to oppose.
I for one will never support a now proven corrupt and dishonest career politician.
Sorry Bernie, but the political revolution can never take place within a
party as establishment focused as the Democratic Party. A sad and depressing
time for all real progressives.
Trump is a man whose uncompromising attitude means he'll get even less
done than Obama. He'd be remembered as an ineffective washout of a president,
unable to get anything done and sorely disappointing a lot of voters.
Hillary is a smooth political operator who's in it for her own gain and
will get an awful lot done - just not the things you want her to do. She'll
be hawkish against Russia, interventionist against the Middle East, she'll
throw her full weight behind the establishment in both America and Europe,
and she'll make sure her paymasters at Goldman Sachs aren't disappointed
in her.
I suppose voting for Hillary to stop Trump might be an unavoidable course
of action. But few people realize the danger Hillary represents to the United
States... not because of what she will do, but because of what she won't
do.
Across the Western world, the centre is rapidly crumbling. Without a
significant course correction, it will soon fall and what replaces it is
hard to predict – but I doubt it will be pretty. Austria almost elected
a far right president, the UK voted for Brexit, the GOP nominated Trump.
You're a fool if you think this is the anti-establishment backlash... it's
only the beginning, and these events are just canaries in the mine. The
real backlash is yet to come.
With 4-8 years of a Clinton-led status quo government, resentment will
grow, inequality and hopelessness will increase... and eventually a right
wing demagogue who is much smarter than Trump will see an opportunity and
pounce. I suspect it'll happen right after the next market crash, which
Clinton will do nothing to prevent.
Historically illiterate people are constantly looking out for the "next
Hitler" and so point their finger at the likes of Trump. But that's the
wrong question. Anyone who understands the events that led to Nazism realizes
the true question is who is the next Von Hindenburg . Clinton looks
like a pretty good candidate in that respect.
"... The reality is that prosecutors don't normally consider the legislative history or possible unconstitutionality of criminal statutes. Why? Because that's not their job. ..."
"... We can say, accurately, that the judgment of the FBI in its investigation into Clinton and her associates ― and Comey confirmed Clinton was indeed a "subject" of the investigation ― is that Clinton is a criminal. ..."
"... whether criminal statutes on the books had been violated ..."
"... criminal statutes had been violated ..."
"... So, my first point: for Comey to imply that there is any prosecutor in America uncomfortable with the "constitutionality" of criminal statutes predicated on "negligent," "reckless," or "knowing" mental states is not just laughable but an insult to both the prosecutorial class and our entire criminal justice system. Whatever issue Comey may have had with the felony statute he agrees Clinton violated, that wasn't it. ..."
"... specific intent ..."
"... Black's Law Dictionary ..."
"... First he asked, "What would other prosecutors do?" That's not a question prosecutors are charged to ask, and we now see why: as Comey himself concedes, countless prosecutors have already come out in public to say that, had they been investigating Clinton, they would have prosecuted her. A standard for prosecutorial discretion in which you weigh what others in your shoes might do based on some sort of a census leads immediately to madness, not just for the reasons I'm articulating here but many others too numerous to go into in detail in this space. ..."
"... Comey found credible that Clinton had created her private basement server set-up purely out of "convenience"; yet he also found that old servers, once replaced, were "stored and decommissioned in various ways." Wait, "various ways"? If Clinton was trying to create a streamlined, convenient personal process for data storage, why were things handled so haphazardly that Comey himself would say that the servers were dealt with "in various ways" over time? ..."
"... And indeed, the evidence Comey turned up showed that Clinton's staff was aware ― was repeatedly and systematically made aware ― that the Secretary's set-up had the effect of evading FOIA requests. And Clinton was, by her own admission, clear with her inferiors that "avoiding access to the personal" was key to her private basement-server set-up. That's very different from "convenience." ..."
"... completely different and more stringent protocols and requirements for data storage ..."
1. According to Comey, Clinton committed multiple federal felonies and misdemeanors.
Many people will miss this in the wash of punditry from non-attorneys in the mainstream media that
has followed Comey's public remarks and Congressional testimony.
The issue for Comey wasn't that
Clinton hadn't committed any federal crimes, but that in his personal opinion the federal felony
statute Clinton violated (18 U.S.C. 793f) has been too rarely applied for him to feel comfortable
applying it to Clinton. This is quite different from saying that no crime was committed; rather,
Comey's position is that crimes were committed, but he has decided not to prosecute those crimes
because (a) the statute he focused most on has only been used once in the last century (keeping in
mind how relatively rare cases like these are in the first instance, and therefore how rarely we
would naturally expect a statute like this to apply in any case), and (b) he personally believes
that the statute in question might be unconstitutional because, as he put it, it might punish people
for crimes they didn't specifically intend to commit (specifically, it requires only a finding of
"gross negligence," which Comey conceded he could prove). Comey appears to have taken the extraordinary
step of researching the legislative history of this particular criminal statute in order to render
this latter assessment.
The reality is that prosecutors don't normally consider the legislative history or possible
unconstitutionality of criminal statutes. Why? Because that's not their job. Their job is to
apply the laws as written, unless and until they are superseded by new legislation or struck down
by the judicial branch. In Comey's case, this deep dive into the history books is even more
puzzling as, prior to Attorney General Loretta Lynch unethically having a private meeting with Bill
Clinton on an airport tarmac, Comey wasn't even slated to be the final arbiter of whether Clinton
was prosecuted or not. He would have been expected, in a case like this, to note to the Department
of Justice's career prosecutors that the FBI had found evidence of multiple federal crimes, and then
leave it to their prosecutorial discretion as to whether or not to pursue a prosecution. But more
broadly, we must note that when Comey gave his public justification for not bringing charges ― a
public justification in itself highly unusual, and suggestive of the possibility that Comey knew
his inaction was extraordinary, and therefore felt the need to defend himself in equally extraordinary
fashion ― he did not state the truth: that Clinton had committed multiple federal crimes per statutes
presently on the books, and that the lack of a recommendation for prosecution was based not on the
lack of a crime but the lack of prosecutorial will (or, as he might otherwise have put it, the exercise
of prosecutorial discretion).
The danger here is that Americans will now believe many untrue things about the executive branch
of their government. For instance, watching Comey's testimony one might believe that if the executive
branch exercises its prosecutorial discretion and declines to prosecute crimes it determines have
been committed, it means no crimes were committed. In fact, what it means (in a case like this) is
that crimes were committed but will not be prosecuted. We can say, accurately, that the judgment
of the FBI in its investigation into Clinton and her associates ― and Comey confirmed Clinton was
indeed a "subject" of the investigation ― is that Clinton is a criminal. She simply shouldn't,
in the view of the FBI, be prosecuted for her crimes. Prosecutorial discretion of this sort is relatively
common, and indeed should be much more common when it comes to criminal cases involving
poor Americans; instead, we find it most commonly in law enforcement's treatment of Americans with
substantial personal, financial, sociocultural, and legal resources.
Americans might also wrongly believe, watching Comey's testimony, that it is the job of executive-branch
employees to determine which criminal statutes written by the legislative branch will be acknowledged.
While one could argue that this task does fall to the head of the prosecuting authority in a given
instance ― here, Attorney General Loretta Lynch; had an independent prosecutor been secured in this
case, as should have happened, that person, instead ― one could not argue that James Comey's
role in this scenario was to decide which on-the-books criminal statutes matter and which don't.
Indeed, Comey himself said, during his announcement of the FBI's recommendation, that his role was
to refer the case to the DOJ for a "prosecutive decision" ― in other words, the decision on whether
to prosecute wasn't his. His job was only to determine whether criminal statutes on the books
had been violated.
By this test, Comey didn't just not do the job he set out to do, he wildly and irresponsibly
exceeded it, to the point where its original contours were unrecognizable. To be blunt: by obscuring,
in his public remarks and advice to the DOJ, the fact that criminal statutes had been violated
― in favor of observing, more broadly, that there should be no prosecution ― he made it not just
easy but a fait accompli for the media and workaday Americans to think that not only would no prosecution
commence, but that indeed there had been no statutory violations.
Which there were.
Americans might also wrongly take at face value Comey's contention that the felony statute Clinton
violated was unconstitutional ― on the grounds that it criminalizes behavior that does not
include a specific intent to do wrong. This is, as every attorney knows, laughable. Every single
day in America, prosecutors prosecute Americans ― usually but not exclusively poor people ― for crimes
whose governing statutes lack the requirement of "specific intent." Ever heard of negligent homicide?
That's a statute that doesn't require what lawyers call (depending on the jurisdiction) an "intentional"
or "purposeful" mental state. Rather, it requires "negligence." Many other statutes require only
a showing of "recklessness," which likewise is dramatically distinct from "purposeful" or "intentional"
conduct. And an even larger number of statutes have a "knowing" mental state, which Comey well knows
― but the average American does not ― is a general- rather than specific-intent mental state (mens
rea, in legal terms).
And the term "knowingly" is absolutely key to the misdemeanors Comey appears to concede
Clinton committed, but has declined to charge her for.
To discuss what "knowingly" means in the law, I'll start with an example. When I practiced criminal
law in New Hampshire, it was a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to "knowingly cause unprivileged
physical contact with another person." The three key elements to this particular crime, which is
known as Simple Assault, are "knowingly," "unprivileged," and "physical contact." If a prosecutor
can prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant could, at the discretion
of a judge, find themselves locked in a cage for a year. "Physical contact" means just about exactly
what you'd expect, as does "unprivileged" ― contact for which you have no claim of privilege, such
as self-defense, defense of another, permission of the alleged victim, and so on. But what the heck
does "knowingly" mean? Well, as any law student can tell you, it means that you were aware of the
physical act you were engaged in, even if you didn't intend the consequences that act caused. For
instance, say you're in the pit at a particularly raucous speed-metal concert, leaping about, as
one does, in close proximity with many other people. Now let's say that after one of your leaps you
land on a young woman's foot and break it. If charged with Simple Assault, your defense won't be
as to your mental state, because you were "knowingly" leaping about, even if you intended no harm
in doing so. Instead, your defense will probably be that the contact (which you also wouldn't contest)
was "privileged," because the young lady had implicitly taken on, as had you, the risks of being
in a pit in the middle of a speed-metal concert. See the difference between knowingly engaging in
a physical act that has hurtful consequences, and "intending" or having as your "purpose" those consequences?
Just so, I've seen juveniles prosecuted for Simple Assault for throwing food during an in-school
cafeteria food fight; in that instance, no one was hurt, nor did anyone intend to hurt anybody, but
"unprivileged physical contact" was "knowingly" made all the same (in this case, via the instrument
of, say, a chicken nugget).
So, my first point: for Comey to imply that there is any prosecutor in America uncomfortable
with the "constitutionality" of criminal statutes predicated on "negligent," "reckless," or "knowing"
mental states is not just laughable but an insult to both the prosecutorial class and our entire
criminal justice system. Whatever issue Comey may have had with the felony statute he agrees Clinton
violated, that wasn't it.
What about the misdemeanor statute?
Well, there's now terrifying evidence available for public consumption to the effect that Director
Comey doesn't understand the use of the word "knowingly" in the law ― indeed, understands it less
than even a law student in his or her first semester would. Just over an hour (at 1:06) into the
six-hour
C-SPAN video of Comey's Congressional testimony, Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) makes a
brief but absolutely unimpeachable case that, using the term "knowingly" as I have here and as it
is used in every courtroom in America, Secretary Clinton committed multiple federal misdemeanors
inasmuch as she, per the relevant statute (Title 18 U.S.C. 1924), "became possessed of documents
or materials containing classified information of the United States....and knowingly removed such
documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials
at an unauthorized location." Comey, misunderstanding the word "knowingly" in a way any law school
student would scream at their TV over, states that the FBI would still, under that statutory language,
need to prove specific intent to convict Clinton of a Title 18 U.S.C. 1924 violation. Lummis
points out that Comey is dead wrong ― and she's right, he is wrong. Per the above, all Clinton
had to be aware of is that (a) she was in possession of classified documents, and (b) she had removed
them to an unauthorized location. Comey admits these two facts are true, and yet he won't prosecute
because he's added a clause that's not in the statute. I can't emphasize this enough: Comey makes
clear with his answers throughout his testimony that Clinton committed this federal misdemeanor,
but equally makes clear that he didn't charge her with it because he didn't understand the statute.
(At 1:53 in the video linked to above, Representative Ken Buck of Colorado goes back to the topic
of Title 18 U.S.C. 1924, locking down that Comey is indeed deliberately adding language to that federal
criminal statute that quite literally is not there.)
Yes, it's true. Watch the video for yourself,
look up the word "knowingly" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll see that I'm right.
This is scary stuff for an attorney like me, or really for any of us, to see on television ― a government
attorney with less knowledge of criminal law than a first-year law student.
2. Comey has dramatically misrepresented what prosecutorial discretion looks like.
The result of this is that Americans will fundamentally misunderstand our adversarial system of justice.
Things like our Fourth and Fifth Amendment are part and parcel of our "adversarial" system of
justice. We could have elected, as a nation, to have an "inquisitorial" system of justice ― as some
countries in Europe, with far fewer protections for criminal defendants, do ― but we made the decision
that the best truth-seeking mechanism is one in which two reflexively zealous advocates, a prosecutor
and a defense attorney, push their cases to the utmost of their ability (within certain well-established
ethical strictures).
James Comey, in his testimony before Congress, left the impression that his job as a prosecutor
was to weigh his ability to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt not as a prosecutor, but as a
member of a prospective jury. That's not how things work in America; it certainly, and quite spectacularly,
isn't how it works for poor black men. In fact, what American prosecutors are charged to do is imagine
a situation in which (a) they present their case to a jury as zealously as humanly possible within
the well-established ethical code of the American courtroom, (b) all facts and inferences are taken
by that jury in the prosecution's favor, and then (c) whether, given all those conditions, there
is a reasonable likelihood that all twelve jurors would vote for a conviction.
That is not the standard James Comey used to determine whether to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
What Comey did was something else altogether.
First he asked, "What would other prosecutors do?" That's not a question prosecutors are charged
to ask, and we now see why: as Comey himself concedes, countless prosecutors have already come out
in public to say that, had they been investigating Clinton, they would have prosecuted her. A standard
for prosecutorial discretion in which you weigh what others in your shoes might do based on some
sort of a census leads immediately to madness, not just for the reasons I'm articulating here but
many others too numerous to go into in detail in this space.
The second thing Comey did was ask, "Am I guaranteed to win this case at trial?" Would that
this slowed the roll of prosecutors when dealing with poor black men! Instead, as I discuss later
on, prosecutors ― via the blunt instrument of the grand jury ― usually use the mere fact of misdemeanor
or felony charges against a defendant as a mechanism for ending a case short of trial. Even prosecutors
who ultimately drop a case will charge (misdemeanor) or indict (felony) it first, if only to give
themselves time ― because defendants do have speedy trial rights, and statutes of limitation do sometimes
intercede ― to plan their next move.
Third, Comey imagined his case at trial through the following lens: "How would we do at trial
if the jury took every fact and presumption ― as we already have ― in Clinton's favor?" Indeed, I'm
having more than a hard time ― actually an impossible time ― finding a single unknown or unclear
fact that Comey took in a light unfavorable to Clinton (including, incredibly, the facts that became
unknowable because of Clinton's own actions and evasions). Instead, Hillary was given the benefit
of the doubt at every turn, so much so that it was obvious that the only evidence of "intent" Comey
would accept was a full confession from Clinton. That's something prosecutors rarely get, and certainly
(therefore) never make a prerequisite for prosecution. But Comey clearly did here.
I have never seen this standard used in the prosecution of a poor person. Not once.
3. Comey left the indelible impression, with American news-watchers, that prosecutors
only prosecute specific-intent crimes, and will only find a sufficient mens
rea (mental state) if and when a defendant has confessed. Imagine, for a moment, if
police officers only shot unarmed black men who were in the process of confessing either verbally
("I'm about to pull a gun on you!") or physically (e.g., by assaulting the officer). Impossible to
imagine, right? That's because that's not how this works; indeed, that's not how any of this works.
Prosecutors, like police officers, are, in seeking signs of intent, trained to read ― and conceding
here that some of them do it poorly ― contextual clues that precede, are contemporaneous with, and/or
follow the commission of a crime.
But this apparently doesn't apply to Hillary Clinton.
It would be easier to identify the contextual clues that don't suggest Clinton had consciousness
of guilt than those that do ― as there are exponentially more of the latter than the former.
But let's do our best, and consider just a few of the clear signs that Clinton and her team, judging
them solely by their words and actions, knew that what they were doing was unlawful.
For instance, Clinton repeatedly said she used one server and only one device ― not that she
thought that that was the correct information, but that she knew it was. Yet the
FBI found, per Comey's July 5th statement, that Clinton used "several different servers" and "numerous
mobile devices." So either Clinton didn't know the truth but pretended in all her public statements
that she did; or she was given bad information which she then repeated uncritically, in which case
a prosecutor would demand to know from whom she received that information (as surely that
person would know they'd spread misinformation); or she knew the truth and was lying. A prosecutor
would want clear, on-the-record answers on these issues; instead, Comey let other FBI agents have
an unrecorded, untranscripted interview with Clinton that he himself didn't bother to attend. It's
not even clear that that interview was much considered by the FBI; Comey declared his decision just
a few dozen hours after the interview was over, and word leaked that there would be no indictment
just two hours after the interview. Which, again, incredibly ― and not in keeping with any
law enforcement policy regarding subject interviews I'm aware of ― was unrecorded, untranscripted,
unsworn, and unattended by the lead prosecutor.
This in the context of a year-long investigation for which Clinton was the primary subject.
Since when is an hours-long interview with an investigation's subject so immaterial to the charging
decision? And since when is such an interview treated as such a casual event? Since never. At least
for poor people.
And since when are false exculpatory statements not strong evidence of intent?
Since never - at least for poor people.
Comey found credible that Clinton had created her private basement server set-up purely out
of "convenience"; yet he also found that old servers, once replaced, were "stored and decommissioned
in various ways." Wait, "various ways"? If Clinton was trying to create a streamlined, convenient
personal process for data storage, why were things handled so haphazardly that Comey himself would
say that the servers were dealt with "in various ways" over time? Just so, Comey would naturally
want to test Clinton's narrative by seeing whether or not all FOIA requests were fully responded
to by Clinton and her staff in the four years she was the head of the State Department. Surely, Clinton
and her staff had been fully briefed on their legal obligations under FOIA ― that's provable ― so
if Clinton's "convenience" had caused a conflict with the Secretary's FOIA obligations that would
have been immediately obvious to both Clinton and her staff, and would have been remedied immediately
if the purpose of the server was not to avoid FOIA requests but mere convenience. At a minimum, Comey
would find evidence (either hard or testimonial) that such conversations occurred. And indeed,
the evidence Comey turned up showed that Clinton's staff was aware ― was repeatedly and systematically
made aware ― that the Secretary's set-up had the effect of evading FOIA requests. And Clinton was,
by her own admission, clear with her inferiors that "avoiding access to the personal" was key to
her private basement-server set-up. That's very different from "convenience."
Even if Comey believed that "avoiding access to the personal," rather than "convenience," was
the reason for Clinton's server set-up, that explanation would have imploded under the weight
of evidence Clinton, her team, and her attorneys exercised no due caution whatsoever in determining
what was "personal" and what was not personal when they were wiping those servers clean. If Clinton's
concern was privacy, there's no evidence that much attention was paid to accurately and narrowly
protecting that interest ― rather, the weight of the evidence suggests that the aim, at all times,
was to keep the maximum amount of information away from FOIA discovery, not just "personal" information
but (as Comey found) a wealth of work-related information.
But let's pull back for a moment and be a little less legalistic. Clinton claimed the reason for
her set-up was ― exclusively ― "convenience"; nevertheless, Comey said it took "thousands of hours
of painstaking effort" to "piece back together" exactly what Clinton was up to. Wouldn't that fact
alone give the lie to the claim that this system was more "convenient" than the protocols State already
had in place? "Millions of email fragments ended up in the server's 'slack space'," Comey said of
Clinton's "convenient" email-storage arrangement. See the contradiction? How would "millions of email
fragments ending up in a server's 'slack space'" in any way have served Clinton's presumptive desire
for both (a) convenience, (b) FOIA complicance, (c) a securing of her privacy, and (d) compliance
with State Department email-storage regulations? Would any reasonable person have found this set-up
convenient? And if not ― and Comey explicitly found not ― why in the world didn't that help
to establish the real intent of Clinton's private basement servers? Indeed, had Clinton
intended on complying with FOIA, presumably her own staff would have had to do the very same painstaking
work it took the FBI a year to do. But FOIA requests come in too fast and furious, at State, for
Clinton's staff to do the work it took the FBI a year to do in a matter of days; wouldn't this in
itself establish that Clinton and her staff had no ability, and therefore well knew they had no intention,
of acceding to any of the Department's hundreds or even thousands of annual FOIA requests in full?
And wouldn't ignoring all those requests be not just illegal but "inconvenient" in the extreme? And
speak to the question of intent?
It took Clinton two years to hand over work emails she was supposed to hand over the day she left
office; and during that time, she and her lawyers, some of whom appear to have looked at classified
material without clearance, deleted thousands of "personal" emails ― many of which turned out the
be exactly the sort of work emails she was supposed to turn over the day she left State. In this
situation, an actor acting in good faith would have (a) erred on the side of caution in deleting
emails, (b) responded with far, far more alacrity to the valid demands of State to see all work-related
emails, and (c) having erroneously deleted certain emails, would have rushed to correct the mistake
themselves rather than seeing if they could get away with deleting ― mind you ― not just work emails
but work emails with (in several instances) classified information in them. How in the world was
none of this taken toward the question of intent? Certainly, it was taken toward the finding of "gross
negligence" Comey made, but how in the world was none of it seen as relevant to Clinton's
specific intent also? Why does it seem the only evidence of specific intent Comey would've looked
at was a smoking gun? Does he realize how few criminal cases would ever be brought against anyone
in America if a "smoking gun" standard was in effect? Does anyone realize how many poor black men
wouldn't be in prison if that standard was in effect for them as well as Secretary Clinton?
4. Comey made it seem that the amount and quality of prosecutorial consideration he gave
Clinton was normal. The mere fact that Comey gave public statements justifying his prosecutorial
discretion misleads the public into thinking that, say, poor black men receive this level of care
when prosecutors are choosing whether to indict them.
While at least he had the good grace to call the fact of his making a public statement "unusual"
― chalking it up to the "intense public interest" that meant Clinton (and the public) "deserved"
an explanation for his behavior ― that grace ultimately obscured, rather than underscored, that what
Comey did in publicly justifying his behavior is unheard of in cases involving poor people. In the
real America, prosecutors are basically unaccountable to anyone but their bosses in terms of their
prosecutorial discretion, as cases in which abuse of prosecutorial discretion is successfully alleged
are vanishingly rare. Many are the mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers of poor black men who
would love to have had their sons' (or brothers', or fathers') over-charged criminal cases explained
to them with the sort of care and detail Hillary Clinton naturally receives when she's being investigated.
Clinton and the public "deserve" prosecutorial transparency when the defendant is a Clinton; just
about no one else deserves this level of not just transparency but also ― given the year-long length
of the FBI investigation ― prosecutorial and investigative caution.
What's amazing is how little use Comey actually made of all the extra time and effort. For instance,
on July 5th he said that every email the FBI uncovered was sent to the "owning" organization to see
if they wanted to "up-classify" it ― in other words, declare that it should have been classified
at the time it was sent and/or received, even if not marked that way at the time. One might think
Comey would want this information, the better to determine Clinton's intent with respect to those
emails (i.e., given Clinton's training, knowledge, and experience, how frequently did she "miss"
the classified nature of an email, relative to the assessment of owning agencies that a given email
was effectively and/or should have been considered classified ― even if not marked so ― at the time
Clinton handled it?) Keep in mind, here, that certain types of information, as Clinton without a
doubt knew, are "born classified" whether marked as such or not. And yet, just two days after July
5th, Comey testified before Congress that he "didn't pay much attention" to "up-classified" emails.
Why? Because, said Comey, they couldn't tell him anything about Clinton's intent. Bluntly,
this is an astonishing and indeed embarrassing statement for any prosecutor to make.
Whereas every day knowledge and motives are imparted to poor black men that are, as the poet Claudia
Rankine has observed, purely the product of a police officer's "imagination," the actual and indisputable
knowledge and motives and ― yes ― responsibilities held by Clinton were "downgraded" by Comey to
that of merely an average American. That is, despite the fact that Clinton was one of the most powerful
people on Earth, charged with managing an agency that collects among the highest number of classified
pieces of information of any agency anywhere; despite the fact that Clinton's agency had the strictest
policies for data storage for this very reason; despite the fact that State is, as Clinton well knew,
daily subjected to FOIA requests; despite all this, Comey actually said the following: "Like many
email users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted emails..."
What?
How in the world does the "many email users" standard come into play here? Clinton's server, unlike
anyone else's server, was set up in a way that permitted no archiving, an arrangement that one now
imagines led (in part) to the person who set up that server taking the Fifth more than a hundred
times in interviews with the FBI; even assuming Clinton didn't know, and didn't request, for her
server to be set up in this astonishing way ― a way, again, that her own employees believe could
incriminate them ― how in the world could she have been sanguine about deleting emails "like many
email users" when the agency she headed had completely different and more stringent protocols
and requirements for data storage than just about any government agency on Earth? Just so, once
it was clear that Clinton had deleted (per Comey) "thousands of emails that were work-related" instead
of turning them over to State, in what universe can no intent be implied from the fact that her attorneys
purged 30,000 emails simply by looking at their headers? At what point does Clinton, as
former Secretary of State, begin to have ill intent imputed to her by not directing her attorneys
to actually read emails before permanently destroying them and making them unavailable to the FBI
as evidence? If you were in her situation, and instead of saying to your team either (a) "don't delete
any more emails," or (b) "if you delete any emails, make sure you've read them in full first," would
you expect anyone to impute "no specific intent" to your behavior?
The result: despite saying she never sent or received emails on her private basement server that
were classified "at the time," the FBI found that 52 email chains on Clinton's server ― including
110 emails ― contained information that was classified at the time (eight chains contained
"top secret" information; 36, "secret" information; and another eight "confidential" information).
Moreover, Clinton's team wrongly purged ― at a minimum ― "thousands" of work-related emails. (And
I'm putting aside entirely here the 2,000 emails on Clinton's server that were later "up-classified.")
At what point does this harm become foreseeable, and not seeing it ― when you're one of the best-educated,
smartest, most experienced public servants in U.S. history, as your political team keeps reminding
us ― become evidence of "intent"? Comey's answer? Never.
Indeed, Comey instead makes the positively fantastical observation that "none [of the emails Clinton
didn't turn over but was supposed to] were intentionally deleted." The problem is, by Comey's own
admission all of those emails were intentionally deleted, under circumstances in which the
problems with that deletion would not just have been evident to "any reasonable person" but specifically
were clear ― the context proves it ― to Clinton herself. During her four years as Secretary of State
Clinton routinely expressed concern to staff about her own and others' email-storage practices, establishing
beyond any doubt that not only was Clinton's literal key-pressing deliberate ― the "knowing" standard
― but also its repeated, systemic effect was fully appreciated by her in advance. Likewise, that
her attorneys were acting entirely on their own prerogative, without her knowledge, is a claim no
jury would credit.
Clinton's attorneys worked Clinton's case in consultation with Clinton ― that's how things work.
In other words, Clinton's lawyers are not rogue actors here. So when Comey says, "They [Clinton and
her team] deleted all emails they did not produce for State, and the lawyers then cleaned their devices
in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery," we have to ask, what possible reason would
an attorney have for wiping a server entirely within their control to ensure that no future court
order could access the permanently deleted information? In what universe is such behavior not
actual consciousness of guilt with respect to the destruction of evidence? Because we must be clear:
Comey isn't saying Clinton and her lawyers accidentally put these emails outside even a hypothetical
future judicial review; they did so intentionally.
There's that word again.
The result of these actions? The same as every other action Clinton took that Comey somehow
attributes no intent to: a clear legal benefit to Clinton and a frustration, indeed an obstruction,
of the FBI's investigation. As Comey said on July 5th, the FBI can't know how many emails are "gone"
(i.e., permanently) because of Clinton and her team's intentional acts after-the-fact. So Comey is
quite literally telling us that the FBI couldn't conclude their investigation with absolute confidence
that they had all the relevant facts, and that the reason for this was the intentional destruction
of evidence by the subject of the investigation at a time when there was no earthly reason to destroy
evidence except to keep it from the FBI.
In case you're wondering, no, you don't need a legal degree to see the problem there.
As an attorney, I can't imagine destroying evidence at a time I knew it was the subject of a federal
investigation. And if I ever were to do something like that, I would certainly assume that all such
actions would later be deemed "intentional" by law enforcement, as my intent would be inferred from
my training, knowledge, and experience as an attorney, as well as my specific awareness of a pending
federal investigation in which the items I was destroying might later become key evidence. That Clinton
and her team repeatedly (and falsely) claimed the FBI investigation was a mere "security review"
― yet another assertion whose falseness was resoundingly noted by Comey in his public statements
― was clearly a transparent attempt to negate intent in destroying those emails. (The theory being,
"Well, yes, I destroyed possible evidence just by looking at email headers, but this was all just
a 'security review,' right? Not a federal investigation? Even though I knew the three grounds
for referral of the case to the FBI, and knew that only one of them involved anything like a 'security
review'?")
And certainly, none of this explains Comey's (again) gymnastic avoidance of stating the obvious:
that crimes were committed.
Listen to his language on July 5th: "Although we did not find clear evidence that Clinton or her
colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information" (emphasis
in original) ― actually, let's stop there. You'd expect the second half of that sentence to be something
like, "...they nevertheless did violate those laws, despite not intending to." It's the natural continuation
of the thought. Instead, Comey, who had prepared his remarks in advance, finished the thought this
way: "....there is evidence that they were extremely careless with very sensitive, highly
classified information" (emphasis in original).
Note that Comey now uses the phrase "extremely careless" instead of "gross negligence," despite
using the latter phrase ― a legal phrase ― at the beginning of his July 5th remarks. That matters
because at the beginning of those remarks he conceded "gross negligence" would lead to a statutory
violation. So why the sudden shift in language, when from a legal standpoint "extreme carelessness"
and "gross negligence" are synonymous ― both indicating the presence of a duty of care, the failure
to meet that duty, and moreover a repeated failure on this score? Comey also avoids finishing
his sentence with the obvious thought: that they may not have intended to violate criminal
statutes, but they did nonetheless. Remember that, just like our hypothetical raver may not have
intended to commit a Simple Assault by stepping on that poor young woman's foot, he nevertheless
could be found to have done so; just so, had Comey accepted the statute as written, Clinton's "gross
negligence" would have forced him to end the above sentence with the finding of a statutory violation,
even if there had been no "specific intent" to do so.
This is how the law works. For poor black men, just not for rich white women.
5. Comey, along with the rest of Congress, left the impression, much like the Supreme
Court did in 2000, that legal analyses are fundamentally political analyses. Not only is
this untrue, it also is unspeakably damaging to both our legal system and Americans' understanding
of that system's operations.
I'm a staunch Democrat, but I'm also an attorney. Watching fellow Democrats twist themselves into
pretzels to analyze Clinton's actions through a farcically slapdash legal framework, rather than
merely acknowledging that Clinton is a human being and, like any human being, can both (a) commit
crimes, and (b) be replaced on a political ticket if need be, makes me sick as both a Democrat and
a lawyer. Just so, watching Republicans who had no issue with George W. Bush declaring unilateral
war in contravention of international law, and who had no issue with the obviously illegal behavior
of Scooter Libby in another recent high-profile intel-related criminal case, acting like the rule
of law is anything they care about makes me sick. Our government is dirty as all get-out, but the
one thing it's apparently clean of is anyone with both (a) legal training, and (b) a sense of the
ethics that govern legal practice. Over and over during Comey's Congressional testimony I heard politicians
noting their legal experience, and then going on to either shame their association with that august
profession or honor it but (in doing so) call into question their inability or unwillingness to do
so in other instances.
When Comey says, "any reasonable person should have known" not to act as Clinton did, many don't
realize he's quoting a legal standard ― the "reasonable person standard." A failure to meet that
standard can be used to establish either negligence or recklessness in a court of law. But here,
Clinton wasn't in the position of a "reasonable person" ― the average fellow or lady ― and Comey
wasn't looking merely at a "reasonableness" standard, but rather a "purposeful" standard that requires
Comey to ask all sorts of questions about Clinton's specific, fully contextualized situation and
background that he doesn't appear to have asked. One might argue that, in keeping with Clinton's
campaign theme, no one in American political history was more richly prepared ― by knowledge, training,
experience, and innate gifts ― to know how to act properly in the situations Clinton found herself.
That in those situations she failed to act even as a man or woman taken off the street and put in
a similar situation would have acted is not indicative of innocence or a lack of specific intent,
but the opposite. If a reasonable person wouldn't have done what Clinton did, the most exquisitely
prepared person for the situations in which Clinton found herself must in fact have been providing
prosecutors with prima facie evidence of intent by failing to meet even the lowest threshold
for proper conduct. Comey knows this; any prosecutor knows this. Maybe a jury would disagree with
Comey on this point, but his job is to assume that, if he zealously advocates for this extremely
powerful circumstantial case, a reasonable jury, taking the facts in the light most favorable to
the government, would see things his way.
Look, I can't possibly summarize for anyone reading this the silly nonsense I have seen prosecutors
indict people for; a common saying in the law is that the average grand jury "would indict a ham
sandwich," and to be clear that happens not because the run-of-the-mill citizens who sit on grand
juries are bloodthirsty, but because the habitual practice of American prosecutors is to indict first
and ask questions later ― and because indictments are absurdly easy to acquire. In other words, I've
seen thousands of poor people get over-charged for either nonsense or nothing at all, only to have
their prosecutors attempt to leverage their flimsy cases into a plea deal to a lesser charge. By
comparison, it is evident to every defense attorney of my acquaintance that I've spoken to that James
Comey bent over backwards to not indict Hillary Clinton ― much like the hundreds of state
and federal prosecutors who have bent over backwards not to indict police officers over the past
few decades. Every attorney who's practiced in criminal courts for years can smell when the fix is
in ― can hear and see when the court's usual actors are acting highly unusually ― and that's what's
happened here. The tragedy is that it will convince Americans that our legal system is fundamentally
about what a prosecutor feels they can and should be able to get away with, an answer informed largely,
it will seem to many, by various attorneys' personal temperaments and political prejudices.
No one in America who's dedicated their life to the law can feel any satisfaction with how Hillary
Clinton's case was investigated or ultimately disposed of, no more than we can feel sanguine about
prosecutors whose approach to poor black defendants is draconian and to embattled police officers
positively beatific. What we need in Congress, and in prosecutor's offices, are men and women of
principle who act in accordance with their ethical charge no matter the circumstances. While James
Comey is not a political hack, and was not, I don't believe, in any sense acting conspiratorially
in not bringing charges against Hillary Clinton, I believe that, much like SCOTUS did not
decide in the 2000 voting rights case Bush v. Gore, Comey felt that this was a bad time
for an executive-branch officer to interfere with the workings of domestic politics. Perhaps Comey
had the best of intentions in not doing his duty; perhaps he thought letting voters, not prosecutors,
decide the 2016 election was his civic duty. Many Democrats could wish the Supreme Court had felt
the same way in 2000 with respect to the role of judges. But the fact remains that the non-indictment
of Hillary Clinton is as much a stain on the fair and equal administration of justice as is the disparate
treatment of poor black males at all stages of the criminal justice system. I witnessed the latter
injustice close up, nearly every day, during my seven years working as a public defender; now America
has seen the same thing, albeit on a very different stage, involving a defendant of a very different
class and hue.
To have prosecuted Clinton, said Comey, he would need to have seen "clearly intentional and willful
mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as
to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or....efforts to obstruct justice..." When Comey
concludes, "we do not see those things here," America should ― and indeed must ― wonder what facts
he could possibly be looking at, and, moreover, what understanding of his role in American life he
could possibly be acting upon. The answers to these two questions would take us at least two steps
forward in discussing how average Americans are treated by our increasingly dysfunctional system
of justice.
Seth Abramson is the Series Editor for Best American Experimental Writing (Wesleyan University)
and the author, most recently, of
DATA (BlazeVOX, 2016).
"... The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political life. As the old joke goes, the answer to the question, "Where does an 800-pound gorilla eat?" is, "Anywhere he likes." As long as the organs of "national security" continue to retain the extraordinary power to appropriate budgetary resources and to involve the United States in foreign conflicts without real accountability, US politics will be grotesquely distorted to the profound disadvantage of the movement for fundamental change. The Pentagon, the CIA and the National Security Agency will continue to control most of the $1.1 trillion federal discretionary spending budget, crowding out programs that would benefit people. And beyond wielding that obvious financial power, by maintaining the premise that the United States must continue to make war indefinitely, they will also wield an ideological weapon that helps the economic elite maintain the status quo. ..."
"... For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election section, "Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016." ..."
"... But that fundamental obstacle to change was not even mentioned by any of the speakers who introduced the main themes of the conference on the first night. On the second day, US Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) strongly denounced moves by powerful interests for a new war for regime change in Syria, but she did not address the underlying system of institutional interests and power that keeps the United States at permanent war. There was one breakout session entitled "Healthcare Not Warfare," which highlighted what people already know -- that spending for war and preparation for war robs the people of resources needed to build a more prosperous and equitable society. But it was evidently an afterthought for conference organizers, and did not interest many of the attendees, drawing perhaps 30 people. ..."
"... The Sanders campaign never explicitly raised the issue of the permanent war state during the primary election contest, either. He did present a sharp contrast to Hillary Clinton when they debated foreign policy, effectively demolishing her position urging a more militarily aggressive policy in Syria. He called for a policy that "destroys ISIS" but "does not get us involved in perpetual warfare in the quagmire of the Middle East."But he never talked about ending the unprecedented power that national security institutions have seized over the resources and security of the American people. ..."
"... The power of the military-industrial-congressional complex that has morphed into a permanent war state has long been the real "third rail" in US politics, which anyone aspiring to national office touches only at the risk of being branded "anti-American." News media coverage constantly reinforces the idea that US global military presence and aggressiveness are legitimate responses to foreign threats. So, for politicians, explaining why the power of that combination of institutions is a danger not only to people's economic interests, but also to their physical security is seen as extremely difficult and fraught with political risk. Sanders, who had no problem opposing specific wars, undoubtedly feared that an effort to deal with the interests and power behind the wars that most Americans oppose would force him to respond to attacks from the Clinton camp and the corporate media, and thus interfere with his populist message. ..."
"... Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare ..."
The People's Summit in Chicago June 17-19 dramatically displayed both the strengths and the vulnerabilities
of what has emerged in 2016 as one of the most potentially powerful movements for fundamental change
in the United States in many decades. The event, which brought together 3,000 committed movement
activists to rally in support of the "political revolution" given impetus by Bernie Sanders' campaign,
was an opportunity to ensure that the movement will not dissipate in the wake of Hillary Clinton's
clinching the Democratic nomination.
The leaders of the movement sought to use the summit to reconcile conflicting activist views on
the relationship between movement organizations and electoral politics. The summit may have succeeded
in keeping the coalition of those who privilege electoral politics and those who see it as a distraction
from their local struggles from splitting up. But despite the political sophistication and pragmatism
of the organizers, the gathering failed to deal seriously with the problem of the "permanent war
state" -- the central power bloc in the US government that looms menacingly over everything the movement
hopes to accomplish.
The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political life. As the
old joke goes, the answer to the question, "Where does an 800-pound gorilla eat?" is, "Anywhere he
likes." As long as the organs of "national security" continue to retain the extraordinary power to
appropriate budgetary resources and to involve the United States in foreign conflicts without real
accountability, US politics will be grotesquely distorted to the profound disadvantage of the movement
for fundamental change. The Pentagon, the CIA and the National Security Agency will continue to control
most of the $1.1 trillion federal discretionary spending budget, crowding out programs that would
benefit people. And beyond wielding that obvious financial power, by maintaining the premise that
the United States must continue to make war indefinitely, they will also wield an ideological weapon
that helps the economic elite maintain the status quo.
But that fundamental obstacle to change was not even mentioned by any of the speakers who
introduced the main themes of the conference on the first night. On the second day, US Rep. Tulsi
Gabbard (D-Hawaii) strongly denounced moves by powerful interests for a new war for regime change
in Syria, but she did not address the underlying system of institutional interests and power that
keeps the United States at permanent war. There was one breakout session entitled "Healthcare Not
Warfare," which highlighted what people already know -- that spending for war and preparation for
war robs the people of resources needed to build a more prosperous and equitable society. But it
was evidently an afterthought for conference organizers, and did not interest many of the attendees,
drawing perhaps 30 people.
The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political life.
The Sanders campaign never explicitly raised the issue of the permanent war state during the
primary election contest, either. He did present a sharp contrast to Hillary Clinton when they debated
foreign policy, effectively demolishing her position urging a more militarily aggressive policy in
Syria. He called for a policy that "destroys ISIS" but "does not get us involved in perpetual warfare
in the quagmire of the Middle East."But he never talked about ending the unprecedented power that
national security institutions have seized over the resources and security of the American people.
It is not difficult to see why Sanders did not take on that larger issue. The power of the
military-industrial-congressional complex that has morphed into a permanent war state has long been
the real "third rail" in US politics, which anyone aspiring to national office touches only at the
risk of being branded "anti-American." News media coverage constantly reinforces the idea that US
global military presence and aggressiveness are legitimate responses to foreign threats. So, for
politicians, explaining why the power of that combination of institutions is a danger not only to
people's economic interests, but also to their physical security is seen as extremely difficult and
fraught with political risk. Sanders, who had no problem opposing specific wars, undoubtedly feared
that an effort to deal with the interests and power behind the wars that most Americans oppose would
force him to respond to attacks from the Clinton camp and the corporate media, and thus interfere
with his populist message.
The permanent war state also appears to be outside the political comfort zone of National Nurses
United, the single most influential organization in planning and funding the People's Summit. As
a senior official of National Nurses United explained, the organization is able to talk about corporate
control of the health care system because nurses constantly see the consequences in their own work,
but most have no such personal experiences enabling them to talk about the war system.
But despite these understandable reasons for taking a pass on the issue, the leadership of the
movement inspired by the Sanders campaign is making a big mistake by failing to take on the problem
of the permanent war state. The popular organizations represented in Chicago understand this, but
they have hesitated to go up against the most powerful combination bureaucratic interests the world
has ever known, in part because they have not had any clear idea about how those interests could
be defeated. What has been not been tried, however, is a strategy that attacks the war system where
it is most vulnerable -- the fact that the war system bureaucrats have systematically pursued their
own personal and institutional interests at the expense of the American people.
The publicly available records of US intervention and war, especially since the beginning of the
Cold War, reveal an endless succession of policies and programs that were utterly useless and provoked
reactions from states and from non-state actors that threatened the safety of the American people.
But the policy makers preferred those policies, because they gave them and their organizations more
power, more budgetary resources, more people under their command, more new technology, more foreign
bases and perquisites, and more lucrative jobs and contracts when they leave the government for private
companies.
All the services were looking for a boost in military appropriations when they pushed Presidents
John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson to intervene militarily in Vietnam. The US Air Force sold its
"shock and awe" strategy for regime change in Iraq to then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in
order to capture a larger share of the military budget. The CIA got control over a major new mission
when it convinced President George W. Bush to launch a drone war in Pakistan.
But the American people suffered the direct and indirect consequences of these wars in each case.
The fundamental conflict between the national interest and the personal and bureaucratic interests
of the policy makers of the permanent war state explains why the system has continued to produce
uniformly disastrous policies decade after decade.
So the strategy of the movement that the Sanders campaign has mobilized must include a broadly
concerted campaign that explains to young people, disaffected working-class people and others how
the permanent war state produces winners and losers. The winners are the national security organs
themselves, as well as those who make careers and fortunes from the permanent state of war. The losers
are those who must suffer the socioeconomic and other consequences of such reckless policies. Such
a campaign should aim at nothing less than taking away the flow of money and the legal authority
that the permanent war state has seized on the pretext of "threats" that are largely of its own making.
Even though the permanent war state seems to be at the peak of its power, like all essentially
hollow institutions, it has a serious political vulnerability. Millions of Americans know that the
wars the war-state agencies have wrought over the past half century -- from the Vietnam War to the
war in Afghanistan -- were worse than useless. So the legitimacy of the permanent war state is extremely
tenuous. A determined campaign to challenge that legitimacy, carried out with sufficient resources
over a few years with the participation of a broad coalition, could shake it to its roots. Such a
campaign must be included in the work to open up new political spaces and propel the movement for
change. Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission
.
Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and historian writing on US national
security policy. His latest book, Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear
Scare , was published in February of 2014. Follow him on Twitter:
@GarethPorter .
You know the American Revolution was not in any way I can see equivalent to machinations
with the EU. Plenty is written belowon the history, and the fourth with all the fireworks
is approaching.
The idea that the colonies revolted to avoid immigration is nothing short of absurd. To
this day one of the largest ethnic groups are Germans descended from mercenary solders who
stayed and farmed on what they saw as widely available farmland.
The Brexit motivations have quite a lot in common with those that drove US independence.
The most important thing for Americans to realize, when trying to understand the EU/UK
relationship is that the citizens of the UK never gave the functionaries permission to make
the citizens subject to law made overseas. The entire EU is built on a very shaky platform
that has no democratic underpinnings.
Another lesson to take from the UK-US relationship supports the view that the UK-EU
economic relationship has a future.
American independence did not sever economic ties
between the two countries, at least after 1815, when the second US-UK war (the war of 1812)
was concluded.
For example, the Louisiana Purchase, which added more than half of what is now the
contiguous US west of the Mississippi, was financed by London banks. The US bought the land
from Napoleon, who was trying to finance his wars against Britain and others, and British
bankers must have concluded that the US was going to get the money someone (it was the
property deal of the century), so it might as well be them.
Throughout the 19th century, much of the investment that turned the US into the world's
largest economy came from London financial markets. The cowboy period of the Old West was
about rounding up herds of feral cattle that roamed the Western plains. Great Britain was a
primary market for that cattle (canned meat), and British financing was key. So when you
see Hollywood cowboy movies, remember that those roundups were often financed by British
firms. Britain was a dominant source of finance in the US throughout the 19th century. Wall
Street didn't catch up to the City of London as a financial center until World War I.
Just as the American revolution did not end the economic relationship between the US and
the UK, there is no reason to believe Brexit will end the economic relationship between the
UK and Europe. Economic ties rarely stay broken.
At the time of the US revolution Britain was a great colonial/pirate power controlling
India where they took great wealth off the backs of the locals. Same for what became
America where the British took wealth away from the natives and taxed the colonies to pay
for their wars of choice. Now manufacturing has been off-shored to "Third World" cheap
labor/slave places. In the empty areas of both the UK and US there is little ability to
live beyond a backyard garden and small amounts of money for old people. Youth are ignored.
Brexit was a beginning of the end for the West. The rest of the world will try to rise in
what may be a dark time in history. The West needs to return to some respect for humanity
and not giving total power to the 1%.
What arrant nonsense. The Declaration of Independence specifically enumerates the
reasons for leaving the empire and none of those reasons is xenophobia. For the
benefit of the great Guardian uneducated, i share the exact text with you here:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve
the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the
powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and
of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires
that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long
established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for
their future security.
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the
necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The
history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and
usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny
over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Part II
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public
good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance,
unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so
suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of
people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the
Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and
distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing
them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness
of his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be
elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the
People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all
the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose
obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to
encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of
Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for
establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and
the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to
harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our
legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil
Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our
constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of
pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they
should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province,
establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to
render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule
into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering
fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to
legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging
War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the
lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the
works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty &
Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of
a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms
against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to
fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on
the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of
warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble
terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose
character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler
of a free people.
The EU has lost respect by failing to address high unemployment and has only itself to
blame for continual losses when real people vote. Germany's unilateral decision to allow
for unfettered immigration made things worse. The British exit has nothing to do with the
American Revolutionary War. Likewise, Donald Trump has nothing to do with it as well.
Trump's negative poll numbers reflect that he is not going to be the next President of the
United States despite running against a relatively weak Hillary Clinton.
I think Cameron
has been lame as the British PM. He should have insisted on all four regions having to vote
yes to the British exit. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted no. So this vote has created
divisions that may lead to the breakup of the UK.
"Those in the UK who voted to leave the EU may think they've won a small victory in
tightening Britain's borders, but if America's history is a model, there's little that can
actually be done to slow immigration."
That is absolutely not true! But the will to stem
the tide of unlimited immigration has to be accepted by politicians of both parties. The
borders can be enforced if there is the political will to do so.
Americans have shown repeatedly that they accept immigrants who come here lawfully. We
are a nation of LAWS, not of lawbreakers! Granted, there are issues with the new comers in
every generation (see the treatment of the Irish in the early 1900's), but after those
waves of immigration, they gradually assimilated into American culture.
The biggest issue of the current wave of immigration is there has been no pause since
1965. Wave after wave of immigrants from all over the world without a pause for
assimilation is a recipe for disaster, as shown by the rise in strong Anti-American
sentiments within the borders of the US, from not only majority Hispanic communities, but
also Syrian, Somali, Iraqi, and other countries around the world.
Once upon a time, immigrants came to the US to be part of a greater nation. Today,
immigrants come to the US, but want to recreate the country they left behind within the
borders of the US.
The term Great Britain originated as a means of differentiating it from Brittany, La Petite
Bretagne v La Grande Bretagne. Both Britain and Brittany are "Bretagne", in French. The
term has nothing to do with greatness per se.
The political spiel at the end of the article only highlights the rhetorical mendacity
permeating the article.
Couching the American Revolution in terms of racism or religion is dishonest. While
there may have been elements of religious bias from person to person, the fact remains that
the Constitution created a secular government which protects religious liberty, and in fact
prohibits any "religious test" for holding office.
Indeed, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention even attended a Mass en mass, one
Sunday.
While attitudes may change in response to immediate dangers, the millions of people who
have been welcomed to this country since the Founding put the lie to the rhetorical deceit
that ethnic or religious bias have played a significant role in our national agenda.
"... Liberals, unsurprisingly like conservatives, are neoliberals. The left is not. One of the nicer clarifications of the 2016 election so far as been the emergence of this distinction, which the Democrat Establishment will doubtless to haze over. Dayen's attending the Phoenix meeting, and writes: ..."
"... A lot of liberals are not even aware that they are neolioberals-so effective the morphing has been: ..."
"... Yes, this is astonishing to me. I threw away my Obama T-shirt years ago but I didn't recognize that there is a Corporate Psy-Ops underway to install Hillary Clinton until this year. I was aware of Neo-Cons back in 2003. But, I wasn't aware of the neo-liberal campaign to crucify the disenfranchised from Greece to mid-America. Deregulation, privatization, free movement of people and capital plus non-stop wars and the resulting chaos are their tools of subjugation and pillaging. ..."
"... If corporate media wins and the Neo's stay in control, this will become violent. ..."
"... Agree PP. If and when the "party platform" becomes the litmus test for EVERY party member, then it will serve a unifying purpose. As it stands right now, the REAL party platform is neo-liberalism all day, every day. ..."
"Hillary ushers her guest to the door. 'We're going to be a great girl
squad,' she says, squeezing Warren's hand. 'It will be so easy to beat
this airhead. I bet he doesn't even know what Cafta is. Sorry to cut this
short. I need to call Tim Kaine. But I will dictate a nice tweet about
you'" [MoDo,
New York TImes (Carolinian)]. This is very funny. Dowd seems to have
returned to form, however temporarily.
"Clinton, Sanders Hold 'Positive' Meeting After DC Primary" [Talking
Points Memo]. "The Clinton statement said that the two talked about
'unifying the party,' but the Sanders statement did not, as
NBC News noted." The results of that meeting - attendees Clinton,
Podesta, Mook, Sanders, Jane Sanders, Devine - seem to be quite closely
held; no leaks that I've encountered as of this writing. Readers? Oh, and
it's crossed my mind that "positive" corresponds to "a full and frank
exchange of views" in diplospeak. Clever of Sanders to, in essence, give
the Clinton campaign a hard deadline by scheduling a video speech for his
supporters tomorrow;
Sanders will deliver the speech from Vermont, and there are no travel
advisories for reporters (here's
the tweet for an RSVP, which sadly requires a mobile phone).
"Bernie Sanders's Democratic Party reforms focus on things that
would've helped Bernie Sanders win" [Philip Bump,
WaPo]. Oh! Oh! Sanders wants to win! Oh my goodness! This from the
guy who thought he had a scoop and a gotcha when the Sanders average
contribution jumped from $27 to $29. A good politician wants to win.
Sanders is a pretty good politician, considering that he started from
zero money and zero name recognition. There seems to be a general
assumption in the Beltway that the left shouldn't have any
operational skill, shouldn't hire professional staff,
shouldn't have any money. Not that they don't; they shouldn't.
Hopefully, the Sanders campaign has changed that.
"Will Hillary Clinton sacrifice Wasserman Schultz to appease Bernie
Sanders?" [Orlando
Sun-Sentinel]. Depends on what DWS has on Clinton, I guess. Sanders:
"We have to replace the current Democratic National Committee leadership.
We need a person at the leadership of the DNC who is vigorously
supporting and out working to bring people into the political process.
Yeah, I know political parties need money. But it is more important that
we have energy, that we have young people, that we have working lass [sic
(!!)] people who are going to participate in the political process and
fight for their kids and for their parents."
"As the sun set over the capital city, which had the unpleasant
distinction of voting after every other state and territory in the
country, it was easy to forget how close the 2016 presidential contest
came to going sideways for Democratic Party elders" [NBC].
" They had so carefully cleared the way for Clinton to be their next
leader. But if a few votes had gone differently in Iowa's exceptionally
tight caucus, or if Bernie Sanders had run a more effective campaign in
Nevada, the insurgent could have given Clinton a real run for her money."
As it were.
"Will Bernie Sanders Win the Platform?" [David Dayen,
The New Republic (GF)]. "Because of the unusually high stakes-and
scrutiny-that's come with Sanders's focus on the platform, the hearings
that continue this week in Phoenix (with St. Louis and Orlando to follow)
have become a kind of public trial on the party's future. If the first
week's hearings were any indication, stakeholders are signaling to
Clinton that the party's sins of the past will no longer be tolerated."
Dayen, unfortunately, confused liberals with the left. Liberals,
unsurprisingly like conservatives, are neoliberals. The left is not. One
of the nicer clarifications of the 2016 election so far as been the
emergence of this distinction, which the Democrat Establishment will
doubtless to haze over. Dayen's attending the Phoenix meeting, and
writes:
Listening to the first two days of testimony, I was struck by the
witnesses' desire to wake up the political establishment to realities
outside the Beltway. Multiple experts and ordinary people testified
that the U.S. economy simply isn't working for most of its citizens.
And they pointed to some interesting root causes. For example, Sabrina
Shrader, Vice President of West Virginia Healthy Kids and Families,
blamed oligopolistic electricity companies in her state for high
heating costs. "One runs the northern part and another runs the
southern part," she said.
"Millennials Rage Against the Machine (and Lose)" [Roll
Call].
Brindle
So true. A lot of liberals are not even aware that they are
neolioberals-so effective the morphing has been:
"Liberals, unsurprisingly like conservatives, are neoliberals. The left
is not. One of the nicer clarifications of the 2016 election so far as been
the emergence of this distinction,"
Yes, this is astonishing to me. I threw away my Obama T-shirt
years ago but I didn't recognize that there is a Corporate Psy-Ops
underway to install Hillary Clinton until this year. I was aware of
Neo-Cons back in 2003. But, I wasn't aware of the neo-liberal campaign to
crucify the disenfranchised from Greece to mid-America. Deregulation,
privatization, free movement of people and capital plus non-stop wars and
the resulting chaos are their tools of subjugation and pillaging.
An electoral civil war being waged right now. If corporate media
wins and the Neo's stay in control, this will become violent.
Well that was quick. The "Vichy Left" is already plotting to co-opt
our revolution and make it palatable to the corrupt DNC leadership and
its oligarchic backers.
YankeeFrank
Huge irony of course being the conceit that the 20-something
Millennials who backed Bernie's medicare-for-all, $15/hr min wage,
etc., etc., are somehow the mid-90's retreads here and not Clinton and
the decrepit and corrupt DNC.
cwaltz
The pro and con of this particular generation is their cynicism. I
wish the DNC lots of luck convincing them to join and stay simply by
putting something in their platform like they've done with my
generation(and yes I suspect it took me considerably longer than it
will probably take my kids to quit the Democratic party.)
I'm sure the Bernie supporters are going to get graphics, I'm
almost as sure that the pretty words will mean fairly little.
grayslady
The guy who wrote this is a member of a think tank called New America.
David Brooks is a member of the Board of Directors. Can we just stop
linking to anything from the NYT? The Grey Lady doesn't have a shred of
credibility left.
Archie
Agree PP. If and when the "party platform" becomes the
litmus test for EVERY party member, then it will serve a
unifying purpose. As it stands right now, the REAL party
platform is neo-liberalism all day, every day. (As one of
the clever commenters here put it: Eat shit and like it! Or go
to bed hungry.)
It has been the case,since at least the 60s, that politicians
regard average citizens as just not smart enough to understand
all the nuances of government. Therefore, we should just let the
politicians do what they know is "right" and go on about our
daily lives. I have been pissed off at this condescending
attitude my entire adult life. All of us 90% ers (at least) have
been in an abusive relationship with our national and state
governments for as long as I care to remember. Every time I have
made a contribution to Bernie's campaign, I have sent a personal
message that indeed, I do not see this election to be about
"Bernie", but for the first time in way, way too long, Bernie
has called out the bullshit in that relationship and that is why
I support him.
Hopefully enough others have urged him on for similar reasons
and he feels the Bern in all of us. Maybe I'm setting myself up
for another Charlie Brown moment, but all I'm looking for at
this point is for Bernie to do the right thing. He has spoken
much truth to power in this primary cycle, and he has
experienced both the brute force of the establishment and the
love and sincerity of his supporters. I am only a couple of
years younger than Bernie and if it were me, I'd take the f##kers
down. This is a defining moment in history and I sense that
Bernie knows that. Senate committee chairmanships, etc., are
meaningless in the face of the neo-liberal assault that is TPP
and TTIP. This is the real end game, imho.
The party has failed half of the people who typically vote Democratic.
And those are the people who are supporting Bernie.
Actually, the party has also failed a significant fraction of the people
who voted for Hillary Clinton. They should have voted for Sanders, but they
didn't know eanough about him (because of the media blackout), or they just
continued on auto-pilot and voted for a familiar name. A few might have been
voluntarily ignorant (sports, Dancing with the Stars, etc.), but those
people usually don't vote in primaries.
Is Hillary doomed? Probably
considerably mor
e Hillary "No passaran" progressives will vote for
Trump...than Nevertrumpers republicans will vote for Hillary...
Notable quotes:
"... I think the entire point of this article is the absolute truth. In a Trump vs. Clinton race, their is no progressive candidate. ..."
"... Clinton has pretty much shown herself to be against the masses and for the plutocrats. She lives in a bubble of the super-wealthy and has a disgusting political record of lying, corruption and scandal. She and Bill use political power for whatever idiotic purpose they see fit. They buy the black vote outright through welfare programs that actually keep the black population in the gutter instead of real reforms. ..."
"... For HRC, the world of politics is merely a world where she can attain her ideal amount of control and power over others. Trump may be a narcissistic asshole, but he doesn't reach this level of sociopathic tendency. He is also completely clueless in politics, which is actually a good thing. ..."
"... Mark, Politico IS part of corporate media - if you believe otherwise, I've got some lovely swampland in Florida to sell you. ..."
"... Arthur, if the Green Party gets 5% of the vote, they get federal funding and automatic ballot access - it's a far more attractive option than voting for one evil to stop another form of evil. Using the scary Republican boogeyman didn't work for John Kerry, and it won't work for $Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... I'll vote for Trump over Clinton (if Bernie doesn't get the nomination). More important than even those points above (and 20 others I've researched) I can sum it up so: Trump = maybe war Clinton = war for sure ..."
"... Clinton wants more ME war. Syria for sure. Maybe Iran. ..."
"... Trump is vacuous policy free blowhard. Clinton is a war-mongering, duplicitious, corrupt sociopath. Which is worse? Given that choice, she is not the lesser of two evils. ..."
"... So this is what our political system has given us. The Republican who is involved in fraud litigation on both coasts, and is perhaps involved in up to 3,500 civil cases. Then there is Clinton. Do I believe that she used a private e-mail server to avoid transparency and FOIA? Yes. Do I believe that there was/is a "pay to play" relationship between wealthy corporations, governments and the Clinton Foundation? The circumstantial evidence to me is pretty compelling. Do I think that her foreign policy in places like Honduras, Haiti, and Libya (among others) is misguided? Yes. Do I think that she is too cozy with the big banks? Yes. Do I think that she changes a policy position based on political expediency? Again, yes. ..."
"... Sanders supporters are already starting to move onto the next step with brandnewcongress.org in an effort to elect more progressives into the legislature. ..."
"... The biggest chunk of Sanders voters that will go to Trump are the less ideological voters who may agree with Trump on trade and little else, but who despise Clinton and see her as another dishonest, globalist politician, and who more than anything want to shake up both parties in Washington. ..."
"... HRC is a horrible, self-enriching, dishonest, pandering power hungry politician who is going to lose in November due to an unlikely coalition of Americans who are just fed up with the status quo. ..."
"... Clinton is an islamophobic racist and viciously anti-Palestinian. She's also a vehement Russophobe. She has no problems with unleashing mass slaughters of innocents so that her friends in big business can increase their already bloated profits. Vote for her by all means. But don't pretend to be a progressive or to speak for progressives. You are not. ..."
"... Yves Smith sums it up perfectly and we are witnessing this political process in many Western nations, a process whereby much of the electorate is sick and tired of 'neoliberalism' and the greed it sponsers and espouses. For us Brit's, we feel much the same about the Blair's as many in the USA think about the Clinton clan, that is they are greedy buggers more concerned with the depth of their own pockets than their own citizens. Oh, and then we have to add the social justice warrior BS to everything. ..."
"... As for foreign policy, we'll at least Trump has no blood on his hands and you Clinton suppoters cannot say that of Shrillary I'm afraid to say, who'd welcome WWIII if it meant more coin for her and the elite! ..."
"... The question remains: why should we progressives accept a Democratic Party that has sold its soul to the 1%? And if we don't accept this, then how does a corrupt party get fixed or replaced? In other words, where is the party to represent the 99%? ..."
"... So as a lifelong active progressive my question remains - and its not whether Trump supporters are morons - its what alternative do we have to build a corruption-free political movement for the 99% if Sanders is not elected? We should at least separate out the symptoms from the root causes. Perhaps that is too radical of a notion for you, but that will help us figure out where to go next. ..."
"... Arthur C. Hurwitz LOL. I actually have been working in the trenches for many decades. While that doesn't give me a pipeline to the truth, I at least know an armchair progressive when i see one. I could easily say to you that you have swallowed the Kool aid of "anyone but Trump." But that goes nowhere. ..."
"... Voting for Trump is an insult to Bernie and all he stands for. It makes no sense at all to vote for Trump to send a message that the Dems are corrupt; it sends the message that the Dems are not corrupt enough! ..."
"... Why the hell did this article leave out the Green Party as an option??? The Green Party is as Progressive as Bernie. If your conscience won't allow you to vote for Hillary, make your vote count and vote Green. Don't give the GOP a mandate! ..."
So-called progressive groups have sold out in siding with Clinton. Many of these groups have received
donations from the Clintons and others are simply too afraid of the DNC's power. Still others
like Barney Frank are as corrupt as Clinton is. Lastly, are the ignorant pragmatists who believed
the tripe of Bernie's inelectability. With all the cheating going on, Bernie is very close, despite
the best efforts of the corporate media, the DNC and Clinton's other attack dogs. My bottom line
against her, is that she is a pathological liar, just like Ftrump, so how can anyone believe a
word she says?
Pairc Chuil
·
Jun 2, 2016 6:06am
Works at
MassGen
I won't be voting Trump but won't be voting Clinton either. I've just recently left the
Democratic party after having served on committees, volunteered, donated, and canvassed for
Democratic candidates my entire voting life. But oligarchy is a bridge too far for me. And
yes, I'm highly educated and will vote for Bernie or Green in the GE.
Brooke Doris
,
No smart progressive in their right mind would ever vote for Trump. That would mean
abandoning all their principles. Pure drivel.
Gail Newman
Not true. Trump is more liberal than Hillary in very important areas.
Dianne McCarthy · Works at Currently Underemployed
Anyone voting for #ChickenTrump is NOT progressive...really stupid article. "Smart" people
understand that #SleazyTrump is just as corrupt as
#
NeverClinton
.
He has bragged about buying politicians and has lied and flip-flopped just as much as she
has. His racist, sexist and xenophobic comments are deplorable, whether he really believes
them or is just pandering to the yokels. His foreign policy naivete and warmongering comments
allude to his being, just as bad as #NeverHillary on continuing war. His ignorance of climate
change is ridiculous and his comments on it, totally irresponsible. Finally, anyone who votes
for a lesser of evils is still voting for evil, to paraphrase Jerry Garcia. Pragmatism is not
necessarily intelligence. I'll vote my conscience which is either Bernie or Jill.
Brian Jennings
· Metropolis, Illinois
Arthur C. Hurwitz , Fracking? War? Workers organizing? Labeling food? Etc...Hillary is not
a progressive , she is a Republican.
I do not want her or Trump picking SCOTUS judges.......
I think the entire point of this article is the absolute truth. In a Trump vs. Clinton
race, their is no progressive candidate.
Arthur C. Hurwitz
The problem here is that as much as they might be dissatisfied with the status quo, even
justifiably, they lack the awareness that everything could be much worse. Sanders betrayed
the most important ideal from his Brooklyn Socialist Jewish background and that is that
Fascism is the greatest threat to humanity....
David Jan West
· Northwestern University
America today is absolutely nothing like Germany post WWI. Please read some history.
Comparing Trump to Hitler is like comparing an Orange to Hitler. Our society is not nearly as
racist. Our society is thousands of times more diverse than Germany. And, our nationalistic
pride is pretty much nowhere these days. I find that more Americans hate America, as in the
Government and the corporate culture, than they do a single race. We are not reeling from a
disatrous war in which we lost a 3rd of our population and lost a generation of men (and on
that point, Obama is the most militaristic president America has ever seen in terms of
expanding military budgets and powers, and length of warfare).
Clinton has pretty much shown herself to be against the masses and for the plutocrats.
She lives in a bubble of the super-wealthy and has a disgusting political record of lying,
corruption and scandal. She and Bill use political power for whatever idiotic purpose they
see fit. They buy the black vote outright through welfare programs that actually keep the
black population in the gutter instead of real reforms.
They used presidential pardons
to get Fillipino votes in New York when Hillary was running for Senate in New York. They have
amassed an insane amount of money that should be impossible for a strictly politics couple,
have been caught in inside trading schemes, gifting schemes, etc.
For HRC, the world of politics is merely a world where she can attain her ideal amount
of control and power over others. Trump may be a narcissistic asshole, but he doesn't reach
this level of sociopathic tendency. He is also completely clueless in politics, which is
actually a good thing.
Because, the worst people in history are not the idiots, they are
those who are smart, ambitious, but have a twisted morality.
Hitler was not stupid in any way. He nearly managed to pull off eradicating the Jewish and
other minority populations in Europe and successfully defeated and invaded the surrounding
countries. Stalin was similarly quite astute and dangerously successful. He held Soviet
Russia and a good half of Europe in a vicelike grip for 30 years and killed millions in the
process. Trump can barely manage to keep his head combed over. I think America will manage
just fine.
Kristin Marie
More like many progressives will vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party - god forbid
another progressive option be mentioned in corporate media.
Kristin Marie
Mark, Politico IS part of corporate media - if you believe otherwise, I've got some
lovely swampland in Florida to sell you.
Arthur, if the Green Party gets 5% of the vote, they get federal funding and automatic
ballot access - it's a far more attractive option than voting for one evil to stop another
form of evil. Using the scary Republican boogeyman didn't work for John Kerry, and it won't
work for $Hillary Clinton.
Gail Newman
America is a feudal country calling itself a democracy. We evicted feudalism when the
nations united in a treaty called the Articles of Confederation. We reinforced that decision
after the Constitution, when voter enfranchisement exploded. We were returned to feudalism in
1819 when the Supreme Court through out our Constitutional Republic and replaced it with a
Common Law government with itself at the head, serving as dictator (sharing a throne) as well
as the nation's God (decider of morality). We don't know that because in America, students in
public schools are taught provable lies about our history.
Bernie is about ending feudalism. Hillary serves the feudal lords and aristocrats. #NeverHillary.
If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, I'll vote Jill Stein because my state doesn't allow
write-ins that would threaten the status quo. If I lived in a blue or swing state, I would
vote Trump.
Jack Albrecht · Lamar University
I'm an early 50's (I) ex-pat living in Austria. I own 3 flats and have my own company.
I've got mine. We've already got democratic socialism here. My son starts university next
year. It will cost me nothing additional (just one example).
I'll vote for Trump over Clinton (if Bernie doesn't get the nomination). More important
than even those points above (and 20 others I've researched) I can sum it up so:
Trump = maybe war
Clinton = war for sure
Last year Austria had 85k asylum applications. That is 1% of the population. In. One. Year.
Clinton wants more ME war. Syria for sure. Maybe Iran.
Europe's governments are
being destabilized because the people don't when the flood of refugees will end. With
Clinton, it is sure to increase. She'd destablize the entire EU, the US's biggest trading
partner, just to satisfy her blood lust. Watch the video of "We came, we saw, he died" as
Clinton laughs about Ghaddafi's lynching. Disgusting.
Trump is vacuous policy free blowhard. Clinton is a war-mongering, duplicitious, corrupt
sociopath. Which is worse? Given that choice, she is not the lesser of two evils.
Nadeem Ahmed
· Works at Salesforce
This is one of the dumbest things ever written in the history of man. Every single issue
that was written about ignores reality. Obamacare for one - it passed with 1 vote - 1 vote.
If they had done single payer it was a snowball in hell. Neither President Obama or President
Clinton were dicatators - they needed congress and the senate to get thigs done. If Sanders
were somehow to become Presidnet - how in the name of all that is holy will he get single
payer through congress and the Senate? At this point the author is dilusional. Significant
progress was made under both presidencies. The long arch of history has bended towards
justice. The idea that progress is not incremental ignores, common sense, reality and truth.
To beleive otherwise is just a way to rationalize you mysogony.
Fiasco Linguini
· Junior Assistant Flunky / Peon at The Galactic Empire
You make some fair points until you assert that true Progressives who are fed up with our
corrupt system are all mysogynists. That's stupider than the article we both dislike. You
undermine yourself when you say stupid shit like that.
Regan Farr Gonzalez
· Gig Harbor, Washington
Insightful article; thank you. The knee-jerk talking points and highly aggressive pushback
by Clinton supporters here is a startlingly clear example of how this interesting phenomenon
affects our ability to choose:
http://billmoyers.com/story/voting-with-their-stone-age-brains/
Mike Wood
· Trout Lake, Washington
As a 59 year old male with a graduate degree, five grandkids and a professional career, I
cannot and will not vote for Hillary Clinton for all the reasons listed in the article. The
Bern movement is the wake up call. So wake up. The only obstacle to a more fair and just
economy is the Dems who won't get on board. Trump is not the enemy. He is a sideshow. Clinton
and all she stands for is the real enemy of meaningful change.
Bill Bartlett
· Indiana University
On the political spectrum I consider myself a Progressive. Am I one of the "smartest?" I
don't know. Yves' blog "Naked Capitalism" is on my daily reading list. There is an important
point being overlooked in all of this. It's not just Donald Trump that's part of this
election, it's the rest of the Republican party. Here's my take on what a Trump presidency
may be like. Like most of his business ventures, the Trump presidency will be merely a brand
applied to the broader Republican agenda. Reporting is that Trump is looking for someone to
do the parts of the job that he doesn't want to do. Like public policy. He'll rely on the
likes of Newt Gingrich (who the author cited earlier) to advise him. Grover Norquist famously
said "We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in
what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ... We just need
a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it." Trump
will be such a president. A puppet like GW Bush was.
A Trump election will also mean that the House would definitely remain in GOP hands, and
possibly the Senate. If that is true, it's "game over." McConnell would not hesitate to
abolish the filibuster. And we'll get every horrible policy that they push now. The ACA (Obamacare)
while imperfect, does manage to get more Americans into healthcare. Absent the ACA the worst
abuses of the health insurers will return. Policy rescission, denial of coverage, double
digit rate increases year after year. Will the Republicans offer an alternative? Not likely.
Will Attorney General Chris Christie pursue action against "bathroom laws?" Will he take up
voting rights cases? Will Secretary of State Jeff Sessions or John Bolton work for peace?
What will happen with the Paris climate accord? Although inadequate IMO, it has at least
united the world to start taking action. What will happen with the Iran nuclear agreement?
The US may withdraw, but the others will not, isolating us with Israeli warmongers. Despite
his public pronouncements, Trump will rubber stamp free trade deals. He will be persuaded by
his GOP cohorts that these are actually good for average Americans. And then there is the
Supreme Court. The court is effectively nine robed kings and queens whose word is law and
they cannot be challenged. Trump has promised more Scalias. The next two vacancies could
easily be the liberals Ginsberg and Breyer. Do we want Scalias, young Scalias, in those
chairs?
So this is what our political system has given us. The Republican who is involved in
fraud litigation on both coasts, and is perhaps involved in up to 3,500 civil cases. Then
there is Clinton. Do I believe that she used a private e-mail server to avoid transparency
and FOIA? Yes. Do I believe that there was/is a "pay to play" relationship between wealthy
corporations, governments and the Clinton Foundation? The circumstantial evidence to me is
pretty compelling. Do I think that her foreign policy in places like Honduras, Haiti, and
Libya (among others) is misguided? Yes. Do I think that she is too cozy with the big banks?
Yes. Do I think that she changes a policy position based on political expediency? Again, yes.
But the answer to those issues is not to hand the reins of government to a dangerous,
unbalanced, narcissist like Trump and the ghouls in the Republican party. I'd rather that
Sanders, and his supporters mobilize with other progressives in Congress (Warren, Franken,
Brown, Ellison just to name a few) and keep her on a more progressive path.
Sanders
supporters are already starting to move onto the next step with brandnewcongress.org in an
effort to elect more progressives into the legislature.
In the meantime we need to stay strong and vote against trade agreements that harm Americans. Withhold support for cabinet
members that come from corporate boardrooms.
Vote against changes/cuts to programs like Social Security and Medicare. Propose legislation to accomplish the goals that will benefit
the majority of Americans. Constantly, consistently, and relentlessly push the President to
do the right thing. Will we win all of these battles, no. But at least they will be the right
battles and we will win some of them.
Peter Meyer
I disagree with the premise that true liberals will vote for Trump in large numbers.
The biggest chunk of Sanders voters that will go to Trump are the less ideological voters who
may agree with Trump on trade and little else, but who despise Clinton and see her as another
dishonest, globalist politician, and who more than anything want to shake up both parties in
Washington.
About 1/3 of Bernie voters will vote for Trump, 1/3 for HRC and 1/3 won't vote at all.
HRC is a horrible, self-enriching, dishonest, pandering power hungry politician who is going
to lose in November due to an unlikely coalition of Americans who are just fed up with the
status quo.
Alexander Sebastian Ruiz
· Austin, Texas
Doug Von This author claims that most of their followers would either sit out or vote for
Trump over Hillary during this election because they are both just as bad. Racism exists
among all races. But Trump has made it clear that his racism does not extend towards two very
specific categories: White and Christian. Therefore those with the least to lose by him
winning an election during this season are people who fall under both of those banners. Not
all Whites are racists and I believe this person is exaggerating about their following, but
their argument leads me to the conclusion that they are White. I know several people of
different races who are just as unimpressed by Clinton, some outright hating her, but, and
this is unfortunate for the way this election has played out, they will vote for Clinton
because its become a matter of how their basic rights could be curtailed under a Trump
Presidency, not just our coutry's very problematic financial systems.
John Giles
Clinton is an islamophobic racist and viciously anti-Palestinian. She's also a
vehement Russophobe. She has no problems with unleashing mass slaughters of innocents so that
her friends in big business can increase their already bloated profits. Vote for her by all
means. But don't pretend to be a progressive or to speak for progressives. You are not.
Chris Rogers
· "The Boss" at My Own Business Institute
There seem to be some seriously deluded Clinton nutters posting on this story, but fact
remains
Yves Smith sums it up perfectly and we are witnessing this political process in
many Western nations, a process whereby much of the electorate is sick and tired of
'neoliberalism' and the greed it sponsers and espouses. For us Brit's, we feel much the same
about the Blair's as many in the USA think about the Clinton clan, that is they are greedy
buggers more concerned with the depth of their own pockets than their own citizens. Oh, and
then we have to add the social justice warrior BS to everything.
I'm proud I worked for a Jeremy Corbyn election victory within the UK's Labour Party last
year - a honest man like Sanders, both of whom represent a threat to the status quo, and as
such, much maligned by neoliberals and the media. Still, the revolution will come and
business as usual is now not an option, unless you want your homes three feet under water due
to global warming, that's if you are lucky to have a roof over your head.
As for foreign
policy, we'll at least Trump has no blood on his hands and you Clinton suppoters cannot say
that of Shrillary I'm afraid to say, who'd welcome WWIII if it meant more coin for her and
the elite!
Mark Anderlik
· Union organizer at Union
Arthur C. Hurwitz
The question remains: why should we progressives accept a Democratic
Party that has sold its soul to the 1%? And if we don't accept this, then how does a corrupt
party get fixed or replaced? In other words, where is the party to represent the 99%?
Arthur C. Hurwitz
Mark Anderlik It isn't about what you accept or don't accept. It is what there is and the
actually to be realized potential outcomes. If the Democratic Party "sold its soul" or not.
It still is far more progressive on many issue than Trump and the Republican Party will ever
be. Moreover, a President Trump will be a disaster for our country and for many of its
citizens, and of course, the world. If you can't see that, you obviously don't know anything
about the rise of Fascism in Europe during the 1930's.
Mark Anderlik
· Union organizer at Union
Arthur C. Hurwitz You need to reread this article. Seriously. It is not a call for
progressives to vote for Trump. And Yves is no "nutjob," far from it. I am a daily reader of
her blog and I learn way more about finance, economics and politics from a progressive
perspective that from many "progressive" news shows on MSNBC and the like.
The point is it is precisely because of corrupt politicians like Clinton, and many parts of
the Democratic Party, that fascist politicians like Trump have and will emerge. I am a
Sanders supporter and will never vote for Trump. But if you can't see Trump's emergence as a
true fascist candidate has at its root the corruption and hypocrisy of the "progressive"
parties, then you are not seeing what is before your eyes. Read a little Chomsky if you want
to open your eyes. We are now witnessing today a re-emergengce of fascism - one also almost
won in Austria, and others are also emerging in the "advanced" countries.
And it is, in the end, what you and I, and millions of others, do and don't accept. That is
the very core of real progressive politics - that a better world can be made for all people
(and other living things) through conscious, intentional, and collective human action.
So as a lifelong active progressive my question remains - and its not whether Trump
supporters are morons - its what alternative do we have to build a corruption-free political
movement for the 99% if Sanders is not elected? We should at least separate out the symptoms
from the root causes. Perhaps that is too radical of a notion for you, but that will help us
figure out where to go next.
Mark Anderlik
· Union organizer at Union
Arthur C. Hurwitz LOL. I actually have been working in the trenches for many decades.
While that doesn't give me a pipeline to the truth, I at least know an armchair progressive
when i see one. I could easily say to you that you have swallowed the Kool aid of "anyone but
Trump." But that goes nowhere.
I also know what vision I have for a better society is supremely relevant for how I decide
to act in this crazy time. Yes, not only do I believe in the vision of "by the people and for
the people" I also believe that it is the only effective way of creating a better world for
the 99%. I find it difficult to see what you would fight for, besides the right to post
smarmy commentary to avoid fascism. Prove me wrong. Tell us your vision of how we get to a
political party that is corruption-free that serves the interests of the 99%.
Fiasco Linguini
· Junior Assistant Flunky / Peon at The Galactic Empire
Voting for Trump is an insult to Bernie and all he stands for. It makes no sense at
all to vote for Trump to send a message that the Dems are corrupt; it sends the message that
the Dems are not corrupt enough!
And withholding your vote is not defiance, it's surrender!
Why the hell did this article leave out the Green Party as an option??? The Green Party
is as Progressive as Bernie. If your conscience won't allow you to vote for Hillary, make
your vote count and vote Green. Don't give the GOP a mandate!
Julian Castor
Bernie and Trump coming up in 2016 is no coincidence.
Their unexpected political success is simply a result of the appallingly -- and consistently
-- egregious performance by both major parties and their ruling elites.
Yancey Tobias
· University of Delaware
Excellent perspective from the consistently clear eyed Smith------i have been saying the
same thing since the campaign started. There is no way any progressive should vote for
Clinton---she simply is not progressive nor morally credible.
"... Trump isn't even far right, he's just a populist. He's nationalist, but not national socialist. He's for diplomacy, not for invading every country the MIC identifies as "terrorist" (the new, politically-correct n-word for people we can kill with impunity). ..."
"... Trump just represents people who want their jobs and their country back, and for you to malign these followers as far right is nothing short of elitism. ..."
"... Trump will do an 'Alexander' on the US's Gordian knot of a political system. At least that's the hope of the many frustrated and disillusioned. And like Obama, Day-2 in the White House will business-as-usual according to the MIC-Wall St script. ..."
"... Unfortunately, lesser of evils at voting time has not resulted in lesser of evils Presidents. Every time I keep thinking that the new guy can't possibly be as bad as the last, he proves that he can be. ..."
"... Trump appears to be an outsider until you meet his foreign policy team or his economic advisers or watch his virtual oath of fealty to AIPAC to etc. Loose cannons can backfire. The only Never-Hillary alternative beyond Trump is Sanders. ..."
"... Unemployment & underemployment are destroying the lives of US Citizens. Life expectancy of US Citizens is going down. Trump's plan to decrease the number of non-citizens in the US is highly popular among US Citizen voters. ..."
"... Today I read an example. Millions of Americans are scrapping by and rely on so-called payday loans. The Administration tightened regulations on those loans, Republicans oppose, Hillary promises to defend them. Bernie proposed a postal bank as exists in most countries which would eliminate most cases where such loans could start. Sanders plan is realistic, simple to understand and much more effective, and would hurt so called "pay day loan industry" much more, and this is too much for "bleeding liver liberals". ..."
"... Although the legal issues are complicated, what we know for sure is that Clinton played fast and loose with National Security because she deemed that it was more important to secure HER OWN communications. This was NOT a 'judgment call' on a policy issue but a deliberate choice to ignore some of the most grave obligations of her office so as to advantage herself. ..."
"... To any reasonable person, this simple fact is further evidence of Hillary's corrupt elitism and unquestionably disqualifies her for the Presidency. ..."
"... This misconception is still alive and kicking. Killary wasnt the mastermind behind Libya's invasion, she was just a frontwoman for "color revolution" plans which were well under way before she come into power, and will continue when she fades into obscurity. ..."
"... Another misconception is Obama's "peace-loving" nature, its just an illusion he and his PR people are pushing. "Obama is good, its these others who want war", and people still fall for that? :)) The only difference between Bush jr and Obama is that one likes to fight wars directly (US cant afford that anymore), and another through proxy terrorists and drones, its cheaper this way, and even more destructive. ..."
"... As far as I can see, Trump's the only person calling for diplomacy & a de-escalation of tensions with the Chinese & the Russians. His obsession with capitalism, making money & deal-making may paradoxically prove to be his best feature; if you blow up the world, no more deals! ..."
"... Taking formerly unified & regionally powerful countries resistant to USA domination & turning them into defenseless mini-statelets is "strategically pointless"? It amazes me how progressives can look the strategy straight in the eye... and then deny it. ..."
"... Iraq was hostile to Iran before the invasion and Saddam was easy to deal with. Syria used to be stable and sell oil. Now Iraq is aligned with Iran and Syria is a disaster and has given Russia an opportunity to demonstrate loyalty to allies and the effectiveness of the Russian military and weapons. ..."
"... About Obama being an organizer. He seems to have frontend for the FIRE sector: ..."
"... Breaking States is essential and specifically mentioned in the Oded Yinon Plan for Greater Israel. The PNAC Plan for Full Spectrum Dominance with the Global War on Terror further reinforces and justifies the Yinon Plan. ..."
"... Don't miss the event ... all signs are pointing towards the inevitable! ..."
"... "Hillary's experience is one of failure." ..."
"... HRC is a shill politician supporting Israel in the Middle East . Her vote for the Iraq war, her run as senator for NY with the backing of Rupert Murdoch and her abominable policy as Secretary of State versus Libya and Syria. She used the worst of advisors at State to run her affairs. The buck stop at Obama's desk, he is ultimately responsible for the decisions made. ..."
"... Early take on Hillary's foreign policy speech: pot shots at Trump (easy), interspersed with scare-mongering, chest-thumping and neocon talking points like: "we never ever stop trying to make our country a better place" (how exceptional!). ..."
"... Seems Neocons loved HRC's Trump bashing speech as this recap details, https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/hillary-clinton-anti-trump-speech/ ..."
"... I have to agree with @1 that it is not at all clear that Trump is "far right". He's a populist, sure, he is. Maybe he even fits the definition of a demagogue. But that doesn't place him on the "far right", it just places him "outside the system". ..."
"... Trump appears to be all in favour of replacing a foreign policy that relies upon a robust military with one that is based upon active diplomacy i.e. that jaw-jaw is better than war-war. ..."
"... Actually, for Germany, Sanders is very much "middle". Hillary would be "right wing" minus the classism and racism. Trump is close to classical National Socialism with a very special US American "businessman" flavor (there is a traditional disdain for business in Germany) ..."
"... So, I guess you could sum up the conclusion to all these comments that there is absolutely no one worth voting for because the electoral system is irrevocably broken due to psychopathic or ponerological "infection". You can thrash out the debate as to who is the greater or lesser of evils chosen for the parade this time around but it's a waste of energy since the foundations upon which elections are built have long been rotten to the core. ..."
"... So, voting for such theatre is surely perpetuating the scenario. The president is already chosen. Period. ..."
"... What must be understood and highlighted is who the political class works for- the savage capitalists. The US government is merely the front for the ruling class. It merely carries out the policies of the over-civilized, well-manicured capitalist thugs. ..."
"... Voting is a ritual that reinforces obedience to state authority. It creates the illusion that "the people" control the state, thereby masking elite rule. That illusion makes rebellion against the state less likely because it is seen as a legitimate institution and as an instrument of popular rule rather than the oligarchy it really is. Embedded within all electoral campaigns is the myth that "the people" control the state through voting. ..."
"... "Who wins the election in the capitalist system makes no difference because all politicians in this system must do what the ruling class want. Elections are a scam whose function is to neutralize resistance movements and dupe ordinary citizens into thinking they have a say in matters of the state." ..."
Yves Smith of the Naked Capitalism
explains why many of her progressive acquaintances will either not vote, or vote for Trump in
the upcoming U.S. election. I recommend to read
this in full.
For starters two excerpts:
Hillary's experience is one of failure. And she did not learn from it.
Hillary has a résumé of glittering titles with disasters or at best thin accomplishments under
each. Her vaunted co-presidency with Bill? After her first major project, health care reform,
turned into such a debacle that it was impossible to broach the topic for a generation, she retreated
into a more traditional first lady role. As New York senator, she accomplished less with a bigger
name and from a more powerful state than Sanders did. As secretary of state, she participated
and encouraged strategically pointless nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria. She bureaucratically
outmaneuvered Obama, leading to U.S. intervention in Libya, which he has called the worst decision
of his administration. And her plan to fob her domestic economic duties off on Bill comes off
as an admission that she can't handle being president on her own.
And the conclusion:
The Sanders voters in Naked Capitalism 's active commentariat also explicitly reject
lesser-evilism, the cudgel that has previously kept true lefties somewhat in line. They are willing
to gamble, given that outsider presidents like Jimmy Carter and celebrity governors like Arnold
Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura didn't get much done, that a Trump presidency represents an acceptable
cost of inflicting punishment on the Democratic Party for 20 years of selling out ordinary Americans.
The Clintons, like the Bourbons before the French Revolution, have ensconced themselves in
such a bubble of operative and media sycophancy that they've mistakenly viewed escalating distress
and legitimate demands from citizens as mere noise.
...
If my readers are representative, Clinton and the Democratic Party are about to have a long-overdue
day of reckoning.
To vote for the far right because the former center (left) has lost its bearing is a somewhat
dangerous gamble. The U.S. has a relative stable, inertial system with lots of checks and balances
that make this move less risky than similar moves underway in Poland, Germany or France. But unless
the center left/right politicians recognize that they have lost their former majority there is no
chance they will shun the neoliberal globalization nonsense they impose on their constituency.
Voting for a stronger movement towards a genuine left is be a better strategy than voting for
the far right. But notorious lack of unity within the left, center-right control over the media and
the absence of a successful current archetype will keep a majority away from taking that step.
I agree that the day of reckoning is a long-overdue day. But it may not bring the reckoning we
want.
Trump isn't even far right, he's just a populist. He's nationalist, but not national socialist.
He's for diplomacy, not for invading every country the MIC identifies as "terrorist" (the new,
politically-correct n-word for people we can kill with impunity).
Trump just represents people who want their jobs and their country back, and for you to
malign these followers as far right is nothing short of elitism.
Trump will do an 'Alexander' on the US's Gordian knot of a political system. At least that's
the hope of the many frustrated and disillusioned. And like Obama, Day-2 in the White House will
business-as-usual according to the MIC-Wall St script.
The way to refute the argument that third party votes are wasted votes is for more and more people
to vote third party. If Hillary is nominated, I intend to vote for Jill Stein (whom there seems
to be a media conspiracy to ignore -- even when they're discussing what Sanders supporters might
do, they never mention her).
"nation-breaking." I'll have to remember that. That is a very descriptive term for US middle-east
policy in recent decades. Brzezinski and Kissinger may not admit as much but it's true; look at
the results.
Unfortunately, lesser of evils at voting time has not resulted in lesser of evils Presidents.
Every time I keep thinking that the new guy can't possibly be as bad as the last, he proves that
he can be.
Trump appears to be an outsider until you meet his foreign policy team or his economic
advisers or watch his virtual oath of fealty to AIPAC to etc. Loose cannons can backfire. The
only Never-Hillary alternative beyond Trump is Sanders. Would Sanders truly reign in the
mid-east wars or continue R2P destruction? Can he stand up to Wall Street? I don't know.
Do you realise just what you're asking? To even click on that site I'd rather 'do' dishes;
doing the "Black Plague" is preferable to doing dishes and root canal is just above that.
The only way to regain control of this political system is: Never vote Republican AND Never
vote incumBENT Democrat. Why no one realises 95+ % of the problem comes from having 95+ % incumBENTs
returned election after election. Stop that and the problem soon becomes manageable. Throwing
your vote after unelectables just throws your vote away - to no discernible effect and is downright
foolishness.
Unemployment & underemployment are destroying the lives of US Citizens. Life expectancy of
US Citizens is going down. Trump's plan to decrease the number of non-citizens in the US is highly
popular among US Citizen voters.
Voting for Goldman Sachs' sock puppet Hillary Clinton is a vote for immediate self destruction.
I do not think that Clinton's chief problem is with people who would rather vote for Jill Stein.
Her problem is in the "middle", who are often "culturally" sympathetic to GOP but responding to
a concrete populist message.
Today I read an example. Millions of Americans are scrapping by and rely on so-called payday
loans. The Administration tightened regulations on those loans, Republicans oppose, Hillary promises
to defend them. Bernie proposed a postal bank as exists in most countries which would eliminate
most cases where such loans could start. Sanders plan is realistic, simple to understand and much
more effective, and would hurt so called "pay day loan industry" much more, and this is too much
for "bleeding liver liberals".
Trump has a realistic chance of winning in Ohio and Florida against Hillary, and thus becoming
a president, and this is not because of wide awareness of how wrong Hillary was on Libya (her
failed work on health care reform is known more widely, I presume). Actually, both cases are an
indictment not of Hillary but of the liberal establishment in general. On Libya, Hillary basically
followed the herd (from liberal think tanks). On health care reform, the methodology was liberal:
improve the lot of the consumer without affecting the "industries" too much and concocting a "child
that only mother could love", plus the particular child mothered by Hillary was torned to pieces
by fellow liberals (certain Moynihan comes to my mind). "Single payer", like it or not, is something
that somewhat clueless "centrist voters" can understand, and again, it works even as close to
USA as Canada.
As I have written, There Are No Safe
Choices and arguing over greater or lesser evils is an exercise in futility at best. The question
is, how do we build our own forces of resistance? To vote for Hillary is to commit an act of unilateral
disarmament. A massive write-in for Sanders would not be wasted, although the votes would not
even be counted until weeks after the election.
A vote for Stein will immediately register. I am not a great fan of the Green Party, but a
Stein vote gives us a tactic to organize our own resistance while we dig in and build something
new.
Yves is lobbying Super-delegates on behalf of Sanders. That's why she doesn't mention Jill Stein
or the Green Party.
The problem with Sanders is that he choose Party over principle. That's why he doesn't attack
Hillary on her emails or Obama wrt black issues (Hillary gets the black vote largely because
Obama supports her) .
Although the legal issues are complicated, what we know for sure is that Clinton played
fast and loose with National Security because she deemed that it was more important to secure
HER OWN communications. This was NOT a 'judgment call' on a policy issue but a deliberate choice
to ignore some of the most grave obligations of her office so as to advantage herself.
To any reasonable person, this simple fact is further evidence of Hillary's corrupt elitism
and unquestionably disqualifies her for the Presidency.
But Sanders remains quiet about the emails DESPITE THE STATE DEPT INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT
which showed that she has been dishonest and deceptive about her email server.
Is it sufficient for Bernie to sit back and let Trump attack Hillary on the emails? Does it
help him to 'unify the party' later? On both counts I would argue: NO!!!
1) The Democratic Party establishment is anti-Sanders. They like things the way they are. If
Hillary is disqualified, they will find someone else to take her place. There are already serious
rumors about Biden (Biden-Warren ticket?).
What the establishment really cares about is that Hillary beats Sanders in delegates and votes
cast so that Hillary can be a King-maker if she can't be a candidate.
2) Bernie's silence:
> contributes to the view that the email server is just a partisan football;
> contributes to the view that it is just a question of judgement;
> undermines his 'man of principle' positioning;
> undermines his argument that Clinton is a flawed candidate;
> undermines his claim to have better judgement than Hillary (as explained above - her decision
to operate a private email server is disqualifying);
Bernie's silence doesn't help him to win or to win over the Party. By pulling punches (once
again!) Bernie is choosing Party over Principle. This seems to confirm that he is indeed just
a sheepdog for the DNC as described by
Black
Agenda Report and
Talking
Points Memo .
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
One can only hope that this election season Progressives will finally WAKE UP and understand
that the Democratic Party establishment is too corrupt and too entrenched for reform.
Bernie supporters and left-leaning independents should join/vote GREEN PARTY.
I recommend voting third party...any third party. In most states, the outcome is already known,
because most states are reliably either Democratic or Republican.
In all but a handful of battleground states, voters are free to vote their conscience. Only
in battleground states need they consider voting for the lesser of the evils.
Voting third party is important--it conveys a message of disgust with the establishment duopoly.
OTOH NOT voting only conveys complacence and apathy, which the duopoly is totally OK with.
She bureaucratically outmaneuvered Obama, leading to U.S. intervention in Libya, which he
has called the worst decision of his administration.
This misconception is still alive and kicking. Killary wasnt the mastermind behind Libya's
invasion, she was just a frontwoman for "color revolution" plans which were well under way before
she come into power, and will continue when she fades into obscurity.
Another misconception is Obama's "peace-loving" nature, its just an illusion he and his
PR people are pushing. "Obama is good, its these others who want war", and people still
fall for that? :)) The only difference between Bush jr and Obama is that one likes to fight wars
directly (US cant afford that anymore), and another through proxy terrorists and drones, its cheaper
this way, and even more destructive.
The assumption of Obama's progressivism has been found to be misguided time and time again.
It is a con. It is a lubricant.
Black?
He is ethnically half-white and culturally about 90% white.
Community organizer?
Wall Street bailouts and faux mortgage relief. 11-dimensional chess excuses for inaction
(he had majorities in both houses of Congress when he was elected)
Bush tax cuts made permanent - poor get austerity.
Solution for inequality? More low-paying jobs.
Constitutional lawyer?
War on Whistle-blowers; assault on civil liberties; IRS scandal; etc.
Awarded for simply being NOT-Bush. Approved everything the neocons wanted and asserted the
neocon mantra of American exceptionalism.
The faux conflict between Netanyahu and Obama over Iran is just for show. Sanctions weren't
working and the Syrian conflict has dragged out longer than expected (they are not yet ready
to take on Iran).
Note: The above list only scratches the surface of the deceitfulness.
dahoit | Jun 2, 2016 11:10:22 AM | 16
Trump far right? That's Obomba, Clinton, the shrub and HRC, the worst rightists in American
history.
Trump is left-right and in the middle, a non ideologue, who will bring back American prosperity,
get US out of this wacko world domination idiocy and protect our borders,all nationalist endeavors
,and as right as rain. The moron bubblehead says Trumps foreign policy aims will upset the
world order. My God,shes a retard. Never in the history of this planet has such an empty
vessel ever sought such a high office.
Trump is far-right? It seems obvious that when it comes to foreign policy he's to the left of
everyone; Clinton has already promised to "totally obliterate" Iran, lusts after confrontation
with Russia & is clearly willing to hit the button. For his part, Sanders says "The Saudis (ISIS)
should play a bigger role in the Middle East," and says the military option is on the table vis
a vis Russia (which of course means nuclear weapons, since USA could obviously never win a conventional
war with Russia - it can't even defeat a few thousand lightly armed Taliban). As far as I
can see, Trump's the only person calling for diplomacy & a de-escalation of tensions with the
Chinese & the Russians. His obsession with capitalism, making money & deal-making may paradoxically
prove to be his best feature; if you blow up the world, no more deals!
strategically pointless nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria
Taking formerly unified & regionally powerful countries resistant to USA domination & turning
them into defenseless mini-statelets is "strategically pointless"? It amazes me how progressives
can look the strategy straight in the eye... and then deny it.
Naked C. Article is 'factual' within the US landscape from a certain pov..
Always said that:
1) Killary cannot win. Already a one time loser, not enough 'base', her and hubby's
past, corruption etc. etc.
2) that the PTB (deep state, military ind. complex, big corps, Finance..) could accomodate
to a Sanders presidency but not a Trump one.
What Dem alternatives remain? If Killary is indicted for the homey-cellar-e-mail boondoggle,
plus the fact she could not win (say, most likely, as article hints at) against Trump, the Dems
need to put forward another candidate, Biden? Ensuring that the Dems lose the election but the
overall system is maintained. (Keeping the lid on Sanders supporters, switching from Bernie to
X (other candidate) will be a disaster.)
On the Repub. side the picture is the same. They can't support Killary openly and to prevent
Trump from triumphing they need to launch a candidate that splits Repubs. + conservatives votes,
some X 'respectable' candidate getting some 6 better 9-10 or .. % of the vote, enough to throw
the election to the Dem candidate. So that the Repubs. lose the election but the system is maintained
(bis).
The prez. race has turned into vaudeville where different parties are fighting to lose
while conserving their advantages within the status quo.
:) :)
All wll be done to keep the 2-party system alive and put a lid on ALL opposition.
strategically pointless nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria
I have found that the US "Left" is generally anti-Empire and simply see any discussion of foreign
affairs as mere details. They easily fall for the 'chaos' simplification/cloaking.
I have made the case that oligarchs and fundamentalism are global problems and that they reinforce
each other across national and social divides. It's a complex dance that is destructive and anti-human.
The details matter because opening people eyes requires examples.
Iraq was hostile to Iran before the invasion and Saddam was easy to deal with. Syria used
to be stable and sell oil. Now Iraq is aligned with Iran and Syria is a disaster and has given
Russia an opportunity to demonstrate loyalty to allies and the effectiveness of the Russian military
and weapons.
Mark 16 "strategically pointless nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria"
Taking formerly unified & regionally powerful countries resistant to USA domination &
turning them into defenseless mini-statelets is "strategically pointless"? It amazes me how
progressives can look the strategy straight in the eye... and then deny it.
Not strategically pointless by any measure! Complete Bullshit. Breaking States is essential
and specifically mentioned in the Oded Yinon Plan for Greater Israel. The PNAC Plan for Full Spectrum
Dominance with the Global War on Terror further reinforces and justifies the Yinon Plan.
NATO and The US acting as Aggressor (pre-emptive war & war for regime change) is illegal and
Criminal - War Crimes as spelled out clearly in NATO Manifesto.
Part of the problem is that what you refer to as centrist is actually extreme conservatism bordering
on fundamentalism in exactly the same vein as Wahhabism, only in the name of Christ.
I'm one who would certainly vote for Trump over Clinton explicitly to punish the faux left
for perpetrating and perpetuating Obama's treasonous betrayal of every last vestige of progressive
idealism.
As one of the many, many people who don't self identify with political terms like left, right,
democrat and republican, it's not a matter of which camp wins, it's a matter of establishing a
pattern of public policy that over the long term balances out the needs of varying constituencies
in a manner that results in the greatest long-term benefit to the common weal.
Sanders clearly represents a needed swing back to sound investment in infrastructure and establishing
necessary limits on a global oligarchy with no nationalist interests.
Unless a miracle happens and he gets past the concerted effort to defeat him, then Trump represents
the best opportunity to diminish the effectiveness of the current cabal. There should be no illusions
that Trump won't fall into line immediately though.
The reaction against Clinton is purely punitive. We don't need more status quo. Either way,
there will be massive amounts of pain for all as we go through the death of the current paradigm
- and it's coming regardless of who desecrates democracy and the Office of the President.
This statement is very true ... HRC is a shill politician
supporting Israel
in the Middle East . Her vote for the Iraq war, her run as senator for NY with the backing
of Rupert Murdoch and her abominable policy as Secretary of State versus Libya and Syria. She
used the worst of advisors at State to run her affairs. The buck stop at Obama's desk, he is ultimately
responsible for the decisions made.
Iraq was hostile to Iran before the invasion and Saddam was easy to deal with. Syria used to
be stable and sell oil. Now Iraq is aligned with Iran and Syria is a disaster and has given
Russia an opportunity to demonstrate loyalty to allies and the effectiveness of the Russian
military and weapons.
I agree with your first point - a strengthened Iran was certainly one of the few *truly* unintended
consequences of the invasion/destruction of Iraq - which Bush recognized/sought to address in
his 2006 "redirection" plan - but I don't know to what extent the current govt in Iraq is "aligned
with Iran." My understanding (admittedly limited) is that al-Abadi is mostly powerless to resist
US dictates; for instance, after Russia intervened in Syria, he made some fuss about potentially
requesting RU assistance against ISIS, but then ultimately backed down. The destabilization of
Syria has enabled NATO to simply steal the country's oil via ISIS - a major win for USA.
My sincere apology learned fren, dun mean to sound mean. To me the endless killing must end,
Israel continue to mass killing including Palestinians teenagers and if the US cannot, unable
or unwilling to do it.
It's the voters faults continue to votes for the Democratic party and Repug.
Early take on Hillary's foreign policy speech: pot shots at Trump (easy), interspersed with
scare-mongering, chest-thumping and neocon talking points like: "we never ever stop trying to
make our country a better place" (how exceptional!).
C'est posible that Bernie has been the intended candidate all along. Could all the vote-stealing
from Bernie, balanced by the threat of a Clinton indictment have been a distraction? With no interference
and an accurate vote-count Bernie would have long-since emerged as the candidate. In which case--
the microscope would have been on policy & the policies that we WANT. There might even have been
a little attention left over to witness the continued subjugation of South America.
As it is, the US presidential campaign has been greatly side-tracked towards personality, and
the illusion of a horse race. I daresay Bernie's controllable and he's it.
Hillary can go right on coveting Presidential power (of which there is precious little).
Breaking down the 2 party system is tricky, but long term possible. States with initative processes
need to enact preference voting (aka instant runoff) so that somewhat similar candidates do not
wind up splitting the vote as they do with the first-past-the-post system.
After 4-6 parties regularly elect officials at the state and local level, there be enough infrastructure
to flow up to the national level.
Top down pushes will collapse back to 2 parties. Hopefully, the TRUMP run will push all the
'gag' neocon/neolibs into the Democratic party of multicultural globalism. Lindsey Graham and
John McCain would make wonderful Democrats. This would buy America some time, but is not a stable
end state.
... The Tweedle brothers never contradict each other, even when one of them, according to the
rhyme, "agrees to have a battle". Rather, they complement each other's words. ...
Write-in the
name of someone you'd actually want to be President/Senator/Congressional representative on November
8. The stakes are too high for you to stay home.
Let 2016 be the beginning. First time, everytime, write-in your candidate, work with your neighbors
toward convergence. 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2024, 2026, 2028 ... if we'd set out in 2004 we'd
be home by now.
Some Internet gossip that should not be readily dismissed, many facts do check out:
...an elite team of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) assassins controlled by President Obama
have gunned down the husband of a US prosecutor who was preparing to charge former President
William (Bill) Clinton with crimes relating to his having had sex with an underage girl child
kept as a sex slave by his close personal billionaire friend Jeffery Epstein...
In the "exact/near similar" location this CIA "hit squad" had been operating in ... and
shortly after their departure from the Atlanta region, local police officers were called and
discovered the body of Shahriar Zolfaghari who was the husband of Georgia's statewide prosecutor
for human trafficking Camila Wright-and whom Atlanta Police Major Adam Lee III reported had
been shot twice in the chest at close range and said: "It's a mystery as to why someone would
harm him"...
the "possible/supposed" reason for Zolfaghari's killing was a "death message" to his wife
Camila to stop her from charging former President Clinton with child sex crimes and to cease
her sex trafficking investigation all together.
As to Prosecutor Wright's exact criminal case against President Clinton, ... it involves
the "contracting/deal making" with a number of underage female girls living in the Atlanta
region by New York-British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen and Nada Marcinkova-all
three of whom were tasked by convicted pedophile, and billionaire, Jeffery Epstein to procure
underage sex slaves for his private Caribbean island compound known as "Pedophile Island" that
catered to the world's rich and famous, including President Clinton and Prince Andrew.
Ghislaine Maxwell, who has been labeled as "Epstein's pimp mama", ... was the main "dealmaker/contractor"
for the underage Atlanta female sex slaves preferred by her close friend President Clinton
during his visits to "Pedophile Island"-and which recently discovered flight log reports have
shown him visiting numerous times, and many without his Secret Service detail.
to whom President Putin ordered this single Hillary Clinton email released to, it doesn't appear
to be that hard to figure out as one hour later the international, non-profit, journalistic
organization Wikileaks, that publishes secret information, news leak and classified media from
anonymous sources, sent out a Twitter message containing this email under the headline
Is
this email the FBI's star exhibit against Hillary Clinton ("H")?
?
The grave implications to Hillary Clinton in regards to this email... is that it provides
conclusive proof that she personally ordered top secret and other type classifications to be
stripped from emails sent to her private unsecured computer server in violation of US law-and,
also, directly contradicts what it says on her presidential campaign website: "Clinton only
used her account for unclassified email. No information in Clinton's emails was marked classified
at the time she sent or received them."
... another Hillary Clinton statement on her campaign website that says: "Was it allowed?
Yes. The laws, regulations, and State Department policy in place during her tenure permitted
her to use a non-government email for work", has, likewise, been exposed as being untrue by
the US State Department's Inspector General who last week said that not only wasn't this allowed,
he detailed how Jonathan Scott Gration, the former US Ambassador to Kenya, who ignored instructions
in July 2011 not to use commercial email for government businesses, was forced to resign, in
mid-2012, when then Secretary Clinton herself initiated disciplinary action against him, while
at the same time she was doing the exact same thing, but keeping it secret.
...many US media news sites ... agreeing that the most serious US laws violated by her were
Executive Order 13526-Classified National Security Information and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f)-Gathering,
Transmitting or Losing Defense Information of the federal code that make it unlawful to send
or store classified information on personal email.
Yet Trump, clearly a puppet of some powerful faction of the global deep state (most probably
involving Rocefellers who are e.g. abandoning oil and want to legalize drug business, basically
come out of this current war with clean hands on the victorious side), has been sending many confusing
signals. Could it be that the goal of masters is too fool not the regular, 'good' people, but
the enemies of the humanity (CIA, MI6, Rothshilde, Clinton, Bush, Petreaus, Romney, Koch, Adelson,
Erdogan, Saudi, Netanyahoo, Kolomoiski cabal centered in the City of London living off the illegal
drug trade since the opium wars)?
Mind you that we've already seen the "bifurcation" in the USG action in the Me, most recently
when the Pentagon/Obama rebels been fighting the CIA "rebels".
Unfair hitting below the belt. What makes you think, getting rid of politicians shedding so
much bloods here, Libya, Syria, Afghan... and blames others "so eager to spill other humans' blood
on the street?"
You believe protecting motherfuckers (excuse me Hmmmm..) Liars, murderers, warmongers so no
more blood on the streets? Understands, Enuff, is Enuff, the killing, lying, fake videos must
end. This is not my view, majority Americans feel the same both sides of the fences, Dem or Repug.
We are not the minority but the majority. The differences how to get rid these motherfuckers!!
To be clear, I'm a passive pacifist, believe in the rule of laws.
Asked many Blacks, you know what going on in Ukraine, Crimea, Syria or Greece? Most were clueless.
Never heard of Ukraine etc. Otherwise - Its Putin Faults, Assad the regime must go, Its Repug
faults, Congress faults but Never Obomo! More than 80% voted for Obama twice base on racial line.
Now don't call me a racist. A Cop almost shot me after questioning him in public.....
" buy a pitchfork and hit the streets. Anything less is a cop-out and playing the game."
Dunno if you followed Kazzura, Anna News, Liveleak before and after Feb 2014 Maiden uprising
they awakened the Separatists. Igor Strelkov, the shooter was fighting Kiev Regime, forced to
leave Sloviansk with a handful fighter moved to Donbass. Farmers, doctors, mother, lawyers, grandfather
and children with pitchforks and antique weapons guarding building, road blocks and checkpoints
with burning tires tried to stopped advancing Kiev troops in Donetsk and Lugansk Obasts.
However, in Odessa, well-dress school children, women and men sitting calmly on the sidewalks,
filling Molotov cocktails to massacre separatist holed up in the Union bldg.
Ask Neoliberal, the lesser of evils and apologists who were the blood thirsty killers?
@63 "BTW what happened to the Repubs wanting to STOP Trump from being nominated AT ALL COST theme?
That was so last week. Ryan just endorsed Trump... "I feel confident he would help us turn
the ideas in this agenda into laws to help improve people's lives. That's why I'll be voting for
him this fall," Ryan wrote.
At politico.com
Pro-Hillary commenters have been harshly critical. Many say that potential Trump voters are NOT
progressive and/or are comfortable elites that won't lose anything.
At nakedcapitalism.com
A large number of commenters have said that instead of Trump, they would support the GREEN PARTY!
At MoA
There has been concerns raised about 1) Sanders reluctance to attack Hillary and 2) the naivete
of Yves': "strategically pointless nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria" .
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Note: Yves has explained that she initially tried to make the article into one that describes
Sanders supporters anti-Hillary feelings. She says that editor(s) at politico guided the story
to Sanders supporters that would vote Trump as it seemed to be a more dramatic story.
Holy cow, no one will believe me - Bernie advertises in RT!! First time ever, sneaking
pass Ghostly blocker - reaching out to RT viewers.
The message... College should be free, tax Walls street pay for college education. Bernie you
lying shit!! I'll never vote for you even if force to eat cat food.
This what John Pliger wrote in SOTT, 27 May of Bernie...
Stunning silence in America as it prepares to vote for one side of the same coin
"Sanders, the hope of many young Americans, is not very different from Clinton in his proprietorial
view of the world beyond the United States. He backed Bill Clinton's illegal bombing of Serbia.
He supports Obama's terrorism by drone, the provocation of Russia and the return of special forces
(death squads) to Iraq. He has nothing to say on the drumbeat of threats to China and the accelerating
risk of nuclear war. He agrees that Edward Snowden should stand trial and he calls Hugo Chavez
- like him, a social democrat - "a dead communist dictator". He promises to support Clinton if
she is nominated...."
""I didn't come here tonight to pander to you about Israel. That's what politicians do:
all talk, no action… My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran…
We have rewarded the world's leading state sponsor of terror with $150 billion and we received
absolutely nothing in return… Iran is a problem in Iraq, a problem in Syria, a problem in Lebanon,
a problem in Yemen, and will be a very major problem for Saudi Arabia. Literally every day,
Iran provides more and better weapons to their puppet states… We will totally dismantle Iran's
global terror network. Iran has seeded terror groups all over the world. During the last five
years, Iran has perpetrated terror attacks in 25 different countries on five continents. They've
got terror cells everywhere, including in the western hemisphere very close to home. Iran is
the biggest sponsor of terrorism around the world and we will work to dismantle that reach.
. . . When I become President, the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will
end on Day One."
I have to agree with @1 that it is not at all clear that Trump is "far right". He's a populist,
sure, he is. Maybe he even fits the definition of a demagogue. But that doesn't place him on the
"far right", it just places him "outside the system".
Trump appears to be all in favour of replacing a foreign policy that relies upon a robust
military with one that is based upon active diplomacy i.e. that jaw-jaw is better than war-war.
Which certainly places him way, way to the left of many Democrats (certainly to the left of
Hillary) and almost all Republicans.
He also appears to be all in favour of weighing up Trade Deals based upon what effect they
have on the working and middle class of American society, rather than how much those deals enrich
the 1%.
Again, that places him way, way, way to the left of most mainstream politicians in either party.
Sure, his "immigration" policies appear to be racist, and he doesn't appear to have thought
thru many of his *ahem* policies.
But it is very clear to me that the major reason why he blew away a far-right crowd that contained
repulsive Neanderthals as Rubio and Cruz is because he made a deliberate decision to run to the
left of them. And I have no doubt that he'll seek to win the Presidency by running to the left
of Hillary.
Not that it would be hard for anyone to run to the left of Hillary, but, still......
Oh, nuts! I just realized. I didn't follow the Egypt plane crash at all. Are they going to frame
LIBYA & use it as a pretext to attack? I'm only just starting to look at it. Is this possible?
@56, so Commentary Magazine, the cooking magazine for the neocon set, think HRC's Trump bashing
speech was the cat's meow.
Colonel Lang asked this question on his site tonight:
Am I correct in saying that HC's speech in San Diego was not made to some existing group
but rather was an event arranged by her campaign staff in a hired venue with an audience created
by them from her supporters in the area? pl
Someone in the comments said it was closed to the public, and another said it was attended by
200 donors.
What do you think of Gary Johnson as an alternative to the Repubicrat choices? He is antiwar
and supports many of the same social issues that Jill Stein supports. He is also a proven manager,
having served as a popular two time governor of New Mexico.
I share your opinion of the Green Party after what they did to Ralph Nader. There is also the
fact that Green Parties in Europe are filled warmongers, especially in Germany.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 2, 2016 9:12:38 AM | 9
The "middle" has been decimated enonomically. That's why traditional politics don't work anymore.
Actually, for Germany, Sanders is very much "middle". Hillary would be "right wing" minus
the classism and racism. Trump is close to classical National Socialism with a very special US
American "businessman" flavor (there is a traditional disdain for business in Germany).
How he could prevail with US demography, economy/business interests, and mentality, apart from
winning an election where everyone stays home out of disgust, I just can't see. But a large part
of German Jews (and Social Democrats and Trade Unionists - they said let it blow over it will
pass) did not see it coming in 1933.
So if I was "left" in the US - or just a normal citizen - I would vote Hillary and organize
for my interests to prevail in Congress, in the Senate and finally in 2020 plus refuse to be separated
on lifestyle choice. My impression is that the Sandernistas will be doing just that.
So, I guess you could sum up the conclusion to all these comments that there is absolutely
no one worth voting for because the electoral system is irrevocably broken due to psychopathic
or ponerological "infection". You can thrash out the debate as to who is the greater or lesser
of evils chosen for the parade this time around but it's a waste of energy since the foundations
upon which elections are built have long been rotten to the core.
So, voting for such
theatre is surely perpetuating the scenario. The president is already chosen. Period. Maybe
there's a bit of infighting between Establishment factions but I think it's a done deal. Similarly,
any attempt to grow something truly creative and which actually lasts inside the toxicity of Western
culture will inevitably fail for the same reason: psychopathy and lesser forms of pathology define
our social systems at this stage and it's on an interminable loop that needs to be reset. (And
I suspect Mother nature will have a hand in that fairly soon). Time to start building community
outside of the state and realise just how much creative power we have away from authoritarian
rule in all its guises.
Some folks would make exactly your argument against the rise of Hillary.
@80 MKS
Agree completely. Culture is larger than the politics, politics is part of culture and, as
you point out, culture is a sum over all its parts. It's from beneath the larger, cultural arch
that we can simply takeover politics, from the outside. My suggestion is
write-in voting,
a de facto implementation of
open elections
. There's much too much harm being done now by the broken political machine, we need to get
it under control.
yes, presumably among our inalienable rights is the right not to vote, as the electoral process,
in its present manifestation, can only impede our collective creativity.
What must be understood and highlighted is who the political class works for- the savage capitalists.
The US government is merely the front for the ruling class. It merely carries out the policies
of the over-civilized, well-manicured capitalist thugs.
Anyone who thinks that simply "voting the bums out" (no matter how much Bern they been feeling
lately) is a viable action in such a profoundly corrupt system is in deep denial as to the scope
of our problems.
The system is not broken- it is working exactly as designed- by and for those who designed
it.
In a bourgeoisie democracy the power of the electorate is a legal fiction.
Wasting energy on electoral kabuki Sanders-Style falls into that category belonging to all
strategies based on "trying to push the Dems to the left." It can never happen. The Dems are officially
sanctioned precisely because the business plutocracy is 100% confident that the Party can't be
"pushed to the Left," even if the proverbial Apocalypse threatens. The Dem Party's essential political
function is pretending to sound sympathetic to ordinary citizens, while actually doing the bidding
of the financial elite.
In America, the ovens will not be disguised as showers; they will be marked "Voting Booth".
Reagan was a failed Governor and fake WW2 fighter pilot who embraced the early PNAC after his
first term Super Recession, then got elected by a landslide. Same with Bush2. So policy failures
or weak leadership has nothing whatsoever with electability, and you can vote red, blue or purple,
the Clinton Cash Machine will still dominate the Selections in November.
Wringing hands because there is "no democracy" or the duopoly candidates are so bad is a cop-out.
You have choices.
Personally, I would vote third-party instead of staying at home or write-in.
Also consider:
1) there are grass-roots organizations that are very effective - join one!
2) Hillary was supposed to be coronated. Her downfall (via email scandal) shows that things
are not as hopeless/inevitable as some claim - don't lose heart!
3) A door has been opened. People see and talk about the 'rigged' political and economic
system like never before.
4) You have to be a smart voter. TPTB rely on voter apathy and ignorance. Educate those
around you! (carefully! a 'know it all' attitude or partisanship is counterproductive)
In USA only half of eligible voters actually vote. If everyone that gave up on voting were
to vote third-party we would have a viable alternative.
Notably, the only Party that supports preference voting (which makes third-parties viable and
greatly diminishes 'lesser-evil' voting) is the GREEN PARTY.
72;Ah Iran.Yes,Trump for some reason(Neocon votes?)has it in for Iran, but Iran is not central
to American prosperity, far away and being a Muslim nation makes it a little inviting for American
pol bashing, but hey, hopefully he'll stop this on election.
And yeah, he is trying to get the monsters on his side, or at least to stop the daily demonization
campaign against him, which anyone can see, if they are honest.
He will win based on the economy(66,000 jobs in May,the worst in 6 years btw) and the feelings
of patriotic Americans sick of being Zio boy toys,and sick of furriners coming here and rioting
against American citizens.That got him a few more million votes.
America first, a winning hand, but anathema to the Zionists, our mortal enemy.
>> given that outsider presidents like Jimmy Carter
>> and celebrity governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger
>> and Jesse Ventura didn't get much done,
Says who? They got us through 4+ years without heaping a ton of sh** on us. Reagan, Clinton,
Obama, and Bush did a lot of damage, such that we wish they would've done less.
77; I read that her speech was before the US Pacific Fleet, a bunch of military morons. She is
going full bore dominatrix. She said Trump coddles dictators;Sheesh,you mean like Mubarak,Sissi,Saudis,Bahrain,Dubai
and all points east and west thugs of Clinton favor? A moron, with hypocrisy enough to name a
wing of a museum of political liars after her evil self.
Penelope; Yes, if Trump turns out to be a liar re his plans, the pushback will be the next
election cycle, with an actual clone of Hitler as candidate. We've had enough of these monsters,
who use US and abuse US daily.
....there is absolutely no one worth voting for because the electoral system is irrevocably
broken due to psychopathic or ponerological "infection". You can thrash out the debate as to who
is the greater or lesser of evils....
Ahaaa, Not so, you have another choices. Votes for the MOST ABHORRENT CANDIDATE POSSIBLE,
Erdogan or Avigdor Lieberman if they are in the running or Hillary or Thump.
Better to place this action in an institutional context. The forces placed on the elected person
by the state machinery and pressures from big business dictate the outcome. In the current system
your vote is meaningless. You can argue all you want that "We need to keep up the pressure to
demand Politician______ needs to listen to ordinary citizens, not to business" and you will rot
on the vine as your words disappear into the indifferent air.
There is a difference between the state and government. The state is the permanent collection
of institutions that have entrenched power structures and interests. The government is made up
of various politicians. It is the institutions that have power in the state due to their permanence,
not the representatives who come and go. We cannot expect different politicians to act in different
ways to the same pressures. However, this is all ignored by the voting political consumer who
wishes Politician______ was more a socialist, green, populist etc. and could ignore the demands
of the dominant class in society while in charge of one part of its protector and creature, the
state.
Who wins the election in the capitalist system makes no difference because all politicians
in this system must do what the ruling class want. Elections are a scam whose function is to neutralize
resistance movements and dupe ordinary citizens into thinking they have a say in matters of the
state.
Elections in the capitalist system do not secure popular control over the state, they do help
secure state control over the populace. Voting is a ritual that reinforces obedience to state
authority. It creates the illusion that "the people" control the state, thereby masking elite
rule. That illusion makes rebellion against the state less likely because it is seen as a legitimate
institution and as an instrument of popular rule rather than the oligarchy it really is. Embedded
within all electoral campaigns is the myth that "the people" control the state through voting.
>> Had Sanders run as an independent he would be getting literally no coverage and likely achieving
very little success. ... If he ran as an independent this wouldn't be the case.
Not crazy. But, I disagree.
Implicit in your reasoning is this assumption: In an alternate timeline in which Clinton was
*not* primaried, DNC primary voters would've been unaware of or overlooked her horrible record.
But, that assumption is undermined by the record in the current timeline:
- We know Bernie has been pulling punches -- not making a big deal about her horrible record.
- Therefore, current-timeline Bernie supporters know about Clinton's record because they've
been following it and been appalled by it independently of whatever Bernie has to say.
- These people would've abandoned the DNC as soon as "Clinton" became the presumptive nominee
a year ago.
"Who wins the election in the capitalist system makes no difference because all politicians
in this system must do what the ruling class want. Elections are a scam whose function is to neutralize
resistance movements and dupe ordinary citizens into thinking they have a say in matters of the
state."
By Gaius Publius
, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor
to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter
@Gaius_Publius ,
Tumblr and
Facebook . Originally published
at
at Down With Tyranny . GP article
here
Just three facts and a video. You can add them up as easily as I can.
1. Puerto Rican officials expected 700,000 people to vote in the 2016 Democratic primary.
Think Progress, from a much longer
article :
The Democratic Party cut the number of polling places by two-thirds, from more than 1500 to
less than 500. In addition, because there were two simultaneous elections - one for local officials
and one for the presidential race - voters had to go to two separate locations if they wanted
to cast both ballots. Then the Party cut the voting hours, the window of time during which any
voting could be done.
A longer clip from the same Think Progress article (my emphasis):
In early May, Puerto Rico's Democratic Party
announced that more than 1,500 polling places would be available for the island's June
5 Democratic primary. A few weeks later, they
slashed that number to just over 430 - a reduction of more than two thirds.
In 2008, the island's last competitive Democratic primary, there were
more than 2,300 polling
places.
Some are warning of long lines and voters left unable to access the ballot box, as an
estimated 700,000 Puerto Ricans will vote this Sunday, and polling places will only
be open from 8 a.m. to 3
p.m . .
Worse, many voters will have to visit
two separate locations to cast ballots in the presidential primary and the local primaries
held the same day. Voter turnout and engagement has for years been
much higher on the island than in the 50 U.S. states, but these changes may present too
heavy a burden for low-income residents who lack transportation options or who need to work.
Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) are
up in arms about the polling place reductions, calling it a "fix" and drawing parallels
to Arizona's
disastrous primary . Arizona's most populous county closed two-thirds of its polling locations
ahead of its April primary, forcing some voters to wait in line more than six hours to cast
a ballot.
They got the result they wanted .
3. The number of votes actually cast in the Democratic presidential primary totaled
just over 60,000 . If my math is correct, that about 8% of the expected total, or a voter
suppression rate of 92%. Again, the Puerto Rico Democratic Party, all good loyal Democrats I'm
sure, suppressed 92% of their own vote, by reducing voting locations and hours.
Why? You decide. My answer? Too much democracy for the "Democratic" Party.
... ... ...
How corrupt is the current leadership, top to bottom, of many of the arms of the Democratic
Party? Looks like "very" to me. The willingness to corrupt the process seems to exist at many
of the state and county committees as well. (It's not a conspiracy if you don't have to tell the
county committeewoman what to do, if she already knows, in other words, when and where to stick
in the knife.)
How determined is the Democratic Party to commit seppuku on a national electoral stage? Same
answer. Flying high on hubris usually lead to a crash landing. Pride and a fall.
For more on the situation in Puerto Rico, check out this short video, made just before the
election.
Looks like the Clinton-led Democratic Party isn't even trying to hide this stuff any more.
Looks like they don't think they need to.
I learned a lot from this
short clip linked
by NC reader Bev.
I learned more from the full video at trustvote.org The RICO lawsuit filed by Bob Fitrakis
and Cliff Arnebeck deserves attention. They are highly experienced election lawyers. Their
evidence and legal strategy is explained in the video.
The new report "Fraction Magic" at blackboxvoting.org has more bombshells.
And the recent Greg Palast revelations about the issues with the NPP ballots in CA.
AND–short video clips from many of the top experts in US election fraud are at
lawyer Bob
Fitrakis' website . These are all people with lengthy experience documenting election irregularities
of many kinds, including but not limited to the tactics for voter disenfranchisement used in
Puerto Rico.
And guess what–the election consultant hired by Trump was a key player in past election
irregularities.
Since the late 1990s in many (most?) places we have not had true elections, we've had competitions
in vote rigging by multiple parties and interests, using a wide range of tactics and technology.
To TheCatSaid from TheDogHowled-Bev, so true. And, Bev Harris has more bomshells: I am going
there now, but to let you know some of your links do not work. It's time to get back our democracy
from the criminals rigging our elections.
Wasn't the last protest at a Trump rally, which usually promotes violence against protesters,
this time instead had protesters turning violent against Trump backers, found out later to
be Clinton's people? Isn't that correct? There is your preview of how these anti-democracy,
authoritarian leaders intend to win as TheCatSaid, by rigging the vote in many ways, accusing
each other of rigging and violence, and by beating the crap out of each other, a la brown shirts.
NO.
To all sports fans, the following will change our future for the better by rescuing our
democracy and our kids.
BREAKING NEWS: Election Attorney Cliff Arnebeck filed a major RICO racketeering lawsuit
June 6, 2016 against the voting machine companies whose code that fractionalized votes and
so delegate distribution was found by Bev Harris (
http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/
Fraction Magic – Part 1: Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers ),
and against the media that was complicit in covering up the crime of election theft by adjusting
the exit polls to match the fraudulent voting machine counts which was found by Richard Charnin
and Beth Clarkson ( http://showmethevotes.org/
).
This is a Very Strong RICO lawsuit involving State and Federal Courts, involving current
and past election crimes, that importantly involves ALL THE STATES, that means Illinois, Cub
fans, for the collection of evidence to determine the correct vote counts, and delegate counts.
Arnebeck says that by the time of the Republican Convention which is before the Democratic
Convention, that this RICO racketeering lawsuit will have changed history, and the minds of
politicians and the public so that the true winner, Bernie Sanders, will be demanded. What
a great legacy.
PROTECTING OUR ELECTIONS
Bob Fitrakis, Cliff Arnebeck and Lori Grace
..
NYT, Ap and other media are reporting that Hillary has "clinched" the nomination. They,
having jumped the shark, want to tell you how she did it. Now they can tell a judge how they
did it because the media have been RICOed.
Attorney Cliff Arnebeck says it does not matter what the media says or Hillary Clinton says,
the law, this RICO case will prevail. This will save our Democracy.
Today is a great day. Today is the beginning of getting our democracy back.
Thanks to all election integrity people who so trust regular people to create a better future
for us all, that you fight for a democracy. What a great day.
snip
Please spread this important RICO event all around everywhere. Because, I think the media
will have a hard time reporting that they have been sued for racketeering. We will have to
report widely.
We're supposed to feel victorious that Maggie Thatcher, uh, Hillary Clinton allegedly "won"
the D Primary all fair and square. To suggest that shenanigans happened means that I'm a putative
Bernie Bro who is clearly clueless, stupid, worthless and should STFU.
Oh well. C'est la vie. Hillary was certainly bound to be inevitable this time around by
hook or by CROOK.
IMO, the PTB were much more worried about Bernie Sanders than Trump. Clinton? Eh, Hillary's
their fair haired girl. The rightwing noise machine may vent and spew about Clinton, but pay
no attention to that man behind the curtain. Clinton's the poodle of Wall St, the Hedgies,
the MIC. CHA CHING!!
The masses can content themselves with the glass ceiling allegedly having been broken. Whoopee.
The TIFFANY glass ceiling. The Tiffany Glass Ceiling that Upper Class feminists of privilege
want the rest of us to care about even though we are dealing with Cinder Block Ceilings of
our own.
Although Bernie never had a chance of getting the nomination (not because he couldn't win
enough votes but because the party would have never nominated him even if he had won every
single state primary), he has performed a great public service by exposing what a sordid farce
the Democratic party is. For this, I am eternally grateful to the Bernster. It is now clear
for all to see, if there was any doubt previously, that We the People will never be able to
overthrow the plutocracy until we drive a stake through the Democratic Party's heart and stick
a fork in its bloated carcass.
Yes, the greatest betrayer of a cause is all too frequently the guy right next to you. The
one who says he is on your side. The "liberals" were always going to be the revolution's most
dangerous foes.
I visited that extremely mixed bag of a blog "lawyersgunsandmoney" yesterday just to see
how they'd been covering the Dem primary and was not let down at all. They attempted to skewer
Yves' politico piece with glib and snide inline comments that fell completely flat, but I think
my favorite comment was when the author of the piece used Obama's recent words on expanding
social security as proof that the Dem establishment is becoming more progressive. I mean, there
is room for argument about tactics for moving the Dems to the left, but if we are going to
pretend that Obama hasn't spent the past 7 years trying to gut social security in order to
"save" it, and that his recent empty words signify anything more than a pathetic 11th hour
attempt to get in front of the revolution and call it his parade, then our worldviews are just
fundamentally irreconcilable.
I saw that yesterday and having never been to that site before and given the site's name,
I had a very different expectation about it's leanings. I immediately realized they were shilling
for Hillary. Wonder how Warren Zevon would feel about his lyrics being used for neoliberal
propoganda.
The site is definitely mixed tho, not all bad. What confuses me the most is their hostility
to those who see incrementalism as a fraud, but I guess thats because they truly think its
the only thing that works (history be damned). I remember I lost patience with them when they
started celebrating Janet Yellen's appointment over Larry Summers. I pointed out that while
she is better than him she is still a complete neoliberal tool and wont change anything. They
couldn't handle that apparently. Honestly, when it comes to econ they don't know what they
don't know. Its a major blind spot for them esp. given Obama's major betrayals have been economic.
Still, Erik Loomis' posts on labor history are very interesting.
But he's so smooth. And he's such a great husband and father. And he's friends with JayZee
and Beyoncé. How could such a nice young man be lying to us about the TPP?
Although it's early yet, after the right, royal, hosing Bernie has gotten since he started,
he should realize that Doctor Stein is progressing well on getting Greens on all state ballots,
and consider carefully her offer to run with them.
A presidential election has much less room for the slimy tricks we have seen so much of,
and the turd Democrats will be flushed down the toilet of history, as Bernie puts his program
into action.
I am still numb. My anger will come back later today but there is no effective outlet in
this part of the country other than the internet.
Morning Joe was comparing Sanders to RFK especially after seeing the crowds in Puerto Rico
then California. Instead of assassinating Sanders they simply stole the election. I think Sanders
will pull a move similar to Jerry Brown in 1992.
It also looks like Warren will get the nod for VP so the Democrats can have two former Republicans
running for President and the Libertarians will have two former Republicans and the Republicans
will have a former Democrat running on their ticket.
I do not think that people realize that Elizabeth Warren is hated by dedicated Bernie supporters.
Only a fraction of the 25% that say they will not vote for Clinton will change their mind based
on Warren. Many others will vote for Stein, Johnson and in competitive states they may vote
for Trump just to keep her out of office.
And the media, the fucking media, they are going to point to that absurd "foreign policy"
speech as the turning point for Clinton.
so if we want the closest thing to a democrat we have to vote republican? i'm so confused.
i'm looking for somebody that didn't support reagan, the iraq war or the trade treaties.
she is the closest to me politically, but right now i'm thinking what is the most effective
way to pry off the suckers of the vampire squid, and some of the criticisms of the green party
i've read on nc make me wonder–long term we have to have another party, agreed. put me in the
"8 more years of this neoliberal bullshit is a disaster" camp.
I just started following this site a couple of days ago. I'm curious to hear what are some
of the criticisms of the green party that have been voiced here.
In my state the Green Party isn't on the presidential ballot.
My state's recognized presidential parties are the Democratic Party, Libertarian Party, and
Republican Party.
In my state the rules are:
"To obtain official recognition in[my state], party organizers must submit a petition that
contains signatures of voters registered in the state and abides by the petition regulations
outlined in [my state's] law. The total number of valid signatures required for a successful
petition is equal to 2 percent of the total votes cast for all candidates for governor in the
most recent general election for governor.
"There are two requirements for recognized political parties to maintain their official status
with the state. At each general election for national and state offices, parties must: (a)
nominate a candidate for at least one office that is elected statewide (e.g., governor, commissioner
of insurance or state treasurer), and (b) at least one such candidate of the party must receive
at least 1 percent of the total votes cast in the election for that office ."
Voting for Stein as a write-in won't have any effect on the Green Party's viability as competitive
party. There's a lot of dogged groundwork that would need to be done, that hasn't been done,
and from what I see isn't being done in my state. Other states may have done that work and
I'd love to see a Green elected to congress from one of those states, or elected to state office
in one of those states.
As a longtime Green, former candidate and professional campaign manager, I have to say that
developing a "ground game" for downticket races is extremely difficult when you are not running
as a Democrat/Republican and have little support from the professional orgs that usually provide
cash or people (PACs/Labor). We've often done well with what we have, but until there's a serious
break from the Dems and those people who have wasted their time for decades trying to reform
that party come over to us in a serious way, the left will continue to spin its wheels.
Passage of instant runoff voting in Maine in November would be a sea change for the Greens
and other third parties. Unless there is something wrong with this particular referendum, this
is something NCers should follow and support.
Worked with the Greens in my state until I discovered that they were unorganized and corrupt.
That last one was the deal-breaker for any further involvement from me. They'd cooperate with
the right wing to stick it to the Dems which is a very stupid strategy if you're looking for
more progressive outcomes. Stealing clean election funds to run unviable candidates didn't
sit well with me either.
The foreign policy speech is an interesting marker in another way, though. Through the primary
season, there was some effort to downplay Clinton's hawkishness, to distance her from the neoconservatives,
to ridicule Sanders on trying to make foreign policy distinctions.
That speech put that effort to rest. She openly embraced the war on terror specifically
and the whole neoconservative interventionist mindset more generally.
I'm a "dedicated Bernie supporter" and I don't "hate" Warren. She's fandamtastic and it
would be a colossal waste of her talent to have her VP.
She has far more power in the Senate than she would have as VP. Heh may be the abbreviation
really stand for veal pen.
I must not be a DEDicated Bernie supporter because Warren is not hated by me. I hope she
stays in the Senate and keeps doing her focused work against certain FIRE sector perpetrators
and cover-lending regulators.
It would be a shame if she accepted the VP nomination with Clinton. The SS Clinton is a
ship I would rather see Warren NOT go down with.
I respect and admire Warren, but adding her to the ticket won't make a difference for me
in November. Indeed, quite the opposite as she is/would be more effective as a senator than
veep. #NeverTrump #NeverHIllary #NoneOfTheAbove
I've never heard the story in this way and seen the time line. It started by looking at
local elections, and uncovered something HUGE in the last few months.
This affects thousands of voting jurisdictions in the USA. (And outside the USA,
too–wherever this popular vote tabulating software is used, by a range of voting machine companies.)
And now we'll have to listen to political analysts trying to figure out why X candidate
did so well or so poorly in location ABC. If you watch this video (and the other videos at
the Fitrakis link above, too) you'll see that our election results do not necessarily have
any relation to actual votes.
No matter how much I thought I knew about election irregularities, this is shocking
. It is widespread . We should be talking about election
fraud–and doing something about it–instead of wasting our time trying to understand what are
fictionalized election results.
After watching that disgusting video I feel like everyone should just publicly declare their
votes and compare a public tally with the electronic voting results.
Preserving voter anonymity is important for a host of reasons. It's one of the reasons electronic
voting is maybe impossible to do well.
What works well is hand-counting paper ballots in public (with multiple observers who are
concerned citizens–not election staff) in the precinct location where they were cast. It's
also really fast!
Another solution is to scan all the actual ballots at the voting precinct and make them
available to the public online so anyone who wants to can count & check the results for themselves.
Receipts are worse than nothing–potential for selling your vote, and doesn't guarantee your
vote was counted the same way it was cast. Any solution has to enable observers to monitor
ALL the ballots, not just their own.
All very true. The additional nice thing about hand counting paper ballots in public is
that it's an opportunity for civic conviviality, at least afterward. I remember the Quebec
referendum - 6 million population, votes counted in an evening, and some chicanery promptly
exposed. Very much unlike this country!
Ordinarily voting should be anonymous. I am thinking here about what citizens can do when
they think their vote has been stolen and the crooked government will not investigate the problem.
Where I live the voting is electronic and there is no paper ballot as far as I can tell. If,
say, there was a precinct where there was evidence of cheating and the public wanted to do
something they could attempt to compile a public tally of how people voted and compare it with
the electronic results. Even an incomplete list could reveal a problem.
It is not obvious to me why fewer voting locations translates into a Clinton win. The locations
would need to be chosen to favor Clinton voters over Sanders voters. More details are needed.
At the rate this sorry campaign is going, only millionaires and T.V. pundits will be able
to vote.
Clinton wins the early mail-in votes. Suppress the day-of votes to make sure the mail-in
votes count the most. And if that still doesn't work stop the counting and have the MSM declare
her the winnah!
Also, mail-in / absentee ballots are one of the easiest ways to perpetrate fraud.
If you look at the Bev Harris clip, where she reads out the specifications of the coding
job, they include attaching a unique bar code for every specific voter. (Strictly illegal but
there you go.) The code allowing for weighting each race (and each voter, or each demographic–as
specific as you like) makes it possible to weight multiple races across multiple districts
in seconds .
The code in question is in use in the tabulating computers (the ones that accumulate the
results from various machines and jurisdictions) all over the country.
"It is not obvious to me why fewer voting locations translates into a Clinton win. The locations
would need to be chosen to favor Clinton voters over Sanders voters."
Yes, that's exactly what happened. When voting machine numbers are reduced, it is done in
carefully chosen locations to achieve a specific goal.
Ironically, the first time I tried to vote, as a university student, there were long lines
and after more than an hour I had to leave because I had something that I could not miss. At
the time I had no idea this kind of thing could have happened deliberately.
In the current primary, my mother showed up to vote and found out the voting location had
changed, but she hadn't been notified. It was too late in the day for her to find out and get
to the new location. It never occurred to her that this kind of thing could have been deliberate.
This kind of thing can be devastatingly effective. Puerto Rico is an exaggerated version
of a tactic that's been used by both parties for 16 years or more.
I should have clarified better. By reducing the machines most acutely in the poorest, most
crowded areas Sanders' share of the vote was impacted more than Clinton's. I saw a video talking
about this some days before the actual primary. The reduction in poll opening hours also impact
the poorest voters the most, the implication being that those were the voters trending towards
Sanders.
For charges this severe about a problem this serious, we need to be able to demonstrate
that the video you saw is a "real" video rather than an "O'keefe" video.
Although TheCatSaid mentioned him above, unsung but deserving investigative reporter
Greg Palast , deserves mention
on his own. In addition to the CA shenanigans, he has been documenting election fraud on a
continuing basis for over a decade. Don't be put off by his sensationalist style. Many of his
revelations are truly unique; see, for example, his comparison of BP's operations in the Caspian
in Ajerbaijan with the Gulf of Mexico fiasco.
You're right. Palast has done amazing investigative work on many crucial issues.
* His revelations about the fracking accidents in the Caspian that preceded the Deepwater Horizon
accident in the Gulf were damning (in order to get the license to drill in the Gulf of Mexico,
BP had lied on its application by stating that they had not had any accidents)
* His uncovering of the deliberate negligence and economic interests that led to the devastation
of Hurricane Katrina
* His detailed work on vote purging in Florida and elsewhere
His saucy style belies the devastating amount of detail he routinely uncovers.
And he is absolutely fearless.
I am put off my his sensationalistic style. It hurts his credibility. He covers important
issues which I applaud him for. Sometimes I feel like I'm watching a Nick Danger sketch.
"What some people don't understand is that the privatization of the surveillance state,
the collection of all your information like phone calls, emails, Tweets, comments online, communication
in your car, communication in your home, Facebook turning on the mic on your phone so they
can listen to you throughout the day all this information is USED by someone.
One way they may use it, could be to figure out how you are going to vote. And that may
determine whether or not your name is "mistakenly" left off a voter role when you go to cast
your vote."
More from Scott Creighton on the California election fraud:
Puerto Rico is a colony of the United States. We cannot vote for the president. We have
no vote in Congress, supposedly only 'voice'. So the very notion of participating in the primaries
for people for whom we are not allowed to actually vote, is the height of hypocrisy.
"... If they focused on party building efforts that would result in actual political power - such as winning effective state legislative blocs outside their safety demographics (who don't show up for them as it is), or running a strong gubernatorial campaign in a state like, say, Oregon that garnered lots of attention from potential supporters, they'd be in a much stronger position to begin building more than a mixed medley of long-time dedicatees, but to attract (as Sanders has) progressive Democrats, Independents, and others to the prospect of a national party with something to show for itself. ..."
"... On the other hand, the threat of voting for Trump over Clinton, or simply not voting for Clinton, does send a very strong message that, if they fail to take it seriously, will instill the 'fear of God' in the party (as well as further seriously piss them off). ..."
"... Sitting still for corporate malfeasance is exactly the "bad faith" by which people are rejecting the Establishment candidates. ..."
"... I would suggest, as hunkerdown did, that Sanders should realize there's no honor among thieves. As per usual, the establishment often leverages a person's "integrity" for their own aims. ..."
"... Hillary is a murderer (by proxy of course), a liar, a receiver of bribes - the so-called "Queen of Chaos". That's not the sort of person you ever, in good conscience, support. ..."
"... Clinton is a predator and her operation exists to assimilate progressives like Sanders and his supporters by using their good intentions and faith in humanity against them. Installing his lieutenants on party platform committees or paying lip service to a $15 minimum wage is all in a day's work considering Clintonistas have no intention of following through on any ideological construct outside the ever increasing accumulation of wealth and power. ..."
"... If Sanders fights Trump and "supports" Hillary by raising his own money for downticket Dems like Canova, and in addition does stuff like stumping against fracking and for single payer in Colorado, that might not be so bad. ..."
"... I think that Yves also made a superb point in her essay - those of us who have been reading NC have developed a far more sophisticated (I would even say 'principled') opposition to the kind of neoliberal incrementalism that Clinton personifies. ..."
"... "Incrementalism" -> "excrementalism." Fixed it for ya. ..."
"... Yeah Obama pretty much laid the once potent "but the Supreme Court ZMOG!!!" argument to rest for good when he nominated a Republican. I mean what's even the point of voting Democrat at this juncture? ..."
"... A Clinton candidacy would be toxic for Dem. candidates down the whole ballot. Hillary is trying to win over scared/disgusted republicans to vote for a corporatist anti-Trump, despite their years of anti-Clinton conditioning. ..."
Relax, you're not being attacked, you don't need to accuse Yves of hypocrisy just because she
disagrees with you over reasons she provided.
Initially, back in 2014, when Bernie began publicly floating the idea of a presidential run,
my thought was that it would be more beneficial for progressive issues if he remained in the Senate.
His campaign has radically altered that opinion.
However, compare what Sanders has accomplished with the prospect of a Green party alternative.
What Yves is proposing is building precisely the kind of foundation that Sanders has, that has
allowed him to build a threateningly effective campaign. Sanders has a long and strong record
of legislative achievements, and it showcases his moral compass and political acumen. The Green
party has no national legislative record, they have no major state-level achievements (the environmentalist
movement does), and they don't have a national party organization.
It is politically very possible for the Green party to win 1 or 2 seats in the Senate, in places
that favor them (northwest, northeast). If the Green party dedicated themselves to electoral victories
that put party members on the national stage, and if they took a page from Bernie's legislative
playbook, getting workable legislation in as amendments to larger bills, then they would have
a basis for persuading voters that they are an actual alternative. If they focused on party
building efforts that would result in actual political power - such as winning effective state
legislative blocs outside their safety demographics (who don't show up for them as it is), or
running a strong gubernatorial campaign in a state like, say, Oregon that garnered lots of attention
from potential supporters, they'd be in a much stronger position to begin building more than a
mixed medley of long-time dedicatees, but to attract (as Sanders has) progressive Democrats, Independents,
and others to the prospect of a national party with something to show for itself.
This isn't selling out to the status quo, nor is separate from building out of Bernie's campaign
a resilient and persisting political bloc. It can be a very important part of that. I don't read
Yves' critique as perpetuating a self-fulfilling prophecy of defeatism, but as pointing out what
the Green party should do to begin to change the status quo. Isn't it defeatist to just vote for
a party that can't possibly win in the state it currently exists in? On the other hand, the
threat of voting for Trump over Clinton, or simply not voting for Clinton, does send a very strong
message that, if they fail to take it seriously, will instill the 'fear of God' in the party (as
well as further seriously piss them off).
I live in California. I am voting for Bernie next week. I will not vote for Hillary if she's
the nominee in the General. I'll vote for Jill Stein, but I know that that will be little more
than a symbolic protest vote. I disagree with the Rumsfeldian framed argument that it is a less
risky bet to support the putatively unknown unknown and make the Democratic party pay for their
luxuriant insularity and hubris. However - as that is the way Politico edited the message of Yves'
article - I understand and respect the argument.
You don't need to accept "lesser evilism" in order to put forward a sensible critique and proposal
for a party that doesn't have a real chance at this point.
hunkerdown
Sitting still for corporate malfeasance is exactly the "bad faith" by which people are rejecting
the Establishment candidates. I'd suggest taking account of the bad faith of the Democratic National
Committee and other Party organs in dealing with him, no more than a token of satisfice, and going
his own way to defeat Trump without providing aid or comfort to Hillary.
openvista, June 3, 2016 at 11:35 am
I would suggest, as hunkerdown did, that Sanders should realize there's no honor among
thieves. As per usual, the establishment often leverages a person's "integrity" for their own
aims.
Hillary is a murderer (by proxy of course), a liar, a receiver of bribes - the so-called
"Queen of Chaos". That's not the sort of person you ever, in good conscience, support.
That's not to say Trump is preferable. If the binary choice is lose-lose, isn't it possible to
have more than one enemy in a given Presidential election?
openvista, June 5, 2016 at 10:36 am
I agree that Sanders is the rarest of forms, a sincere politician. I don't see ambition or
graft behind any motivation of his to support Clinton, assuming that's the outcome. At worst,
it would be naivety.
If we take him at his word, he thinks of Clinton as a decent public servant with differing
ideas. Perhaps, he's less sincere than we think. But, assuming that is his take on her, he has
greatly under-estimated his adversary and that can only end badly for him at least as far as
the nomination is concerned.
Clinton is a predator and her operation exists to assimilate progressives like Sanders and
his supporters by using their good intentions and faith in humanity against them. Installing
his lieutenants on party platform committees or paying lip service to a $15 minimum wage is
all in a day's work considering Clintonistas have no intention of following through on any
ideological construct outside the ever increasing accumulation of wealth and power.
Lambert Strether, June 3, 2016 at 10:51 pm
If Sanders fights Trump and "supports" Hillary by raising his own money for downticket
Dems like Canova, and in addition does stuff like stumping against fracking and for single
payer in Colorado, that might not be so bad.
I can see scenarios where Clinton, from her corrupt perspective, will rue the day that Sanders
"supported" her. And if they try to muzzle him, that won't work out real well.
Steeeve, June 2, 2016 at 11:59 am
I will continue to support and hopefully vote for Bernie Sanders. In the event he's not the
nominee I will happily vote for Jill Stein as I did in 2012 – she has the strongest platform –
similar to Sanders but including what I consider to be a fundamental requirement to win my
vote: "End the wars and drone attacks, cut military spending by at least 50% and close the
700+ foreign military bases that are turning our republic into a bankrupt empire." I was
initially reluctant to support Sanders for the lack of inclusion of a plank along these lines.
Ending quagmires is at least a step in the right direction. But a conversation about economic
injustice is severely lacking without a strong statement on the MIC such as Stein's.
Liz Buiocchi, June 2, 2016 at 11:55 am
The only way that gridlock will end is with Sanders in the White House, at least one branch
of Congress in Democratic hands, and members of the other house sufficiently scared of voters
that they try to represent the interests of the 99%–in other words, a revolution. I don't know
how that happens with the media so complicit in the "Hillary is the nominee" narrative, but I
can hope.
I'm another 50-something white life-long liberal who has come to the conclusion that voting
for Trump is the lesser of some great evils. I'm somewhat relieved to know that I'm not the
only one–it feels like it goes against everything I stand for, but I just can't vote for
Clinton, nor will I refuse to vote in protest.
HotFlash, June 2, 2016 at 3:26 pm
A-yup. Trump at least says (or said on at least one occasion) that we should get out of the
Middle East. Which makes him better than Hillary. And he has not *to date* committed any war
crimes (I have standards, and one of them is that I will not vote for a war criminal).
But I still don't understand why it has to come down to Trump or Hillary. Can't we just have
Bernie?
DWBartoo, June 3, 2016 at 9:30 am
One wonders, Watt4Bob, should Trump emerge triumphant as President-elect, just how long it
would take for the Clintons and other neoliberal Democrats to suck up to him? Hillary would
have us believe that she considers Trump evil incarnate even as Clinton's daughter and Trump's
daughter are friends who, very likely, do not see the others parent(s) as any sort or kind
of meaningful threat or existential danger.
One is certain that the Clinton team, if Trump wins, will find the means and the "intestinal
fortitude" to "work"with him for the bettterment of incrementalism everywhere.
Frankly, a Trump presidency would offer the Democratic party a most wonderful opportunity to
reveal "where" the party really, and actually "stands" and what they really are willing to
"stand" and fight for somehow I doubt that genuine humanity and actual reason would stand
much of a chance against continuing, perpetual war and continued "security dominance", as
foreign and domestic policy preference.
The essential purpose of "public service", in the United States of Depravity, today, is to
enrich oneself and protect the Divine Right of Money.
DW
willnadauld, June 2, 2016 at 8:55 pm
White working class, almost college educated here. Reading almost exclusively Yves for
eight years. I feel I owe Yves,Lambert and the regular posters here a giant thank you for
giving me a viable perspective from which to judge the actions of politicians, and the
complicit media in destroying democracy completely. I inhabit the bubble of truth that you
folks create, and I am greatly disturbed by the comments at politico. I understand generalized
stupidity, and laziness, but the complete disconnect from reality I encounter whenever I
venture from my truth bubble still amazes me. People have forgotten how to read, and how to
think. I like Bernie. I will vote Trump over Biden in November. Elizabeth would never sell us
all that far down the river. Shes kind of like team blues Paul Ryan that way. What the hell,
maybe Michelle should run.
Roger Smith, June 2, 2016 at 11:41 pm
Seconded, one of the reasons. I've always scoffed at the "we're going downhill" or general
end times mentality, favoring instead that it was just moving laterally and depressingly, but
this season and the environment this site provides has helped me see the frailty of this
society. It is fragile, we are approaching a point of no return, and people still won't read
the damn signs.
Pat, June 2, 2016 at 10:54 am
One of the reasons con games are successful beyond the greed of humans is that people do
not like to admit they have been fooled/taken in/played. Denial is deeply ingrained in humans.
My own personal observation is that her most zealous of supporters are either the newest
converts or the ones desperately trying to avoid their growing realization that they have been
a patsy. I really do believe we are seeing a whole lot of the latter among the reactions to
ideas like this article or questions like 'where is your evidence that Trump is more evil than
Clinton? I can list the following things that are actual actions by Clinton along with HER
ever shifting rhetoric, you can list what?'
Vatch, June 2, 2016 at 11:22 am
Obama fooled me in 2008, so I voted Green in 2012. I will not let either Hillary Clinton or
Donald Trump fool me in 2016, and although I still hope that somehow Bernie Sanders will be
the Democratic nominee, I expect to vote Green again in 2016.
readerOfTeaLeaves, June 2, 2016 at 1:10 pm
I didn't read the comments, but you may want to consider that a good portion of them may
very well be from paid commenters. I think that Yves and Lambert look dimly on such practices.
I think that Yves also made a superb point in her essay - those of us who have been
reading NC have developed a far more sophisticated (I would even say 'principled') opposition
to the kind of neoliberal incrementalism that Clinton personifies.
Hence, the Politico commenters don't grasp the economic fraud and bogus theories that are
driving a lot of public policy disasters. On the upside, even my electrician and manufacturing
relatives have started asking some very probing questions about economics in the US.
Lambert Strether, June 2, 2016 at 2:41 pm
"Incrementalism" -> "excrementalism." Fixed it for ya.
Yeah Obama pretty much laid the once potent "but the Supreme Court ZMOG!!!" argument
to rest for good when he nominated a Republican. I mean what's even the point of voting
Democrat at this juncture? They hate their base, and swoon over billionaires and
Republicans. I'd probably be cheering on the Republican to humiliate Clinton on if it weren't
Trump, and even as much as I despise Trump I hardly care whether he or Hillary wins. That's
how horrible the Democrats are now.
Skip Intro, June 3, 2016 at 3:49 am
You are not alone. A Clinton candidacy would be toxic for Dem. candidates down the
whole ballot. Hillary is trying to win over scared/disgusted republicans to vote for a
corporatist anti-Trump, despite their years of anti-Clinton conditioning. Meanwhile the
democrats stay home and progressive independents stay home and a new generation of Americans
learn powerlessness.
"... "Any night that you have a primary or caucus, and the media lumps the superdelegates in-that they basically polled by calling them up and saying who are you supporting -- they don't vote until the convention. And so, they shouldn't be included in any count." ..."
"... Yet the AP and other media continued to do so. Why? It's just blatant bias from the ostensibly neutral mainstream media for the status quo candidate Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... This is a paper that's supposed to represent and inform Californians. There's only one word that comes to mind: disgusting . Particularly so when you see the polling numbers for independents in California: ..."
"... Superdelegates exist solely to manipulate voters through the media. Something that has happened consistently throughout the primary. ..."
Last night, Associated Press – on a day when nobody voted – surprised everyone by abruptly
declaring the Democratic Party primary over and Hillary Clinton the victor. The decree, issued
the night before the California primary in which polls show Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a very
close race, was based on the media organization's survey of "superdelegates": the Democratic Party's
720 insiders, corporate donors and officials whose votes for the presidential nominee count the
same as the actually elected delegates. 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.
This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination
is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions
with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization – incredibly
– conceals. The decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt:
designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But
for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it's only fitting that their nomination
process ends with such an ignominious, awkward and undemocratic sputter.
That the Democratic Party nominating process is declared to be over in such an uninspiring,
secretive, and elite-driven manner is perfectly symbolic of what the party, and its likely nominee,
actually is. The one positive aspect, though significant, is symbolic, while the actual substance
– rallying behind a Wall-Street-funded, status-quo-perpetuating, multi-millionaire militarist
– is grim in the extreme. The Democratic Party got exactly the ending it deserved.
Last night, the American public witnessed the most egregious example of mainstream media malpractice
of my lifetime. By declaring Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee based on the pledges of superdelegates
who have not voted, and will not vote until the convention on July 25th, the Associated Press performed
a huge disservice to American democracy on the eve of a major primary day, in which voters from the
most populous state in the union (amongst others) head to the polls. If you are a U.S. citizen and
you aren't outraged by this, there's something seriously wrong with you.
In this post, I have three objectives. First, I will set the stage by explaining how incredibly
sleazy the move by the AP was. Second, I will outline the preposterous and unjustifiable nature of
having superdelegates in the first place. Third, I will attempt to convince all true Bernie Sanders
supporters to commit themselves to never supporting Hillary Clinton. Let's get started.
1. Journalistic Malpractice
Let's start with the Associated Press , which I have lost every single ounce of respect for. The
"news" organization is now the most discredited entity in journalism as an result of what it did.
Some are excusing its public betrayed as merely "trying to get a scoop" and call the race over before
the other networks on Tuesday night. Personally, I think that's only a small factor in what happened.
I've noticed for months now, that the AP from the very beginning was including super delegates
in a way that was intentionally misleading. For example, this is how the graphics to their
"delegate tracker"
appear:
Notice that the big, bold numbers to the left representing the total, includes superdelegates
who have not yet voted. There can be absolutely no doubt that the AP is being intentionally misleading
by doing this, and is committing journalistic malpractice. How can I be so sure? Let's take a look
at this video clip from CNN aired earlier this year.
As you saw, Luis Miranda, the Communications Director at the Democratic National Committee, specifically
told Jake Tapper that it is wrong to include superdelegates in the tally total for the Democratic
primary. There can be no other interpretation. He said:
"Any night that you have a primary or caucus, and the media lumps the superdelegates
in-that they basically polled by calling them up and saying who are you supporting -- they don't
vote until the convention. And so, they shouldn't be included in any count."
Yet the AP and other media continued to do so. Why? It's just blatant bias from the ostensibly
neutral mainstream media for the status quo candidate Hillary Clinton.
That should be enough to turn the U.S. population away from these organizations forever. Yet there's
more. In calling the nomination for Hillary, the Associated Press had to get commitments from a few
more super delegates. They achieved that feat yesterday evening (mind you, they still haven't actually
voted), and they kept the names anonymous. Yes, you read that right.
Of course, it wasn't just the AP , it was virtually all mainstream media proclaiming the same
thing in a unified chorus. Indeed, they seemed to relish in it. Particularly inexcusable was reporting
from the LA Times. As
Wall Street on Parade noted :
Particularly outrageous was the unethical conduct of the largest newspapers in California,
where 1.5 million new voters have registered since January 1. California is an open primary, meaning
Independents can vote. That fact, together with the massive new voter registrations and the tens
of thousands who have turned out for Sanders' rallies, was signaling a potential upset for Clinton
in the state. That would not only be embarrassing but could lead to defections among the superdelegates
prior to the Convention in July.
The Los Angeles Times, which calls itself "the largest metropolitan daily newspaper in the
country, with a daily readership of 1.4 million," was one of the most egregious in their reporting.
After running the headline "Hillary Clinton Clinches Nomination in a Historic First," it then
ran an article that asked in the headline: "After AP calls nomination for Clinton, will voters
still turn out Tuesday?"
This is a paper that's supposed to represent and inform Californians. There's only one word that
comes to mind: disgusting . Particularly so when you see the polling numbers for
independents in California:
So let's recap. The Associated Press and virtually all other mainstream media declared Hillary
Clinton the winner of the Democratic primary on the eve of a huge voting day with 694 pledged delegates
at stake. They declared her the winner on a day in which no American primaries or caucuses were held,
and via word of mouth from a handful of anonymous superdelegates. I don't know what to call that,
but it's certainly not journalism.
2. Superdelegates as a Concept is Preposterous
I've read all the arguments and spin and there's simply no reasonable justification for having
superdelegates other than to manipulate the voting public via "delegate tracker" graphics such as
what is used by the AP in order to always show Hillary Clinton with a big lead irrespective what's
actually happening on the ground. While Clinton has certainly won more pledged delegates thus far,
the voting public has been intentionally manipulated from day one via the use of superdelegates.
As the Sanders campaign pointed out last night:
Secretary Clinton does not have and will not have the requisite number of pledged delegates
to secure the nomination. She will be dependent on superdelegates who do not vote until July 25
and who can change their minds between now and then. They include more than 400 superdelegates,
who endorsed Secretary Clinton 10 months before the first caucuses and primaries and long before
any other candidate was in the race.
Think about that for a second. 400 superdelegates pledged their loyalty to Hillary 10 months before
any voters had a chance to make their opinions heard. These superdelegates have not switched based
on the desires of the voters in their states, and their early loyalty oaths allowed the media to
manipulate the public from day one by including these lopsided figures.
How lopsided are they? With a vast majority of the primaries completed, here's the math.
Pledged delegates
Clinton: 1,812
Sanders: 1,521
Superdelegates
Clinton: 571
Sanders: 48
Anyone else see a problem with that? While Clinton still has a comfortable lead in pledged delegates,
she is slaughtering him in superdelegates. We can draw two important conclusions from this reality.
Superdelegates do not proportionately represent the will of the voters.
Superdelegates exist solely to manipulate voters through the media. Something that has
happened consistently throughout the primary.
The fact that superdelegates exist solely to manipulate voters should be perfectly clear at this
point. Perfect proof of this can be seen in the incomprehensible answer DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman
Schultz gave to why they exists:
"... The Wall Street Journal had an article yesterday saying that Hillary might not be the nominee, ..."
"... For damn sure parachuting someone in ahead of him in line would be the death of the Democratic party, and good riddance. And good riddance to Al Gore, who wouldn't even fight his own election battle. He's as fake a standard bearer as Elizabeth Warren. ..."
"... Plus Bernie supporters don't support Bernie because he's a Democrat, they support him because of what he is campaigning about. A replacement head bolted onto the decapitated Clinton campaign would never in a zillion years be for anything Sanders is for, and we're not stupid enough to believe it would be. ..."
"... This is surely the year the skull beneath the skin of both political parties gets revealed. ..."
"... Several months ago I was having a political discussion with my youngest brother and he asked me what my best and worst case scenarios were. I told him that the best case scenario was the implosion of both legacy parties. The worst case scenario was some sort of constitutional crisis emerging. I had negligently never considered the possibility that both could occur. ..."
"... This is about jobs. The DNC employs a whole slew of Beltway careerists, both directly and indirectly, who will be out of a job if Sanders becomes President. These careerists believe that they are entitled to the jobs they hold, and that someone like Sanders should never be allowed to take their jobs away. There is a great debate going on right now about how the American people can be lied to, and told that it's not about these jobs, but is rather "for the good of the country". But do not be fooled. It is about these jobs. ..."
"... Now THOSE are the sort of entitlements that I'd like to see done away with !! Let the careerists live on the street in appliance boxes, for all I care it would serve them right -- ..."
"... The idea that the Dems think they are still a force to reckon with when less than one-third of the voters self-identify as a Dem is ludicrous. ..."
"... less than one-third of the voters self-identify as a Dem ..."
"... Yes, and something else. Half the country doesn't vote, which means the Democrats comprise about one-sixth of eligible voters, with Republicans even fewer. Which means that one-third of the population controls the only two viable political vehicles in the country. ..."
"... Our political duopoly represents just a tiny slice of the spectrum. This is an ultra-conservative system designed to ensure stability in a well-functioning democratic republic that is responsive to the people. But we now live in an oligarchy and our hijacked, corrupted political duoploly only serves the oligarchs. ..."
"... I see much of American politics since the mid-20th as a struggle between two philosophies (or extremes) of the ruling and wealthy elite. One advocates a "squeeze the proles until they bleed to death" approach, while the other is smart enough to realize, "we need them happy enough to prevent violent revolution, or they'll try to kill us all, which is bad for business". And the former approach has gained too much ground, so we're seeing the public heating towards their boiling point. ..."
"... With the ruling classes' reluctance to yield any of their ever-growing, ever-concentrated wealth to the masses, I worry that they'll try war as a distraction next. The War on Terror has mostly flopped by this point, but it can be used as stage setting for what comes next. Either a "real" war against China and/or Russia, or an orders of magnitude upswing in domestic terrorism and strife. (I wonder who would be good for getting such violence started, without tarnishing the reputation of the ruling class even further ) ..."
"... Trump's problem are his negatives, which are so extreme that only Hillary Clinton could compete on that field, and secondly the likely ephemerallity of the outsider status his whole persona is marketed on. As he is embraced by the GOP establishment, his outsider appeal will become smothered by its embrace. ..."
"... Meanwhile, there's someone for whom millions of people have actually cast a ballot, and those people are going to lose their sh!t if Debbie Wasserman Schultz tries to pull off a coup and toss Sanders on the trash heap. ..."
"... Her pardoning herself is the only real protection she can count on. Obama has a legacy as such as it is. He can't handle blanket pardons, and the House will be GOP regardless (here's to DWS and Pelosi). They will investigate the Clintons regardless of who the next President is. ..."
"... It may be that the FBI has a digital image of that boil from the backup copy of the server that Platte River (seems to have) accidentally put in the cloud. ..."
"... Don't miss "Brexit: The Movie" Should be mandatory watching for every politician around the globe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYqzcqDtL3k ..."
"... Short vid of Jill Stein making way to much sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NjkCfjU-FY&feature=youtu.be ..."
"... In fact, I had to show them polls of Bernie beating Trump by a way wider margin than Hillary to convince them otherwise. That just goes to show you how successful the Clinton PR machine (not to mention a complicit media) has been at pushing her narrative. Even if people want Bernie to win and strongly dislike her, the general feeling seems to be that she is inevitable. ..."
"... That assumes the AG declined to prosecute, or otherwise blocked the charges. That doesn't clear HRC, so no double jeopardy. What's to stop a Republican House and Senate from conducting their own investigation (starting with evidence leaked by the FBI) and impeaching her? ..."
"... Beware, he speaks with forked tongue!! He never says what he means, nor means what he says. ..."
"... Look, Bernie sees the problem and offers solutions. Trump just sees the problem. Hillary denies that a problem even exists. ..."
"... Well, on Diane Reem today (NPR) was a discussion on why fascist parties are growing in Europe. Both Cohen and the clowns on NPR missed the forest for the trees. The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. ..."
"... The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist. ..."
"... In the US we don't have the refugees, but the neoliberalism is further along and more damaging. There's no mystery here or in Europe, just the natural effects of governments failing to represent real people in favor of useless eater rich. ..."
The Wall Street Journal had an article yesterday saying that Hillary might not be the nominee,
and while DNC faithful want us all to assume that if that happened, it would not be Sanders, that's
emphatically not what the rest of the US will assume, nor, I think, stand for.
For damn sure parachuting someone in ahead of him in line would be the death of the Democratic
party, and good riddance. And good riddance to Al Gore, who wouldn't even fight his own election
battle. He's as fake a standard bearer as Elizabeth Warren.
Plus Bernie supporters don't support Bernie because he's a Democrat, they support him because
of what he is campaigning about. A replacement head bolted onto the decapitated Clinton campaign
would never in a zillion years be for anything Sanders is for, and we're not stupid enough to
believe it would be.
~~~~
Trump's been involved in some 3.5K lawsuits, he only wrote his check to the Veterans' charity
the day the reporter grilled him about stiffing them, his TrumpYours University taught cheating
and scorched earth sales tactics, he wants to sell off the public lands, privatize Social Security,
etc etc ad infinitum. He is emphatically not what Bernie supporters are looking for, either.
This is surely the year the skull beneath the skin of both political parties gets revealed.
I agree with you 1000% Elliot. Several months ago I was having a political discussion with
my youngest brother and he asked me what my best and worst case scenarios were. I told him that
the best case scenario was the implosion of both legacy parties. The worst case scenario was some
sort of constitutional crisis emerging. I had negligently never considered the possibility that
both could occur.
This is about jobs. The DNC employs a whole slew of Beltway careerists, both directly and
indirectly, who will be out of a job if Sanders becomes President. These careerists believe that
they are entitled to the jobs they hold, and that someone like Sanders should never be allowed
to take their jobs away. There is a great debate going on right now about how the American people
can be lied to, and told that it's not about these jobs, but is rather "for the good of the country".
But do not be fooled. It is about these jobs.
At the end of the day, there may be some scraps left over, and should they fall from the table,
the quick among us will certainly be allowed to have them. Thank you very much for voting. See
you again in four years.
Now THOSE are the sort of entitlements that I'd like to see done away with !! Let the careerists
live on the street in appliance boxes, for all I care it would serve them right --
I'm with you, Katiebird. If there's one thing this campaign year has shown, it's that "we the
people" are as powerful as we choose to be. There really is no one else in D.C. who is as decent
as Bernie. No one. I've maintained for some time that the Democrats are already dead as a party;
they've just been refusing to recognize it.
The Repubs have been clearly shown to be a dead party–first
through the Tea Party, and now through this election. The question is whether or not the Dems
want to survive as a party.
If they do, Bernie is their only hope. They are in denial now–they
think Bernie voters are Dems. They aren't. It all depends on how forcefully Bernie delegates and
voters are willing to make their case that it's Bernie or Bust. The idea that the Dems think
they are still a force to reckon with when less than one-third of the voters self-identify as
a Dem is ludicrous.
less than one-third of the voters self-identify as a Dem
Yes, and something else. Half the country doesn't vote, which means the Democrats comprise
about one-sixth of eligible voters, with Republicans even fewer. Which means that one-third of
the population controls the only two viable political vehicles in the country.
Our political duopoly represents just a tiny slice of the spectrum. This is an ultra-conservative
system designed to ensure stability in a well-functioning democratic republic that is responsive
to the people. But we now live in an oligarchy and our hijacked, corrupted political duoploly
only serves the oligarchs.
That Cohen quote is choice, in more ways than one. "I am afraid of my fellow Americans."
You know, I'm used to hyperbole during an election year ("my opponent is literally Satan Himself!")
but this is genuinely alarming. I'm reminded of a (paraphrased) quote from an online discussion:
"When the revolution for the people, by the people comes, 'the people' are not going to be
your people. They are the homeless, the jobless, the uneducated, the rural. They are the
butt of your redneck jokes and elided in your 'urban youth' euphemisms. And they hate you,
no matter how much you claim to be on their side, because you have not suffered as they have."
I see much of American politics since the mid-20th as a struggle between two philosophies
(or extremes) of the ruling and wealthy elite. One advocates a "squeeze the proles until they
bleed to death" approach, while the other is smart enough to realize, "we need them happy enough
to prevent violent revolution, or they'll try to kill us all, which is bad for business". And
the former approach has gained too much ground, so we're seeing the public heating towards their
boiling point.
(I personally think Trump is nothing but a con-man trying to ride the resentment as a shortcut
to putting himself in the big chair, but I can empathize with those so desperate they see no better
alternative to bloody revolution.)
With the ruling classes' reluctance to yield any of their ever-growing, ever-concentrated
wealth to the masses, I worry that they'll try war as a distraction next. The War on Terror has
mostly flopped by this point, but it can be used as stage setting for what comes next. Either
a "real" war against China and/or Russia, or an orders of magnitude upswing in domestic terrorism
and strife. (I wonder who would be good for getting such violence started, without tarnishing
the reputation of the ruling class even further )
Once the Next War has begun (domestic or foreign doesn't matter, as long as its bigger and
scarier to everyone) it will be blamed for all sorts of ills and used to justify excesses of the
worst sort for the better part of a generation. (I doubt it has ever occurred to Our Dear Rulers
that the public might not go along with their Next War, or that it may not play out according
to their plans.)
Yeah, nobody is listening at all to President Putin and the wider Russian policy and military
establishments as they warn, attempt diplomacy, and give the clearest possible indication by the
actions of their military that they feel themselves seriously – very seriously – threatened by
the aggressive actions on their borders by the US and the NATO pink poodles.
Probably, The Moustache of Understanding, Thomas Friedman, would consider this to be no problem
for him, his family, and the US. So what if Romanians, Poles, whatever, die? The conflict would
remain contained to Central Europe, right? Think of the propaganda opportunities. They're just
dizzying. Get Vicky, Samantha, Michele on the job, stat!
But you know what? If those harridans set foot in Central Europe, they would be in serious
danger of being lynched by the terrified peoples of those nations with whose lives they so casually
dice, and rightly so. Playing with matches in a dynamite factory is to be discouraged, and that
is all that these fools seem capable of.
Some people seem mystified by why the Russians have pulled some of their air assets out of
Syria while the outcomes of the war are still in doubt. Well, they're being redeployed back to
Russia against the need to throw them into combat against the US and the NATO pink poodles (who
seem to love to sidle up to Russia and lift their legs to piss on their President and their national
security; talk about your stoopid dogs). So, no, there is no mystery here at all. Things have
gotten dead serious now that these missiles are actually being deployed, and no longer being dissimulated
as being directed against possible lunatic Iranian aggression; their true target, always known
for anyone with two neurons to spark against one another, is Russia. As opposed to past invasions
from the west, when their nation is threatened by hypersonic missiles, there is no strategic depth
provided by the landmass of Russia. The Russians know this all too well, and they are not blowing
smoke here. Finally, President Putin has learned that he has no "partners", one of his favorite
phrases in the past when referring to the west, with whom to have a serious dialogue. Instead,
he has only that callow jackass Obama and the compliant dwarves of Europe leering at him, and
ipso facto, no one with whom dialogue is possible.
As they say here in Southern New Jersey when the Pine Barrens are dry as tinder, we have a
Red Flag Warning, and a forest fire is an imminent danger. The consequences of such a localized
event are as nothing compared to the dire danger into which our western fools are blithely tripping.
Trump's problem are his negatives, which are so extreme that only Hillary Clinton could compete
on that field, and secondly the likely ephemerallity of the outsider status his whole persona is
marketed on. As he is embraced by the GOP establishment, his outsider appeal will become smothered
by its embrace. He will get endorsements from mainstream partisans that will actually be counterproductive,
he will need to regularly produce more outrageous statements to retain an outsider cred and each
will alienate off another chunk of his support. The *only* possible way Trump wins is vs. a damaged
Hillary, I don't see him even beating a barely legitimate Plan B like Biden.
Sometimes I think that people are forgetting that these are people who have never, ever given
up; Hillary Clinton is an eyelash away from being nominated for the highest office in the land,
she's survived countless investigations, scandals, humiliations. She's withstood everything from
hearings to vile sexist and misogynist taunts and labels. She swallowed her pride and sold what
was left of her soul for a promise she could move into the White House in January, 2017.
And you think she's possibly going to step down now?
No. That doesn't happen unless she has a real medical issue she can't hide (she'd have to collapse
in a very public venue – otherwise, I think whatever medical issues she has remain hidden), there
is some sort of family tragedy, or the pus-filled boil that is the nexus between her public office
and the Clinton Foundation gets popped in an undeniably damning way before the convention.
And then what? The only people who want Biden are the insiders; if there was that much love
for Biden out among the electorate, he would not have been stashed where his mouth could do the
least amount of damage. Meanwhile, there's someone for whom millions of people have actually cast
a ballot, and those people are going to lose their sh!t if Debbie Wasserman Schultz tries to pull
off a coup and toss Sanders on the trash heap.
I think the only fair/decent/small-d Democratic way to do this is to release delegates from
their pledges and hold as many votes as it takes to get a nominee. If that's Sanders on the first
ballot or the second or the tenth, fine. If it's Gore or Biden or Kerry on the 15th ballot at
5:30 in the morning, well, maybe that's okay, too. As long as it's a participatory process and
not an end-run, back-door wheel-and-deal, complete with threats and "incentives" operation, the
voters might go along with it and not take to the streets with the torches and pitchforks.
But here's the thing: can't speak for anyone else, but I have seen nothing so far in this election
season that gives me any confidence that such an event would be conducted in an ethical, moral
manner. And if they decide to substitute their own corrupt judgment for what should be allowed
to be the will of the people, they will have only themselves to blame for it being Trump's porcine
fingers on the bible come inauguration day.
Her pardoning herself is the only real protection she can count on. Obama has a legacy as such
as it is. He can't handle blanket pardons, and the House will be GOP regardless (here's to DWS
and Pelosi). They will investigate the Clintons regardless of who the next President is.
You are certainly right that she would fight tooth and nail against it, but I think if it is
put as an issue of 'you are likely going to prison, but take the noble option and you get a pardon'
(while passing over the whiskey and revolver), could do the trick. Even the Clintons could not
stand up against a delegation of the party saying 'its this or massive public humiliation'. The
classic example was of Margaret Thatcher, who only released her grip on power when one by one
each senior cabinet member went in to her and said 'its over'.
Interestingly, I've been looking at some betting sites – they only give odds for three Dems
for president – Hilary, Bernie and Biden (at a surprising 33/1).
> the pus-filled boil that is the nexus between her public office and the Clinton Foundation
It may be that the FBI has a digital image of that boil from the backup copy of the server
that Platte River (seems to have) accidentally put in the cloud.
If Bernie isn't on my ballot, Jill Stein is who I'll be voting for. Again.
She's excellent, much better than Clinton or obviously Trump, I agree with her on 90% of her
positions. If voting *for* someone rather than *against* someone is how democracy should work
(and I would argue so) then it would be a waste of my vote to spend it on anyone else. Conservatives
should consider Gary Anderson for the same reasons. These minor parties need to reach the 5% threshold
to get ballot access and matching funding, I think it's an excellent cause to support just to
have a greater diversity in the US political system. Shame on the people who are trying to scare
you into voting for someone you don't believe in instead of voting your actual beliefs, it's not
right to do.
I can't help but find it extremely wise of Bernie never to take the bait on that email question
because it would inevitably only be used against him and the narrative would then be that he was
"backtracking" on when he said that he didn't want to discuss them.
And anyhow, he probably knows that he doesn't need to join the chorus for that story to stay hot.
Though I hope and presume that this is a focal talking point if and when he courts superdelegates.
On another note, I live in Sweden and the topic of the election came up with some friends tonight
and my friends – all of whom would like to see Bernie be president – all seemed to think that
Clinton was a stronger candidate (as in more people favored her) against Trump. In fact, I had
to show them polls of Bernie beating Trump by a way wider margin than Hillary to convince them
otherwise. That just goes to show you how successful the Clinton PR machine (not to mention a
complicit media) has been at pushing her narrative. Even if people want Bernie to win and strongly
dislike her, the general feeling seems to be that she is inevitable.
Re: tarhairbabyball – what if Clinton manages to drag things out long enough to get not just
the nomination, but the White House?
That assumes the AG declined to prosecute, or otherwise blocked the charges. That doesn't clear
HRC, so no double jeopardy. What's to stop a Republican House and Senate from conducting their
own investigation (starting with evidence leaked by the FBI) and impeaching her? Nothing that
I can see: pardoning herself on her first day in office would mean exactly nothing to the GOP.
And if there's evidence of revealing the identities of agents or protecting the backers of the
Benghazi plot, an impeachment will have a lot more public support than one over an extra-marital
affair.
But further down that road, what if there was some question of negligence or malfeasance by
her boss, the president? What would stop congress from going after ex-president Obama? "What did
the (ex-)president know and when did he know it?" Talk about tarnishing a legacy.
So am I barking up the wrong tree here, or is the above part of the Dem/BHO decision calculus?
The Republicans could certainly impeach her, and I bet some of them are champing at the bit
to do so (even the ones not enthusiastic about Trump).
However, they tried that once with Bill Clinton and failed (very much because of their personal
defects, but also because of their defects as a party). I would bet on their failing again, simply
because the Benghazi hearings were such a cluster, at least so far as constructing a coherent
narrative.
Speaking at a high school in Elkhart, Indiana, Obama noted there are some Americans who
don't have retirement savings and those who might not be able to save money because they are
unable to pay the bills.
" . not only do we need to strengthen its long term health, it's time we finally made Social
Security more generous and increased its benefits so today's retirees and future generations
get the dignified retirement that they have earned."
PALO ALTO, Calif. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday applauded President Barack Obama's
support for expanding Social Security by asking the "wealthiest Americans to contribute a little
bit more."
Sanders urged Hillary Clinton to back legislation endorsed by leading Democrats and seniors'
advocates to strengthen the retirement program.
"I applaud President Obama for making it clear that it is time to expand Social Security
benefits," Sanders said. "Millions of seniors, disabled veterans and people with disabilities
are falling further and further behind on $10,000 or $11,000 a year Social Security," he added.
"Trump has taught me to fear my fellow Americans" [Richard Cohen, WaPo]. " I always
knew who Trump was. It's the American people who have come as a surprise."
I guess he thought they would never fight back?
Look, Bernie sees the problem and offers solutions. Trump just sees the problem. Hillary denies that a problem even exists.
If you are treading water economically just trying to get by and are hoping for someone, anyone
to pin your hopes on, why the hell would it be Hillary? November is going to be very interesting
and not in a good way.
So Richard Cohen now fears American voters because of Trump.
Well, on Diane Reem today (NPR)
was a discussion on why fascist parties are growing in Europe. Both Cohen and the clowns on NPR
missed the forest for the trees. The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists
are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of
gutting, societies.
Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job
security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying to snip
and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In
Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism
(neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US
and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their
markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right
into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist.
In the US we don't have the refugees, but the neoliberalism is further along and more damaging.
There's no mystery here or in Europe, just the natural effects of governments failing to represent
real people in favor of useless eater rich.
Make the people into commodities, endanger their washes and job security, impose austerity,
and tale in floods of refugees. Of COURSE Europeans stay leaning fascist.
Lambert, for the good of the order, something from out of an old bookmarked file, Bernie Sanders
filibustering Obama's tax cuts in Dec 2010. Watching this, what Bernie is doing is totally consistent
with his economic analyses going back years:
Back in 2010, he was pointing out to the US Senate that one single tax cut for the Walton family
would pay for money for disabled Vets and Seniors. Just incredible.
It is not possible for any politician to push that concept, the electorate expects taxes to
pay for spending no matter how important the spending is. So all of his proposals are pay as you
go, otherwise he presents the neoliberals with an easy target.
Even if by some miracle he gets the bully pulpit he will have to be circumspect. Change out the
fed, get Mmt types appointed, let them take the lead in educating the public. This would be a
long tarm campaign.
Meanwhile he is boxed in by the 98% of the public that think they know how our economy works.
Just remembered an interview at the end of April with Seymour Hersh (
This is Hell! podcast
) where the interviewer asks how much HRC influenced BHO in the Libyan bombing campaign and
what that might say about a Hillary Clinton administration. Here's what Sy said in response (transcript
mine):
"You don't need me to answer that question. I can tell you, I'm not done reporting about
that. There's a lot more to that than meets the eye. But, uh I'm in to something. So I don't
want to be coy with you. But there's no question that, just based on the emails that have been
released [ ] she was much more aggressive about it."
Listening to it, one gets the impression that he just did not want to talk about HRC. Would
love to know what Hersh knows, and what he's up to now.
So a financial analyst whose expertise is the Middle East has told CNBC who Saudi Arabia wants
to be President. Three guesses and the first two don't count
Tends to fit in with my experience as an expat in both nations that they are both insular cultures
and generally hostile to new comers, though at least the young generations in both countries seem
to be breaking away from this behavior.
but economists face a fundamental challenge with respect to innovation
I read the article. Not a mention of Chaos theory.
This is the best they can do: Economy Is a Highly Dynamic System That Can Go Far From Equilibrium
and Become Trapped in Sub optimal States. (Sub Optimal for Who one could ask/)
The Economy is a Chaotic System where Equlibria are Unpredictable, both in time and position.
Recent polling has Sanders within 2 in CA but it could get glitchy as CA news was reporting
the State has 85% of indies not requesting a D ballot. If you are registered undeclared, you must
request a D ballot or you automatically receive one without the Presidential candidates. The number
of already returned undeclared ballots was not listed which would have been useful.
Voting takes persistence. A regular voter had to make two requests to be switched to D. Still
did not receive a D ballot and had to contact again for another ballot. I think people just give
up.
NPP voters may bring their Vote By Mail ballot to their polling place and exchange it for a
Democratic Party primary ballot. If they do not have their Vote by Mail ballot, and have not used
their Vote by Mail ballot, they may still vote on a provisional ballot.
If they are just registered as NPP and do not use Vote by Mail, they just simply request the
Democratic Party ballot at their polling place.
And yes, it has been extremely confusing and not well publicized.
Actually, it's a little more complicated than that. I got trained this week as a Los Angeles
County poll worker. NPP people get separate crossover ballots for each of the three parties they
can crossover to. So you don't exchange it for a Democratic party ballot, you exchange it for
(or simply receive upon first request) an NPP Crossover Democratic ballot. It's got a separate
little design on top and everything.
Also, if you are brand new voter, you have to bring your ID with you to the polling place,
or you may be forced to use a provisional ballot - I couldn't tell whether that was a Los Angeles
county thing, or a state thing.
Oh, and rumors are flying that a) Hillary people are going around claiming to be Bernie volunteers,
gathering up completed Vote By Mail ballots from people at home and then presumably dumping them
(as was done in Oregon); and b) that the state did not print enough NPP Crossover Democratic ballots,
and will run out, possibly before election day. Given that our Secretary of State is known to
be corrupt and a Clinton backer, these both seem like plausible tactics, in a huge state where
county registrars have a lot of autonomy and almost 75% of the votes will be Vote By Mail. But
I have no idea whether there is evidence for either. Given how the election theft and media propaganda
on Clinton's behalf has been systematic and blatant, people's paranoia rachets up daily, as their
trust in institutions sinks. Nice work, Clintonland. That won't be a problem going forward at
all.
On the bright side, we were told that the LA registrar will count every valid provisional ballot,
no matter what the percentages are. Again, I don't know if that's true in other counties. But
I've had numerous interactions with the registrar staff, and they seem genuinely committed to
doing the right thing and helping people vote, regardless of whom they're voting for.
The problems with people accidentally registering as American Independent Party (a far right
party, and you can't crossover from that to Dem, only from NPP to AIP or Dem) and people mistakenly
thinking they can write Bernie in on NPP ballots (nope) instead of exchanging gives me heartburn.
But then, CNN, MSNBC et al. will announce she's clinched the nomination (again, not possible)
right when most people get off work and head to the polls, so there are just SO MANY WAYS to screw
with people.
On Gracie Slick and "White Rabbit'; the Rolling Stones did it earlier with "Mother's Little
Helper", I think. Not quite the same message, but it definitely addressed parents'drug use vs
what they expected out of their children.
"Things are different today,"
I hear ev'ry mother say
Cooking fresh food for a husband's just a drag
So she buys an instant cake and she burns her frozen steak
And goes running for the shelter of a mother's little helper
And two help her on her way, get her through her busy day
Doctor please, some more of these
Outside the door, she took four more
What a drag it is getting old
Well she's not the prettiest girl in the world
I know she's not the smartest one too
But she's always there and I know she cares
And I know that her heart is true
Well ain't it amazin', Gracie
How much I love you
I been all over the world but no other girl
Ever thrilled me the way that you do
The Lame Duck In Chief supports increasing Social Security
In other news, Obama Library's volunteer board hires subcontractor that employs minimum-wage
undocumented workers without benefits to polish presidential bust Made in China.
Have we mentioned lately what an a**hole Obama is?
"... Finally, there is the stench of corruption, dating back to Hillary's impossible-by any legitimate means-trick of parlaying $1,000 into $100,000 in a series of commodities trades in 1978. The Clintons and their backers seriously expect the rubes to believe that large financial firms happily forked over their hefty speaking fees purely out of interest in what they had to say, or that Middle Eastern and Taiwanese moneybags gave big bucks to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was secretary of state out of their deep belief in the foundation's lofty goals. Why has Hillary refused to release the transcripts of her Goldman speeches, wiped her server and foot-dragged on releasing allegedly personal emails? ..."
"... If my readers are representative, Clinton and the Democratic Party are about to have a long-overdue day of reckoning. ..."
hy do progressives reject Hillary Clinton? The highly educated, high-income, finance-literate readers
of my website, Naked Capitalism , don't just overwhelmingly favor Bernie Sanders. They also say "Hell no!" to Hillary Clinton
to the degree that many say they would even vote for Donald Trump over her.
And they don't come by these views casually. Their conclusions are the result of careful study
of her record and her policy proposals. They believe the country can no longer endure the status
quo that Clinton represents-one of crushing inequality, and an economy that is
literally killing
off the less fortunate-and any change will be better.
One reader writes
:
Story Continued Below
"If Clinton is the nominee 9 out of 10 friends I polled will [do one of three things]:
A. Not vote for president in November. B. Vote for Trump. C. Write in Bernie as a protest vote.
"We are all fifty-somethings with money and college educations. Oh, and we are all registered
Democrats."
"I don't want to vote for Trump. I want to vote for Bernie. But I have reached the point where
I feel like voting for Trump against Clinton would be doing my patriotic duty. … If the only way
to escape a trap is to gnaw off my leg, I'd like to think I'd have the guts to do it."
To be sure, not all of my Sanders-supporting readers would vote for Trump. But only a minority
would ever vote for Clinton, and I'd guess that a lot of them would just stay home if she were the
nominee. Many of my readers tend to be very progressive, and they have been driven even further in
that direction by their sophisticated understanding of the inequities of Wall Street, especially
in the run-up to and the aftermath of the financial crisis, when no senior executives went to jail,
the biggest banks got bigger, and Hillary paid homage to Goldman Sachs. True progressives, as opposed
to the Vichy Left, recognize that the Clintons only helped these inequities along. They recognize
that, both in the 1990s and now, the Clintons do not and have never represented them. They believe
the most powerful move they can take to foster change is to withhold their support.
Some of them also have very reasoned arguments for Trump. Hillary is a known evil. Trump is unknown.
They'd rather bet on the unknown, since it will also send a big message to Team Dem that they can
no longer abuse progressives. I personally know women in the demographic that is viewed as being
solidly behind Hillary-older, professional women who live in major cities-who regard Trump as an
acceptable cost of getting rid of the Clintons.
Who does Naked Capitalism represent? The site, which I describe as "fearless commentary
on finance, economics, politics and power," receives 1.3 million to 1.5 million page views a month
and has amassed approximately 80 million readers since its launch in 2006. Its readership is disproportionately
graduate school-educated, older, male and high income. Despite the overall predominance of male readers,
many of the fiercest critics of Clinton in the commentariat are women, with handles like HotFlash,
Katniss Everdeen, Martha r, Portia, Bev and Pat.
What they also object to is that the larger bloc of Sanders voters has been treated with abuse
and contempt by the Clinton camp, despite the fact that their positions-such as strengthening Social
Security and Medicare, stronger educational funding and higher minimum wages-have for decades polled
by solid majorities or, at worst, ample pluralities in the electorate at large.
By contrast, the Democratic Party in the Clinton and Obama administrations has consistently embraced
and implemented policies that strip workers of economic and legal rights to benefit investors and
the elite professionals that serve them. Over time, the "neoliberal" economic order-which sees only
good, never bad, in the relentless untrammeling of capital and the deregulation of markets-has created
an unacceptable level of economic insecurity and distress for those outside the 1 percent and the
elite professionals who serve them.
The result is that the U.S. economy is becoming lethal to the less fortunate, according to the
New York Times , which
reported this week
that U.S. death rates have risen for the first time in a decade. The increase
in death rates among less educated whites since 2001 is roughly the size of the AIDS epidemic. One
cause, the opioid epidemic, resulted from Purdue Pharma
overselling the effectiveness
of reformulated OxyContin, then recommending higher dosages when
it failed to work properly, which experts deemed a prescription for creating addicts, according to
a number of lawsuits. This was permitted by the U.S. government, leading to thousands of unnecessary
deaths. Despite President Barack Obama's Panglossian claim that the economy is doing well,
the spike in suicides to levels over those during the financial crisis belies that
.
Yet the Clinton campaign is in such denial about this that it has become vitriolic in its verbal
and tactical attacks on Sanders and his supporters-rather than recognizing that the stunning success
of his campaign is proof of their abject policy failures. The message is clear: The Clintons believe,
as Bill himself put it, that the true progressives have nowhere to go.
But in fact, they've been leaving. The Clinton and Obama administrations presided over the worst
losses in congressional and state races in modern history in 1994, 2010 and 2012. And voter preferences
were clear. Under Obama, it was the Blue Dog, Third Way Democrats who were turfed out, while candidates
with strong stances on economic justice kept their seats. Similarly, as political scientist Tom Ferguson
pointed out in a
Roosevelt Institute paper
, Obama's loss of a Senate majority when Republican Scott Brown won
in Massachusetts was the result of his focus on bailing out banks rather than aiding distressed homeowners
(or forcing mortgage services to give modifications to borrowers who still had adequate income, as
banks had done historically). The level of votes for Brown was strongly correlated with the amount
of foreclosures in those particular districts.
True progressives know that the Clinton and Obama presidencies have brought inequality to Gilded
Era, banana-republic levels. They know that Obama's policies, which the Clintons embrace, have had
all of the post-crisis income gains
accrue to the top 1 percent
. In addition, corporate profits have risen to nearly double the
ratio to GDP that Warren Buffett deemed unsustainably high in the early 2000s. Unlike China, they've
also ushered in an era of high unemployment and underemployment, as reflected in unheard-of low levels
of labor force participation and unemployment among the young in a nominal expansion.
The Clintons' dismal record, which Hillary cannot run away from, speaks for itself. And this is
what makes many progressives I know unable to support her, even if she wins the nomination. Consider
the reasons why they feel this way:
Social Security . Bill Clinton
made a deal with Newt Gingrich to privatize Social Security, but Monica Lewinsky derailed his plans
. Sanders has promised to strengthen Social Security. By contrast, Clinton wants to "preserve"
it, which includes means-testing. That would put Social Security on a path to being a welfare program,
not a universal safety net, making it vulnerable in the long run. Bill Clinton's ending of welfare
is an illustration of the regular pattern, dating back to England's Poor Law of 1834, of gutting
safety nets for the poor.
Climate change . Sanders calls for a full-bore, Marshall-Plan level commitment to reducing
carbon output. Hillary talks about climate change but pushed for fracking in Europe while secretary
of state. The Clintons remain firmly committed to fracking, which ruins water supplies and releases
large amounts of methane.
Minimum wage. Inflation-adjusted minimum wage increases under Clinton were negligible-virtually
identical to those under George H.W. Bush. Obama promised a minimum wage increase to $9.50 an hour
and failed to act in the first four years of his presidency. Sanders wants to raise minimum wages
to $15 an hour, while Clinton stands pat with the administration plan to increase wages to $12 an
hour by 2020.
Trade deals . Bill Clinton ushered in NAFTA, which was touted as positive for growth and
employment, and is now widely acknowledged to have cost nearly a million jobs. Even one of its chief
promoters, former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, now deems it to have been a failure for American
workers. Hillary consistently backed the Trans-Pacific Partnership until Sanders made an issue of
it, and she's recently returned to supporting it. The potential growth and income gains from this
agreement and its European sister, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, are only marginally
positive, while the loss of national sovereignty would be enormous. These agreements would enable
foreign investors to challenge laws for labor, environmental and consumer protection, for threatening
future profits.
Health care . Sanders wants single-payer, government-provided health care. Around the world,
single payer has uncontestably demonstrated that it delivers better results overall at vastly lower
cost. Obamacare took single payer off the table, instead rearranging the current costly, clumsy system
while guaranteeing profits for health insurers and Big Pharma. Clinton at most has offered patches,
but the pressure from Sanders has compelled her to suggest an early buy-in for Medicare.
That's before we get to the Clintons' loyalty to the Robert Rubin and neoliberal fetish of balanced
budgets, which most economists say are not necessary. The recent European experience with austerity
shows how disastrous that approach is, particularly in the wake of a financial crisis. Hillary's
hawkishness means an even greater commitment to military spending, so voters are assured to get more
guns and less butter were she to become president.
The Sanders supporters I interact with also reject Hillary's trickle-down feminism as a substitute
for economic and social justice. Clinton is correct when she points out that there is a glass-ceiling
issue for women. There are fewer female CEOs, billionaires and senators. Women in the elite don't
have it as good as men. But pray tell, what is having more women, or Hispanics or blacks, in top
roles going to do for nurses and hospital orderlies, or the minority group members disproportionately
represented in low-wage jobs like part-time fast food workers? Class mobility has become close to
nonexistent in America. If you are born in one of the lower-income cohorts, you are almost certain
to stay there.
As a woman who broke through an important glass ceiling on Wall Street-Christina Mohr, the first
woman to become partner in mergers and acquisitions at Lazard-told a shocked group at Radcliffe seeking
better career opportunities for women many years ago: "Nothing will change until women own the means
of production." And that sort of change comes from the bottom up.
Then there are questions of competence. Hillary has a résumé of glittering titles with disasters
or at best thin accomplishments under each. Her vaunted co-presidency with Bill? After her first
major project, health care reform, turned into such a debacle that it was impossible to broach the
topic for a generation, she retreated into a more traditional first lady role. As New York senator,
she accomplished less with a bigger name and from a more powerful state
than Sanders did
. As secretary of state, she participated and encouraged strategically pointless
nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria. She bureaucratically outmaneuvered Obama, leading to U.S. intervention
in Libya, which he has called the worst decision of his administration. And her plan to fob her domestic
economic duties off on Bill comes off as an admission that she can't handle being president on her
own.
Mind you, these issues are all topics in the current debates. But what is as important, but not
as obvious, is the way that most citizens have been stripped of legal and economic protections. As
economist Michael Hudson put it, "Most inequality does not reflect differing levels of productivity,
but distortions resulting from property rights or other special privileges." The Clinton era brought
in weaker anti-trust enforcement, which allowed companies to accumulate more market share and with
it, more ability to extract rents. Binding arbitration, which strips employees and consumers of their
right to a day in court, has become widespread. Pensions, which used to be sacrosanct (and still
are if you are a CEO), are regularly renegotiated. Banks got away with predatory servicing and wrongful
foreclosures. Not only was the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement a "get out of liability almost free"
card so large that it was tantamount to a second bailout, but banks were not required to fix their
faulty servicing platforms, assuring that they'd revert to foreclosure abuses again when delinquencies
rise. And let us not forget that senior bankers are a protected class, exempt from prosecution.
Finally, there is the stench of corruption, dating back to Hillary's impossible-by any legitimate
means-trick of parlaying $1,000 into $100,000 in a series of commodities trades in 1978. The Clintons
and their backers seriously expect the rubes to believe that large financial firms happily forked
over their hefty speaking fees purely out of interest in what they had to say, or that Middle Eastern
and Taiwanese moneybags gave big bucks to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was secretary of state out of their deep belief in the foundation's lofty goals. Why has Hillary refused
to release the transcripts of her Goldman speeches, wiped her server and foot-dragged on releasing
allegedly personal emails?
The Sanders voters in Naked Capitalism 's active commentariat also explicitly reject lesser-evilism,
the cudgel that has previously kept true lefties somewhat in line. They are willing to gamble, given
that outsider presidents like Jimmy Carter and celebrity governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger and
Jesse Ventura didn't get much done, that a Trump presidency represents an acceptable cost of inflicting
punishment on the Democratic Party for 20 years of selling out ordinary Americans.
The Clintons, like the Bourbons before the French Revolution, have ensconced themselves in such
a bubble of operative and media sycophancy that they've mistakenly viewed escalating distress and
legitimate demands from citizens as mere noise. Sanders voters are taking their cue from Talleyrand,
the statesman who navigated the Revolution and the turbulent 50 years that followed with remarkable
success: "I have never abandoned a party before it abandoned itself."
If my readers are representative, Clinton and the Democratic Party are about to have a long-overdue
day of reckoning.
"... The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. ..."
"... "the road commissioner said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year basis" while the fedgov spends north of 5 percent of GDP on global military dominance. We're the Soviets now, comrades: shiny weapons, rotting infrastructure. ..."
"... This Trump support seems like a form of political vandalism with Trump as the spray paint. People generally feel frustrated with government, utterly powerless and totally left out as the ranks of the precariat continue to grow. Trump appeals to the nihilistic tendencies of some people who, like frustrated teens, have decided to just smashed things up for the hell of it. ..."
"... They think a presidency mix of Caligula with Earl Scheib would be a funny hoot. You also have the more gullible fundis who have actually deluded themselves into thinking the man who is ultimate symbol of hedonism will deliver them from secularism because he says he will. Authoritarians who seek solutions through strong leaders are usually the easiest to con because they desperately want to believe in their eminent deliverance by a human deus ex machina. ..."
"... The Society of the Spectacle ..."
"... Time to frighten the elites. Trump will have to deliver something to all those supporters if he becomes President, but what that could, or might be, who could possibly say. That will be his problem. If he fails Blake's ' fearful symmetry ' could be very fearful indeed. ..."
"... Someone at American Conservative, when trying to get at why it's pointless to tell people Trump will wreck the place, described him as a "hand grenade" lobbed into the heart of government. You can't scare people with his crass-ness and destructive tendencies, because that's precisely what his voters are counting on when/if he gets into government. ..."
"... yea it's a start but something really needs to be done about either jobs or incomes, it's far more central to people lives. I know sanders has some ideas but it was never given enough emphasis. Or keep wondering why trump still appeals to people – they are misguided of course, but nonetheless, he does promise a lot that he can never deliver that may appeal to people – like bringing back jobs. ..."
"... Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed for our things will never end until nothings left. ..."
"... This is why hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not bernie, but am reserving commitment until I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand grenade. ..."
"... In the U.S., nearly all of the Republican politicians fit into this category, and a substantial number of Democrats, too. Here's a list of some of the more prominent Democrats: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/democrats-who-voted-for-fast-track Not all of the Senators are up for re-election, of course. You can also find more Democrats in this category by looking for Hillary Clinton supporters among the super delegates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016 ..."
"... If you read "Barbarians at the Gate" what was most striking is that companies that get destroyed are PROFITABLE – but it is MORE profitable for a few to strip mine them. In the religion of economics, God has forgotten them We use certain metrics that says this increases GDP, and therefore it MUST be done – like the character in Harry Potter whose name can never be uttered, we can never, ever speak of the distribution of the vaunted GDP. As I've said many times, inequality is a political choice. I fear our system has been so thoroughly infiltrated by the self absorbed that it is now impossible for any meaningful reform. ..."
"... Re Methland, we live in rural US and we got a not-very-well hidden population of homeless children. I don't mean homeless families with children, I mean homeless children. Sleeping in parks in good weather, couch-surfing with friends, etc. I think related. ..."
The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe
is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers
and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement
security all go up in smoke.
Neoliberals are trying to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations
all for corporate profit. In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought
on by neoliberalism (neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand).
The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting
their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls
right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean
fascist. /
ChiGal: Agreed. Here in Edgewater, the houses are suddenly going for unheard-of prices. We
locals joke that it has to be drug money: Who else can afford to turn a two-flat into a single-family
palazzo with six bedrooms?
Yet every morning, as I head out for the daily cup of coffee, the main streets (Clark) are
covered in a layer of trash. Infrastructure is decaying–obviously so, as the streets flood after
each rain.
On my forays downtown, I notice trash everywhere. (Much of it the detritus of the upper-middle-class
in the form of restaurant clamshells, Starbucks paper cups, bottles from micro-breweries, and
so on.)
Conversely, a walk along Clark in Rogers Park is an entry into economic devastation, dozens
of empty stores.
And then the sixty shootings over the holiday weekend. A city in decline, but addled by its
own boosterism and by the weird local idea that the corruption is somehow appealing and quaint.
"the road commissioner said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the
roads on a 200 year basis" while the fedgov spends north of 5 percent of GDP on global military
dominance. We're the Soviets now, comrades: shiny weapons, rotting infrastructure.
Today in San Diego, the Hildabeest will deliver a vigorous defense of this decadent, dying
system.
This Trump support seems like a form of political vandalism with Trump as the spray paint.
People generally feel frustrated with government, utterly powerless and totally left out as the
ranks of the precariat continue to grow. Trump appeals to the nihilistic tendencies of some people
who, like frustrated teens, have decided to just smashed things up for the hell of it.
They think
a presidency mix of Caligula with Earl Scheib would be a funny hoot. You also have the more gullible
fundis who have actually deluded themselves into thinking the man who is ultimate symbol of hedonism
will deliver them from secularism because he says he will. Authoritarians who seek solutions through
strong leaders are usually the easiest to con because they desperately want to believe in their
eminent deliverance by a human deus ex machina.
Plus he is ostentatiously rich in a comfortably
tacky way and a TV celebrity beats a Harvard law degree. And why not the thinking goes the highly
vaunted elite college Acela crowd has pretty much made a pig's breakfast out of things. So much
for meritocracy. Professor Harold Hill is going to give River City a boys band.
The spectacle's externality with respect to the acting subject is demonstrated by the fact
that the individual's own gestures are no longer his own but rather those of someone else who
represents them to him. The spectator feels at home nowhere, for the spectacle is everywhere.
Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle
Time to frighten the elites. Trump will have to deliver something to all those supporters
if he becomes President, but what that could, or might be, who could possibly say. That will
be his problem. If he fails Blake's ' fearful symmetry ' could be very fearful indeed.
Someone at American Conservative, when trying to get at why it's pointless to tell people Trump
will wreck the place, described him as a "hand grenade" lobbed into the heart of government. You
can't scare people with his crass-ness and destructive tendencies, because that's precisely what
his voters are counting on when/if he gets into government.
In other words, the MSM's fear is the clearest sign to these voters that their political
revolution is working. Since TPTB decided peaceful change (i.e. Sanders) was a non-starter, then
they get to reap the whirlwind.
Some of those who have commented here need to explain, in detail, with well-thought-out and
backed-up plans, just how they would change the system that we currently have in place. I believe
it needs to change. I have read quite a few ideas (some of them probably fairly good) on what
to change and how to change it. However, it is very easy to complain about a problem. It is fairly
easy to destroy things in the name of disliking the problem. It is, however, often quite difficult
to fix the problem.
It's funny, but as an outsider it seems to me you already have the beginnings of a solution
(which you may not recognize) in the role that Bernie Sanders is playing in your politics right
at this moment. Getting money out of politics, free public university, single-payer health care
and taking care of the bankers comprise some of Sanders' platform which would go a long way in
changing the system. There will be fireworks, though, when it happens.
JEHR: Well, you must not be too much of an outsider, in that you give the correct diagnosis.
The U S of A should start with some better policies and with less of the celebrity politics that
has gotten us into this swamp.
Also: Progressive taxation. How revolutionary! Make the liberal elites and the rightwing elites
pay taxes. Likewise, penalize companies for maintaining offshort accounts–as in revoking their
corporate status, which can be done.
yea it's a start but something really needs to be done about either jobs or incomes, it's far
more central to people lives. I know sanders has some ideas but it was never given enough emphasis.
Or keep wondering why trump still appeals to people – they are misguided of course, but nonetheless,
he does promise a lot that he can never deliver that may appeal to people – like bringing back
jobs.
The only thing that really needs to be added to this very good list is a concerted effort to
encourage effective family planning. There are far too many people on Earth, and this is very
dangerous.
There are all good ideas. However, population growth undermines almost all of them. Population
growth in America is immigrant based. Reverse immigration influxes and you are at least doing
something to reduce population growth.
How to "reverse immigration influxes"?
Stop accepting refugees. It's outrageous that refugees from for example, Somalia, get small
business loans, housing assistance, food stamps and lifetime SSI benefits while some of our veterans
are living on the street.
No more immigration amnesties of any kind.
Deport all illegal alien criminals.
Practice "immigrant family unification" in the country of origin. Even if you have to pay
them to leave. It's less expensive in the end.
Eliminate tax subsidies to American corn growers who then undercut Mexican farmers' incomes
through NAFTA, driving them into poverty and immigration north. Throw Hillary Clinton out on her
ass and practice political and economic justice to Central America.
I too am a lifetime registered Democrat and I will vote for Trump if Clinton gets the crown.
If the Democrats want my vote, my continuing party registration and my until recently sizeable
donations in local, state and national races, they will nominate Bernie. If not, then I'm an Independent
forevermore. They will just become the Demowhig Party.
1. Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth you cannot contribute, or
make all elections financed solely by government funds and make private contributions of any kind
to any politician illegal.
2. Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number of states a bank can operate
in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately owned by banks.
3. Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person hood of corporations and
limit of liability for corporate officers and shareholders.
4. Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health plans but do away with health insurance
as a deductible for business. Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical schools which restricts
the number of doctors.
5. Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income, wages, capital gains, interest,
and dividends subject to taxation.
6. Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and revise industry.
7. Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive infrastructure development.
8. Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour.
9. Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private industry with a 10 year restriction
on working for an industry you dealt with in any way as a government official.
10. Free public education including college (4 year degree).
Some additional ideas:
1) High tax levels on natural monopolies or treat them as utilities or nationalize them. This
means, for example, Microsoft Windows and Office, Facebook.
2) Require that all platforms for work be non-profit worker co-ops with capped management salaries.
This means, for example, Uber, Lyft, perhaps AirBnB, and the like.
Also, if we cut the defense budget by 50% (which would be an excellent idea), it is important
to provide genuine alternative opportunities for current and would-have-been soldiers and defense
workers. That includes training too. This point could be pivotal for gaining and retaining the
support of the kinds of folks who often don't vote or vote Republicans while progressives wonder
why, the "what ever happened to Kansas" working class vote.
On a more general level, we need to
1) Find a way to reward intellectual work but also turn the information loose for further use.
(Rather than using copyrights/patents to cripple usage of the information or leaving intellectual
work unpaid for and crippling motivation.)
2) Restore integrity to the top 20%.
One thing that would help is to create a strong social consensus that respects those who profit
from genuine creativity but despise those who profit by gaming the system or taking advantage
of others. For example, Apple's creation of the iPod or iPad should be rewarded. Apple's profiting
from super low wages at plants in China (the ones with the nets to catch would-be suicides), should
punished and looked at the way we look at child molesters.
Prosecute the banksters and restore the rule of law and everything else will fall into place
is one great idea. Lawlessness is how neoliberalism is taking over
It's become a free for all to steal from citizens around the world, blessed by central banks
and bought governments.It's become such a game for "them" that they reward with huge bonuses those
that get away with stealing the most. Neoliberalism is no rich crooks ever going to jail. Poor
Madoff, should have been a politician with get a out of jail free card. He didn't play it the
neoliberal way so he was punished.
+1, when I'm accused of hating corporations or presented with TINA I simply point out that
policy got us here and policy can get us out. This, along with all the effort the parties have
put into the concept of the "unitary executive" and you can see why they're petrified of bernie.
Ideas are nice. We all know what they are. But nothing will happen unless people get off their
duffs and take to the streets. I have read that the elites only change their behavior when frightened
by very, very large crowds, preferably carrying pitchforks.
Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom
are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping
the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed
for our things will never end until nothings left.
This is why hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods are
all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially
if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels
like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough to gorge
on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not bernie, but am reserving commitment until
I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand
grenade.
Totally agree tegnost, no more democratic neoliberals -- Patty Murray (up for re-election) and
Cantwell are both trade traitors and got fast track passed.
Two things are driving our troubles: over-population and globalization. The plutocrats and
kleptocrats have all the leverage over the rest of us laborers when the population of human beings
has increased seven-fold in the last 70 years, from a little over a billion to seven billions
(and growing) today. They are happy to let us freeze to death behind gas stations in order for
them to compete with other oligarchs in excess consumption.
This deserves a longer and more thoughtful comment, but I don't have the time this morning.
I have to fight commute traffic, because the population of my home state of California has doubled
from 19M in 1970 to an estimated 43M today (if you count the Latin American refugees and H1B's).
Thank you for mentioning the third rail of overpopulation. Too often, this giant category of
problems is ignored, because it makes people uncomfortable. The planet is finite, resources on
the planet are finite, yet the number of people keeps growing. We need to strive for a higher
quality of life, not a higher quantity of people.
Many of them are not elected officials, and not all of the elected officials are up for re-election.
But House members are always up for re-election, unless they retire or lose in a primary.
America has always been a country where a majority of the population has been poor. With the
exception of a fifty five year(1950-2005) year period where access to large quantities of consumer
debt by households was deployed to first to provide a wealth illusion to keep socialism at bay,
followed by a mortgage debt boom to both keep the system afloat and strip the accumulated capital
of the working class, i.e. home equity, the history of the US has been one of poverty for the
masses. Further debt was foisted on the working class in the form of military Keynesianism, generating
massive fiscal deficits which are to be paid for via austerity in a neo-feudal economy.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/28/the-myth-of-the-middle-class-have-most-americans-always-been-poor/
I think that is closer to the truth, U.S. style capitalism produces poverty, always has, always
will, actually capitalism does pretty much. But some small section of the population – the college
educated, and the white union members, did have it better and are angry at what they lost.
"Those mill jobs were well paid and the workers could buy houses, cars, and had pensions. One
of my brothers works for a paper mill that should have been world competitive through his retirement,
but it's been wrecked by a series of private equity owners, starting with Cerberus, and in now
in bankruptcy."
========================
If you read "Barbarians at the Gate" what was most striking is that companies that get destroyed
are PROFITABLE – but it is MORE profitable for a few to strip mine them. In the religion of economics,
God has forgotten them
We use certain metrics that says this increases GDP, and therefore it MUST be done – like the
character in Harry Potter whose name can never be uttered, we can never, ever speak of the distribution
of the vaunted GDP.
As I've said many times, inequality is a political choice. I fear our system has been so thoroughly
infiltrated by the self absorbed that it is now impossible for any meaningful reform.
Above the law demi-god banksters (I call them financial terrorists) are re-creating the world
in their own image. Thank Obama and Holder for placing them above the law.
Why were they well paid though? Just because of a tight labor market or because of unions?
If it's the latter sooner or later even all those Trump supporters are going to have to admit
that only leftist movements like the labor movement actually work.
Americans cannot begin to reasonably demand a living wage, benefits and job security when there
is an unending human ant-line of illegals and legal immigrants willing to under bid them.
Only when there is a parity or shortage of workers can wage demands succeed, along with other
factors.
From 1925 to 1965 this country accepted hardly any immigrants, legal or illegal. We had the
bracero program where Mexican males were brought in to pick crops and were then sent home to collect
paychecks in Mexico. American blacks were hired from the deep south to work defense plants in
the north and west.
Is it any coincidence that the 1965 Great Society program, initiated by Ted Kennedy to primarily
benefit the Irish immigrants, then co-opted by LBJ to include practically everyone, started this
process of Middle Class destruction?
1973 was the peak year of American Society as measured by energy use per capita, expansion
of jobs and unionization and other factors, such as an environment not yet destroyed, nicely measured
by the The Real Progress Indicator.
Solution? Stop importing uneducated people. That's real "immigration reform".
Now explain to me why voters shouldn't favor Trump's radical immigration stands?
Maybe, but OTOH, who is it, exactly, who is recruiting, importing, hiring and training undocumented
workers to downgrade pay scales??
Do some homework, please. If businesses didn't actively go to Central and South America to
recruit, pay to bring here, hire and employ undocumented workers, then the things you discuss
would be great.
When ICE comes a-knocking at some meat processing plant or mega-chicken farm, what happens?
The undocumented workers get shipped back to wherever, but the big business owner doesn't even
get a tap on the wrist. The undocumented worker – hired to work in unregulated unsafe unhealthy
conditions – often goes without their last paycheck.
It's the business owners who manage and support this system of undocumented workers because
it's CHEAP, and they don't get busted for it.
Come back when the USA actually enforces the laws that are on the books today and goes after
big and small business owners who knowingly recruit, import, hire, train and employee undocumented
workers you know, like Donald Trump has all across his career.
This is the mechanism by which the gov't has assisted biz in destroying the worker, competition
for thee, but none for me. For instance I can't go work in canada or mexico, they don't allow
it. Policy made it, policy can change it, go bernie. While I favor immigration, in it's current
form it is primarily conducted on these lines of destroying workers (H1b etc and illegals combined)
Lucky for the mexicans they can see the american dream is bs and can go home. I wonder who the
latinos that have gained citizenship will vote for. Unlikely it'll be trump, but they can be pretty
conservative, and the people they work for are pretty conservative so no guarantee there, hillary
is in san diego at the tony balboa park where her supporters will feel comfortable, not a huge
venue I think they must be hoping for a crowd, and if she can't get one in san diego while giving
a "if we don't rule the world someone else will" speech, she can't get one anywhere. Defense contractors
and military advisors and globalist biotech (who needs free money more than biotech? they are
desperate for hillary) are thick in san diego.
I live part-time in San Diego. It is very conservative. The military, who are constantly screwed
by the GOP, always vote Republican. They make up a big cohort of San Diego county.
Hillary may not get a big crowd at the speech, but that, in itself, doesn't mean that much
to me. There is a segment of San Diego that is somewhat more progressive-ish, but it's a pretty
conservative county with parts of eastern SD county having had active John Birch Society members
until recently or maybe even ongoing.
There's a big push in the Latino community to GOTV, and it's mostly not for Trump. It's possible
this cohort, esp the younger Latino/as, will vote for Sanders in the primary, but if Clinton gets
the nomination, they'll likely vote for her (v. Trump).
I was unlucky enough to be stuck for an hour in a commuter train last Friday after Trump's
rally there. Hate to sound rude, but Trump's fans were everything we've seen. Loud, rude, discourteous
and an incessant litany of rightwing talking points (same old, same old). All pretty ignorant.
Saying how Trump will "make us great again." I don't bother asking how. A lot of ugly comments
about Obama and how Obama has been "so racially divisive and polarizing." Well, No. No, Obama
has not been or done that, but the rightwing noise machine has sure ginned up your hatreds, angers
and fears. It was most unpleasant. The only instructive thing about it was confirming my worst
fears about this group. Sorry to say but pretty loutish and very uninformed. Sigh.
Re Methland, we live in rural US and we got a not-very-well hidden population of homeless children.
I don't mean homeless families with children, I mean homeless children. Sleeping in parks in good
weather, couch-surfing with friends, etc. I think related.
UPDATE "A fractured Democratic Party threatens Clinton's chances against Trump" [WaPo].
Sanders himself has made harder-to-argue cases [as opposed to election fraud] against the
Democratic primaries. The truncated debate schedule struck supporters of both candidates as
unfair, something the party seemed to acknowledge by tacking on more of them in March and April.
Although Clinton is on track to win a majority of pledged delegates, Sanders has suggested
that early support for Clinton among superdelegates, the party leaders and elected officials
who get an automatic convention vote but are not bound by their state's popular vote created
a barrier no candidate could scale.
This reminds me of Albert O. Hirschman's
"Exit, Voice, and Loyalty" formulation. The Democrats have given Sanders supporters zero to
no reason for loyalty, so the remaining options are voice and exit. Can the Clinton camp craft
a deal that will allow Sanders voters a voice within the party? I think they neither wish to,
nor can (vague noises about platform wording are to "voice" as watching a meeting is to chairing
a meeting). Hence, exit. Here, the classic Democratic response has been "They have no place to
go." However, Sanders has funding independent of the Democratic Party, and he also has his "list"
(assuming the Democrat insiders using NGP VAN haven't stolen it). So for the first time, there's
a real chance of creating a place for the left to go. The new situation Sanders created
has impaled the Democrat establishment on the horns of a big dilemma: Craft a deal with a party
faction they despise (a deal which, more to the point, will break some important rice bowls if
it's any kind of deal at all), or craft no deal and go for moderate Republican votes; I argue
the Iron Law of
Institutions - not to mention neoliberal ideological compatibility and class interest - will
impel the Democrat Establishment to do the latter; hence, exit for Sanders. Nevertheless, the
Establishment's dilemma causes them genuine pain, and hence the sudden spittle-flecked explosion
of Acela-riding, loyalist rage, none of which takes account of the realpolitik, or resolves
the situation in any way.
UPDATE "Does Bernie Sanders want to be the Ralph Nader of 2016?" [Dana Milbank,
WaPo]. The insurgent Sanders couldn't, even if he wanted to be. The insurgent Nader commanded
what, 4% of the vote? Sanders commands 45%, after a process skewed against him, whose views point
to a possible future for the Democrat Party. Incidentally, there's a message in an order-of-magnitude
growth in support for Democrat insurgents, if the party Establishment would open its ears. (And
don't talk to me about Florida: 306,000 Florida Democrats voted for Bush. Democrats lost election
2000, and nobody else.)
"After winning more than 60 percent of the pledged delegates through March 1st, Clinton is
now likely to lose the majority of pledged delegates awarded between March 2nd and June 14th -
a two and a half month period that makes up roughly the final two-thirds of the Democratic nominating
process" [HuffPo].
Why those favorability ratings are important
"... Bernie Sanders secured his first concession from the Democratic establishment on Monday when the Democratic National Committee agreed to grant his supporters greater representation on its convention platform committee. ..."
"... Sanders is rapidly revealing that his nomination battle against Hillary Clinton represents just one front in his wider-reaching war on the Democratic Party's entrenched leadership ..."
Bernie Sanders secured his first concession from the Democratic establishment on Monday
when the Democratic National Committee agreed to grant his supporters greater representation on
its convention platform committee.
... ... ...
Sanders is rapidly revealing that his nomination battle against Hillary Clinton represents
just one front in his wider-reaching war on the Democratic Party's entrenched leadership,
and that the other fights - from Washington, D.C. to Nevada, to Wyoming - are about to get far
more attention.
...But the Vermont senator - long perceived by many of his Democratic colleagues as a gadfly - is
stepping up his assault on the party's way of doing business.
"... "Most of my colleagues are dishonest career politicians who revel in the power and special-interest money that's lavished upon them." ..."
"... "My main job is to keep my job, to get reelected. It takes precedence over everything." ..."
"... "Fundraising is so time consuming I seldom read any bills I vote on. Like many of my colleagues, I don't know how the legislation will be implemented, or what it'll cost." ..."
"... " Voters are incredibly ignorant and know little about our form of government and how it works." ..."
"... "It's far easier than you think to manipulate a nation of naive, self-absorbed sheep who crave instant gratification." ..."
"... "We spend money we don't have and blithely mortgage the future with a wink and a nod. Screw the next generation." ..."
"... Best line in the God Father. "Their Saps, They fight for other people". Sounds like pop talking. God damn right that's Pop talking. Come here you. ..."
"... The only function of a bureaucracy is to perpetuate the bureaucracy. ..."
"... Trump is getting so much attention because the citizenry doesn't know how the govt was designed to work, and is looking for a "leader" to fix things up. ..."
"... The power lies in Congress, by design, appropriately so, as it most closely represents the will of the People. And therein lies the eleventh-hour problem. ..."
"... This book will be exposed as a hoax. It is doubtless a compilation of quotes from multiple Congrees-critters over the years. I doubt any of these assholes would risk exposure in this manner. They don't have the guts. ..."
A shockingly frank new book from an anonymous
Democratic congressman turns yet another set of conspiracy theories into consirpacy
facts as he spills the beans on the ugly reality behind the scenes in Washington. While little will
surprise any regular readers, the selected quotes offered by
"The Confessions Of Congressman X" book cover sheet read like they were ripped from
the script of House of Cards... and yet are oh so believable...
A devastating inside look at the dark side of Congress as revealed by one of its own!
No wonder Congressman X wants to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. His admissions
are deeply disturbing...
"Most of my colleagues are dishonest career politicians who revel in the power and special-interest
money that's lavished upon them."
"My main job is to keep my job, to get reelected. It takes precedence over everything."
"Fundraising is so time consuming I seldom read any bills I vote on. Like many of my colleagues,
I don't know how the legislation will be implemented, or what it'll cost."
The book also takes shots at voters as disconnected idiots who let Congress abuse its power through
sheer incompetence...
" Voters are incredibly ignorant and know little about our form of government and how it
works."
"It's far easier than you think to manipulate a nation of naive, self-absorbed sheep who
crave instant gratification."
And,
as The Daily Mail so elqouently notes, the take-away message is one of resigned depression about
how Congress sacrifices America's future on the altar of its collective ego...
"We spend money we don't have and blithely mortgage the future with a wink and a nod. Screw
the next generation."
"It's about getting credit now, lookin' good for the upcoming election."
Simply put, it's everything that is enraging Americans about their government's dysfunction and
why Trump is getting so much attention.
The shining city on a hill is chock full of assholes like this. They've run out of other people's
money for this purpose so bad, generations to come are screwed. Unless of course they are all
stamped away and their bullshit repudiated.
Trump is getting so much attention because the citizenry doesn't know how the govt was
designed to work, and is looking for a "leader" to fix things up.
I've been pecking away for years that the attention must be on Congress. No takers here at
ZH either, for the most part.
Again... a finally corrupt and defunct Congress is what must be dealt with post haste, and
a "Trump" or any other will not be the answer to changing the trajectory.
The power lies in Congress, by design, appropriately so, as it most closely represents
the will of the People. And therein lies the eleventh-hour problem.
I've said it time and again. Just today I posted "our entire system is based on subjective
financial asset valuations to support the needs of today with no consideration of tomorrow". Politicians
and their money grubbing corporate assholes thought of future generations don't transcend beyond
their own line of sight. We do not have a government or system for the people. We have a government
who's sole purpose is to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. Burn the fucker down
This book will be exposed as a hoax. It is doubtless a compilation of quotes from multiple
Congrees-critters over the years. I doubt any of these assholes would risk exposure in this manner.
They don't have the guts.
"... One of the remarkable things about this election is the sheer intensity of hostility to Trump from many of the same movement conservatives who shrugged at Bush's far more serious betrayals and failures. Many movement conservatives have been much more horrified by Trump's momentary political success over a few months than they were by the real, costly, staggering failures of governance under the Bush administration over a period of eight years. Bush certainly drove some conservatives and Republicans into vocal opposition, including those of us here at TAC, but there seem to be many, many more on the right that thought Bush could practically do no wrong but have been driven into fits by nothing more than Trump's nomination. ..."
"... People that now panic about incipient caudillismo and the dangers of a nationalist demagogue didn't care when Bush expanded the security state, trampled on the Constitution, or launched an unnecessary war of aggression, and people that yawned at the steady expansion of government and creation of new unfunded liabilities under Bush are now supposedly alarmed by Trump's lack of fidelity to the cause of limited government. They correctly identify many of Trump's flaws, but refuse to acknowledge the fact that the party was already killed (or at least severely wounded) years ago during the disastrous Bush era. It was that period of incompetence and ideologically-driven debacles that shattered the GOP, and for the last seven years the vast majority of die-hard Trump foes have refused to recognize that and have chosen to learn nothing from it. They lost to Trump, but the part they can't accept is that they deserved to lose because of their role in enabling the GOP's past failures. Now they're touting their abandonment of the wreckage they helped to create as if they deserve applause for running away from their own handiwork. If it weren't so serious, it would be quite comical. ..."
The cheapest laugh down here in the Liberal cheap
seats continues to be the hilarious "evolution"
of the indignation of Conservatives who are
watching their monster run away with their
party. Since no one listens to us and no one
cares what we think, we here on the Left find
ourselves oddly blessed with the greatest and
most dangerous freedom of all: we are free to
remember the past in country where almost
everyone else-especially the wealthy and
powerful-are expending enormous energies denying
the past.
Ten years ago it was an act of unalloyed heresy
and disloyalty bordering on treason to even hint
that George W. Bush was not the Greatest Fucking
President in Modern History. Six years ago, it
was sheer folly-whistling into a hurricane-to
suggest that the Tea Party was not, in fact a
sudden and spontaneous uprising of
otherwise-politically-virginal patriots, but was
instead a massive wingnut rebranding scam
designed to get millions of bigots and meatheads
off the hook for volubly supporting the Worst
Fucking President in Modern History.
But now, as America's Conservative brain wizards
flail around looking for someone or something
onto which they can lay off the blame for the
rise of Donald McRonald, look what is suddenly no
longer verboten. [...]
And my oh my, look at what version of American
history is no longer a heresy so disqualifying
that the media dare not speak its name (from
The
American Conservative
):
Bush Wrecked the GOP Long Before
Trump Appeared
By DANIEL LARISON
...
One of the remarkable things about this
election is the sheer intensity of
hostility to Trump from many of the same
movement conservatives who shrugged at
Bush's far more serious betrayals and
failures. Many movement conservatives have
been much more horrified by Trump's
momentary political success over a few
months than they were by the real, costly,
staggering failures of governance under the
Bush administration over a period of eight
years. Bush certainly drove some
conservatives and Republicans into vocal
opposition, including those of us here at
TAC, but there seem to be many, many more
on the right that thought Bush could
practically do no wrong but have been
driven into fits by nothing more than
Trump's nomination.
People that now panic about incipient
caudillismo and the dangers of a
nationalist demagogue didn't care when Bush
expanded the security state, trampled on
the Constitution, or launched an
unnecessary war of aggression, and people
that yawned at the steady expansion of
government and creation of new unfunded
liabilities under Bush are now supposedly
alarmed by Trump's lack of fidelity to the
cause of limited government. They correctly
identify many of Trump's flaws, but refuse
to acknowledge the fact that the party was
already killed (or at least severely
wounded) years ago during the disastrous
Bush era. It was that period of
incompetence and ideologically-driven
debacles that shattered the GOP, and for
the last seven years the vast majority of
die-hard Trump foes have refused to
recognize that and have chosen to learn
nothing from it. They lost to Trump, but
the part they can't accept is that they
deserved to lose because of their role in
enabling the GOP's past failures. Now
they're touting their abandonment of the
wreckage they helped to create as if they
deserve applause for running away from
their own handiwork. If it weren't so
serious, it would be quite comical.
If you are a
Liberal living in America you are a pariah in your
own land who has lived to see almost every one of
your ostracizing blasphemies slowly, quietly become
a widely accepted and largely uncontroversial fact
of everyday life.
Every blasphemy
except one-that the Left has been right about the
Right all along. Because if Important People ever
dared to start saying that out loud in Important
Places, the entire system would implode.
"... One of the remarkable things about this election is the sheer intensity of hostility to Trump from many of the same movement conservatives who shrugged at Bush's far more serious betrayals and failures. Many movement conservatives have been much more horrified by Trump's momentary political success over a few months than they were by the real, costly, staggering failures of governance under the Bush administration over a period of eight years. Bush certainly drove some conservatives and Republicans into vocal opposition, including those of us here at TAC, but there seem to be many, many more on the right that thought Bush could practically do no wrong but have been driven into fits by nothing more than Trump's nomination. ..."
"... People that now panic about incipient caudillismo and the dangers of a nationalist demagogue didn't care when Bush expanded the security state, trampled on the Constitution, or launched an unnecessary war of aggression, and people that yawned at the steady expansion of government and creation of new unfunded liabilities under Bush are now supposedly alarmed by Trump's lack of fidelity to the cause of limited government. They correctly identify many of Trump's flaws, but refuse to acknowledge the fact that the party was already killed (or at least severely wounded) years ago during the disastrous Bush era. It was that period of incompetence and ideologically-driven debacles that shattered the GOP, and for the last seven years the vast majority of die-hard Trump foes have refused to recognize that and have chosen to learn nothing from it. They lost to Trump, but the part they can't accept is that they deserved to lose because of their role in enabling the GOP's past failures. Now they're touting their abandonment of the wreckage they helped to create as if they deserve applause for running away from their own handiwork. If it weren't so serious, it would be quite comical. ..."
The cheapest laugh down here in the Liberal cheap
seats continues to be the hilarious "evolution"
of the indignation of Conservatives who are
watching their monster run away with their
party. Since no one listens to us and no one
cares what we think, we here on the Left find
ourselves oddly blessed with the greatest and
most dangerous freedom of all: we are free to
remember the past in country where almost
everyone else-especially the wealthy and
powerful-are expending enormous energies denying
the past.
Ten years ago it was an act of unalloyed heresy
and disloyalty bordering on treason to even hint
that George W. Bush was not the Greatest Fucking
President in Modern History. Six years ago, it
was sheer folly-whistling into a hurricane-to
suggest that the Tea Party was not, in fact a
sudden and spontaneous uprising of
otherwise-politically-virginal patriots, but was
instead a massive wingnut rebranding scam
designed to get millions of bigots and meatheads
off the hook for volubly supporting the Worst
Fucking President in Modern History.
But now, as America's Conservative brain wizards
flail around looking for someone or something
onto which they can lay off the blame for the
rise of Donald McRonald, look what is suddenly no
longer verboten. [...]
And my oh my, look at what version of American
history is no longer a heresy so disqualifying
that the media dare not speak its name (from
The
American Conservative
):
Bush Wrecked the GOP Long Before
Trump Appeared
By DANIEL LARISON
...
One of the remarkable things about this
election is the sheer intensity of
hostility to Trump from many of the same
movement conservatives who shrugged at
Bush's far more serious betrayals and
failures. Many movement conservatives have
been much more horrified by Trump's
momentary political success over a few
months than they were by the real, costly,
staggering failures of governance under the
Bush administration over a period of eight
years. Bush certainly drove some
conservatives and Republicans into vocal
opposition, including those of us here at
TAC, but there seem to be many, many more
on the right that thought Bush could
practically do no wrong but have been
driven into fits by nothing more than
Trump's nomination.
People that now panic about incipient
caudillismo and the dangers of a
nationalist demagogue didn't care when Bush
expanded the security state, trampled on
the Constitution, or launched an
unnecessary war of aggression, and people
that yawned at the steady expansion of
government and creation of new unfunded
liabilities under Bush are now supposedly
alarmed by Trump's lack of fidelity to the
cause of limited government. They correctly
identify many of Trump's flaws, but refuse
to acknowledge the fact that the party was
already killed (or at least severely
wounded) years ago during the disastrous
Bush era. It was that period of
incompetence and ideologically-driven
debacles that shattered the GOP, and for
the last seven years the vast majority of
die-hard Trump foes have refused to
recognize that and have chosen to learn
nothing from it. They lost to Trump, but
the part they can't accept is that they
deserved to lose because of their role in
enabling the GOP's past failures. Now
they're touting their abandonment of the
wreckage they helped to create as if they
deserve applause for running away from
their own handiwork. If it weren't so
serious, it would be quite comical.
If you are a
Liberal living in America you are a pariah in your
own land who has lived to see almost every one of
your ostracizing blasphemies slowly, quietly become
a widely accepted and largely uncontroversial fact
of everyday life.
Every blasphemy
except one-that the Left has been right about the
Right all along. Because if Important People ever
dared to start saying that out loud in Important
Places, the entire system would implode.
"... 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.
"... Much more comfortable [running against Clinton] and I think everyone that has analyzed this knows that Hillary Clinton is in the ditch. We don't know how far in the ditch she's going to go but she's not doing well. She's not even winning ..."
"... The DemParty would rather lose with Clinton than win with Sanders. Just as the RepParty would rather lose with Cruz than win with Trump. ..."
"... If she was a rationally thinking human being she would have taken the hint when she got beaten by Obama in '08. Actually she should never have run in '08. Her basic conundrum is: how can she claim to be an empowered strong woman when ALL of her power is derived from the fact she was married to a prez and stuck through him through all his problems with many "other women". ..."
"... I don't care if she sleeps with other women – the fact that she's in bed with Wall Street is way more troubling. ..."
"... And the sad part is with Hillary we're probably going to miss the O-bomber when he's gone. ..."
"... she's a devout Ayn Randian, carries a grudge, gets extremely angry, doesn't have any idea of what the difference between truth and lies is, and has a sense of self-entitlement as wide as the Atlantic Ocean. ..."
"... The Democratic machine hates Sanders even more than it hates Trump and the Republicans. They hate everything he stands for. ..."
"... They would rather see Trump win than Sanders. He asks too many inconvenient questions. Trump can be handled, like Reagan or Bush II. ..."
"... there's obvious downside to pissing off a well-connected major political and financial player with a long memory, as opposed to a candidate with few lucrative contacts whose second act after his big swing for the fences is a probably quiet retirement. ..."
"... As several people have pointed out, a win with Sanders is the second (or third) best outcome for the establishment. So far, the best-case scenario is still in the bag if they stick with her, and in jeopardy if they don't. It's delusional to think Sanders has a chance with them, even moreso than the Clinton supporters in 2008 who thought they could engineer an upset over Obama with convention procedures. ..."
"... So how did Hillary Clinton beat out the popular Senator Bernie Sanders in New York State where he was born and raised? Where he was drawing rallies of tens of thousands of supporters in the week before the primary? Where his ground game had the engaged support of thousands of members of the Working Families Party and Occupy Wall Street activists? The system was rigged to guarantee the outcome just as the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington guarantees that looting the little guy remains a lucrative business model on Wall Street. ..."
"... I confess to feeling despair for the survival of human civilization, of humanity and all complex life on Earth. The proximate reason for this is the theft of the New York Democratic primary by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. As for the fraud itself, it is a now familiar litany: Flipped registrations, machine switched votes, massive voter roll purges and much more. Consider just one illustrative example: Brooklyn. Brooklyn is run by the Kings County Democratic Party. A Chicago Mayor Dick Daley style political machine is in complete charge. Nothing happens there by accident. All "accidents" are carefully planned! And a lot of "accidents" occurred on primary election day there! Taken together these add up to election FRAUD. ..."
"... HRC and Bill are the Macbeths of US politics. They should have quit with their hundreds of millions while they were ahead. Hillary may win the election but she'll lose the war. They will have so many scandals to deal with they won't know what hit them. ..."
Those numbers have no influence on the state-by-state results but offer a window into both
the success of Sanders in generating enthusiasm and Clinton's inability to capitalize
on all her political advantages . Since October, when her candidacy began rising again after
several months of controversy about her use of a private email server, she has been on a downward
slide. Her lead over the senator from Vermont has dropped from what was then a 31-point advantage
to the current two points .
Meanwhile, her negative ratings have been rising and now outweigh her positives by 24 points
, according to the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll. That makes her seen no more favorably than
Cruz is. Her only salvation is that Trump's net negative is minus 41. Sanders, meanwhile, has
a net positive of nine points - although it's fair to say that one reason for that is that he
has received far less in the way of attacks from Republicans or scrutiny from the media than Clinton
has. [This last is standard Clinton camp spin; conventional explanation until shown otherwise]
Clinton's image is at or near record lows among major demographic groups. Among men, she
is at minus 40. Among women, she is at minus nine. Among whites, she is at minus 39. Among
white women, she is at minus 25. Among white men, she is at minus 72. Her favorability among whites
at this point in the election cycle is worse than President Obama's ever has been, according to
Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who conducted the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll with Democratic
pollster Peter Hart.
Minority voters have been the linchpin of Clinton's nomination strategy and were a key to her
success in New York. Among African Americans nationally, the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll shows
her with a net positive of 51 points. But that's down 13 points from her first-quarter
average and is about at her lowest ever. Among Latinos, her net positive is just two points
, down from plus 21 points during the first quarter.
Reince Priebus earlier described the Clinton candidacy as "
in the ditch ":
"Much more comfortable [running against Clinton] and I think everyone that has analyzed
this knows that Hillary Clinton is in the ditch. We don't know how far in the ditch she's going
to go but she's not doing well. She's not even winning," Priebus said.
The DemParty would rather lose with Clinton than win with Sanders. Just as the RepParty would
rather lose with Cruz than win with Trump.
And since Trump is stronger against the RepParty than Sanders is against the DemParty, Trump
will very likely be nominated while Sanders very likely won't. So in a situation of Trump vs.
Clinton, many people will face an agonizing choice.
Now . . . if the ReParty nominates Cruz or someother branded establishment ReParty member,
then Clinton will likely win.
If she was a rationally thinking human being she would have taken the hint when she got beaten
by Obama in '08. Actually she should never have run in '08. Her basic conundrum is: how can she
claim to be an empowered strong woman when ALL of her power is derived from the fact she was married
to a prez and stuck through him through all his problems with many "other women". Plus, her personality,
voice, cackle, even the mere sight of her is repulsive to many people. Another thing that will
have to be dealt with during the general is: is she or is she not gay? Voters will certainly be
curious about that.
edmondo , April 22, 2016 at 8:26 am
I don't care if she sleeps with other women – the fact that she's in bed with Wall Street is
way more troubling.
I think a lot about a person's character is revealed by their laugh; hers is mirthless and
mean, perfectly consonant with her generally strident tone of voice. Obama may be as narcissistic
and have run for the office as much for the sake of trophy-seeking, but at least his voice doesn't
grate.
It grates on me, as does his condescending words, his face etc.. But that's because of who
he is. See he might objectively be judged as a fairly good looking guy but, who can't even see
that anymore given his evil. And the sad part is with Hillary we're probably going to miss
the O-bomber when he's gone.
Clinton's quite rational. She's also smart, logical, and perceptive. On the other hand,
she's a devout Ayn Randian, carries a grudge, gets extremely angry, doesn't have any idea of what
the difference between truth and lies is, and has a sense of self-entitlement as wide as the Atlantic
Ocean.
This is her election. She doesn't care if she brings down the entire corrupt edifice
of her own party, as reconfigured under the administration of her husband, as long as she gets
the nomination. And if that puts the Dems out in the wilderness long enough for them to realize
they need to return to being the party of the unions, the minorities, the working classes? Great.
But my bet is that first, for however long it takes, if they lose they'll blame it on Sanders
and all those groups they used to support, and now spit on.
Gaius is right about the numbers and the trends. But even if Hillary's numbers plummet to catastrophic
levels –to below Trump, which could happen if he cleans up his act as he is setting out to do
right now - don't hold your breath for the DNC to nominate the only obvious potential winner,
Bernie Sanders.
The Democratic machine hates Sanders even more than it hates Trump and the Republicans.
They hate everything he stands for. He's a socialist (of a mild sort). The Dems and Repubs
are all plutocrats. They would rather see Trump win than Sanders. He asks too many inconvenient
questions. Trump can be handled, like Reagan or Bush II.
It's also worth noting that comparisons between Clinton and Sanders say nothing about the matchup
between Clinton and whatever emerges from the GOP swamp. Approval ratings are more relevant, but
are still an unreliable proxy, and even they show her competitive once the GOP candidates wreck
the curve.
Picking Clinton, IOW, has no serious downside if you're worried about beating a GOP Presidential
candidate. However, there's obvious downside to pissing off a well-connected major political
and financial player with a long memory, as opposed to a candidate with few lucrative contacts
whose second act after his big swing for the fences is a probably quiet retirement.
As several people have pointed out, a win with Sanders is the second (or third) best outcome
for the establishment. So far, the best-case scenario is still in the bag if they stick with her,
and in jeopardy if they don't. It's delusional to think Sanders has a chance with them, even moreso
than the Clinton supporters in 2008 who thought they could engineer an upset over Obama with convention
procedures.
Americans know that our political system is completely rotten. Just two days ago, NBC News
published the results of a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. It found the following:
"Nearly seven-in-10 registered voters say they couldn't see themselves supporting Republican frontrunner
Donald Trump; 61 percent say they couldn't back fellow Republican Ted Cruz; and 58 percent couldn't
see themselves voting for Democratic favorite Hillary Clinton."
New York Does Elections Like It Does Wall Street: With Its Finger on the Scale
By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: April 20, 2016
Consistent with numerous other polls, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll also found that
"just 19 percent of all respondents give Clinton high marks for being honest and trustworthy."
So how did Hillary Clinton beat out the popular Senator Bernie Sanders in New York State where
he was born and raised? Where he was drawing rallies of tens of thousands of supporters in the
week before the primary? Where his ground game had the engaged support of thousands of members
of the Working Families Party and Occupy Wall Street activists? The system was rigged to guarantee
the outcome just as the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington guarantees that looting
the little guy remains a lucrative business model on Wall Street.
via Richard Charnin https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com
Those states marked in yellow on the spreadsheet indicate Fraud. There are a lot of states
that were stolen.
Maybe Sanders is saving up all this brilliant evidence from Richard Charnin and others to use
in any contested fight for the nomination. I think it could be powerful leverage that could undo
the blatant theft of votes, theft of democracy by Party leaders. Perhaps
The UNADJUSTED exit poll indicated a close race. Hillary led by just 52-48%, an 11.8% discrepancy
from the recorded vote. There were 1391 respondents and a 2.6% exit poll Margin of Error. Clinton
led by a whopping 62-38% in the vote count with 33% of precincts reporting.
At 9:03 pm, there were 1307 exit poll respondents, Clinton led the actual count by 680-622
(52.0-47.6%). With just 84 additional respondents (1391 total), Clinton's lead increased to 802-589
(57.7-42.3%). She had 122 additional respondents and Sanders had 33 fewer.
How can Clinton gain 122 of 84 respondents? How can Sanders' total drop? They can't. It is
mathematically impossible. Therefore the final vote has to be impossible as well. . The exit poll
was forced to match the recorded vote with impossible adjustments.
snip
In 2014, NY voter registration was 49D-24R-27I. The split was 85D-15I in the exit poll, which
(as always) was forced to match the 57.9-42.1% recorded vote.
Assuming primary voting was proportional to registration, the split would have been 65D-35I
and the race would have been a tie. If Clinton had 58% of Democrats, Sanders won the election
by 52.5-47.5%.
snip
Assuming that Sanders' 48% exit poll was accurate, he must have won the election due to thousands
of suppressed votes. Sanders True Vote = 48% exit poll + suppressed vote.
Let's assume that 5% of registered voters (400,000) were disenfranchised and Sanders had 75%.
Then he had 52.9% assuming his 48% exit poll share.
snip
Sanders' exit poll share declined in the recorded vote in 18 out of 19 primaries.
The probability: P=1-binomdist(17,19,.5,true) = 0.000038 = 1 in 26,000.
.
This information needs updating. It shows that there is already a very big difference between
those states which have Caucuses with open public evidence of head/hand counts or paper ballots
hand counted vs those in Primaries using the abusive evidence-free/evidence-hidden e-voting/e-scanning
machines:
Sanders Average Vote Shares: 66% in 12 Caucuses
(My note: with Real Public Evidence);
41% in 20 Primaries
(Evidence Hidden or Removed with those voting machines for the purpose of stealing democracy)
.
We need to correct this now. Because it may be now or never.
I confess to feeling despair for the survival of human civilization, of humanity and all complex
life on Earth. The proximate reason for this is the theft of the New York Democratic primary by
Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. As for the fraud itself, it is a now familiar litany:
Flipped registrations, machine switched votes, massive voter roll purges and much more. Consider
just one illustrative example: Brooklyn. Brooklyn is run by the Kings County Democratic Party.
A Chicago Mayor Dick Daley style political machine is in complete charge. Nothing happens there
by accident. All "accidents" are carefully planned! And a lot of "accidents" occurred on primary
election day there! Taken together these add up to election FRAUD.
i also think there is an internal battle going on among the plutocrats there are those who
want single payer health care for instance. we know that's not hillary's faction, so it could
be trump's pals. There must be a consensus among some of the uneasy rich that if they can't resuscitate
social equality they are history because they need society in order to function – they all know
everything is dysfunctional now. The worst dysfunction is our deprivation: no health care, only
welfare for insurance & drug companies; failing educational system; bankrupt retirement funds;
no jobs; etc. The people are putting up better resistance to the takeover of the world by the
neoliberals in Europe but only because they have vetted socialist societies. What Hillary and
her pals concocted is an almost unbelievable disaster. Their solution seems to be more deprivation,
more war, with no solution in sight for inequality. And lastly, Hillary does not even recognize
the situation – she pretends things are just fine – all we have to do is protect our "rights"
– are you for real, Hill?
There are lots of capitalist firms that would be better off with single payer, and lots of
business people that would be happy to see McD's, Wal-mart, etc. finally pay some of the true
cost of their low wages, and to see the vig for Big Pharma and Big Health (Un)Care shrink.
Left: I've been preaching for years that single payer is the only option, plus
making medical education far less expensive. I went to school in the old
days before student loans and all that crap, and I wasn't forced to increase
my income to pay off debts. Europe has the correct idea.
Yea but even if they would benefit from single payer and they might, it's hard to say they'll
ever be on board for full employment. Slack in the labor market is how wages are kept low, you
just keep the slack within a certain range that for us will guarantee there will be losers, and
for them will guarantee there aren't enough of them for violent revolution. Then you blame the
losers such a system necessarily creates for their fate.
So the interest of some oligarchs might sometimes coincide with ours, but don't count on it.
And at a certain point I wonder how much good free healthcare will do if you bankrupt everyone
with expensive rents or something instead (so many means of rent extraction, so little time!).
Although it is a less inhumane way of keeping people enslaved than for their very healthcare.
Susan, I agree that not all plutocrats are mentally retarded ogres. And some may prefer a functioning
social order over the immediate opportunity to suck the last blood out of the present one.
The Malignant Overlords- the Banksters, Frackers and War Party purveyors of weapons of Death-
that have dominated US policy for decades have found the perfect candidate in Killary. She is
a known commodity that will do their bidding instantly at the sound of a briefcase full of $100
dollar bills being opened. Many Overlords may have loyalty to the Republican party much as they
do to the football team of their Alma Mater, but they can't help but understand the value of having
a President like Obama or Killary who present themselves as a progressive man or woman of the
people while delivering policies that benefit only them.
Why should they back a social misfit like Ted Cruz whom everybody he has ever worked with hates?
Or an unpredictable wild card like Trump who occasionally says things that send chills up their
spine? Withdraw from NATO? A Defense Department organized to defend America rather than enforce
subservience to the Empire and maximize costs of new weaponry? Build things in the US instead
of using much cheaper slave labor overseas? What a frightening idea.
Much better to support a Trojan Horse "Democrat." even if they have too many Jewish lawyers
at their fund raising banquets.
No question she was the ideal candidate, or they'd not, through the magic of DNC/Beltway 'consensus'
have anointed her the first woman President in 2016 back in 2008 – no doubt some cruddy deal done
at that time.
How the key power players managed to delude themselves into believing their own manufactured
narrative vis a vis pretty much everything this century could totally fall apart without consequences
is indeed amazing – so much so that half of me thinks this seeming outbreak of 'democracy' is
itself scripted, that is, there was a conscious decision taken to allow Sanders and 'the people'
to be 'given a hearing in the court of public opinion' justified by the easy collective assumption
Clinton would make short work of Sanders' silly un-American ideas. That Clinton was an imperfect
vehicle, a flawed instrument, obviously so to us, would surely have been evident to at least some
people with considerable power, one of whom happens to hold a Go Directly To Jail card.
Set 'em up, Joe. Got a little story, you oughtta know .
Something not noted in the article but seems relevant here is that Bill cannot seem to keep
his foot out of his mouth. Yesterday he blamed millennials for the lack of wage inflation in recent
years. Keeping in mind that many of them weren't old enough to vote in the 2010 mid-terms even
if they wanted to, the unbroken wage curve of the last thirty years puts this lie to rest alone.
No, he's just that bitterly entitled. Do you not see how rich and powerful they are even out
of office? How dare he be denied. They are the same when the peasants are pleasant, they don't
mind temporarily having to slum, but if they are even mildly questioned, their body language,
voice, etc change. Watch their hands clench, jaws tighten, they both lean back. The strain to
maintain and can never do it.
If the DNC give the nomination to HRC (which of course is extremely likely despite the poll
numbers above) then they are signing their own death warrant.
There is a small risk to them that Bernie would run 3rd party (he could cite all the obvious
shenanigans of the DNC and HRC as justification, and he could raise the money).
If Trump is the Republican nominee, we know he isn't afraid to go after Hillary and Bill on
their many scandals, and they can't easily go after him on financial or morality scandal reasons
- and he has no political baggage like NAFTA or the anti-black crime bill to defend.
Most likely HRC would win (just) but she will be thoroughly tarnished and battered by the Trump
campaign, and will be inaugurated as the least-liked, least-trusted President in recent history.
The Sanders supporters will detest her and we know the Repubs hate her with a passion, and will
pursue various investigations. (The Clinton Slush Foundation clearly has a few unexploded bombs
waiting to be found.)
The country will be in political gridlock for another 4 years. The DNC will have lost all credibility
and good will, and a third party will come about. And none too soon.
HRC and Bill are the Macbeths of US politics. They should have quit with their hundreds
of millions while they were ahead. Hillary may win the election but she'll lose the war. They
will have so many scandals to deal with they won't know what hit them.
1998 Minnesota gubernatorial election might be relevant.
Two putrid major party candidates were nominated, and Jessie Ventura became governor. It wasn't
just celebrity- he was a much better option compared to Skip Humphrey and Norm (f'n) Coleman.
I think that our sociopathic elite are looking to finalize the end of democracy by finishing
off the TPP, TTIP and TiSA within her first term. Then all chance of a peaceful resolution are
out the door and Supranational Government is established. Hillary is end game in this stage of
society.
You may be onto something here. The wheels really do seem to be coming off. If the major systemic
reactions to neoliberalism as embodied in Trump and Sanders do not produce a result that leads
to some sort of acceptable homeostasis the current game is up. Something new has to emerge to
control the forces at play. The long powerful illusions of American exceptionalism and ideological
purity are failing–we just don't really have much of a shared ethos anymore. Without some major
swing of the pendulum in the direction of reform, I don't see it holding up much longer. Even
the average Joe is catching on.
I will be shocked if Warren is not offered the VP spot by Clinton. I do not know if she would
take it but it is the perfect play by Clinton's team. She can pull over the Bernie supporters
that are do not hold Ma against Warren.
Clinton will also have a great narrative in our identity politics driven world.
Convincing Warren to take on the VP position will also neuter her politically. Its a win win for
Corporate Democrats.
I just hope that Warren has some backbone but something had to be promised her for Warren to not
come out and endorse Sanders.
In my view, Trump "trumps" Hillary in a Trump vs Hillary election.
After his treatment by the Republican Elite, Trump will not feel loyalty to the Republican
party and will not be beholden to them for staffing and intellectual guidance as was George W.
Bush.
He has a far more open mind regarding the need for overseas military operations than "Hawk
Hillary" and perhaps will not see every foreign "deal" as requiring a military intervention..
He also might be more skeptical of the value of the financial industry to America's well-being
than Hillary.
And with Trump disdainful of both the Democratic and Republican elite, he might actually help
the great unwashed who are largely ignored by both party leaders except at election time.
He won't build the wall.
If Trump were truly interested in restricting the flow of low wage immigrants he would push
to enforce E-verify and employer sanctions, which would raise the price of low wage labor and
would actually bring money into the US Treasury while avoiding the expense of a wall,.
After all, Trump's properties are more profitable with cheaper labor.
But I'd much rather have Bernie, someone who has been in public service for many years and
yet has profited so little from the experience he had credit card debt to help with his daughter's
and niece's weddings.
I look to who each candidate picks as 'advisors' for various subjects. No one can be a genius
polymath politician; at least I've not spotted one. So, 'advisors' are needed to make the wheels
go around. For example, when Lil' Barry chose the Neo Cabal for his advisors early on, I knew
he was a crook.
As everyone here knows by now; watch what 'they' do, not what 'they' say.
Important point. Trump's foreign policy advisors:
Boston Globe
[
Keith] Kellogg, a former Army lieutenant general, is an executive vice president at Virginia-based
CACI International, a Virginia-based intelligence and information technology consulting firm
with clients around the world. He has experience in national defense and homeland security
issues and worked as chief operating officer for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad
following the invasion of Iraq.
[Joe]Schmitz served as inspector general at the Department of Defense during the early years
of George W. Bush's administration and has worked for Blackwater Worldwide.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Yeah, Joseph Schmitz was the Pentagon inspector general under Donald Rumsfeld,
and he didn't really inspect much of anything. He was a big cheerleader, actually, for many
of the most kind of excessive policies of Rumsfeld and the Pentagon in the post-9/11 world.
And when Schmitz left the DOD, he became an executive at Blackwater. And Joseph Schmitz is
a-you know, is a radical Christian supremacist. He is a member of the Sovereign Order of the
Knights of Malta and really is sort of a-you know, has a neo-crusader worldview. And I'm choosing
those words carefully. I mean, that's-he is definitely a radical Christian supremacist.
And he was an enthusiastic fan of Erik Prince and Blackwater, and he goes and he joins that
company. And, you know, this is a guy, though, who-when I was researching him for the Blackwater
book, he wrote a series of letters to the editor of conservative newspapers-Washington Times
and others-in the '90s. He was a fanatical opponent of abortion.
[Walid] Phares is a former Romney adviser, and selecting him as an adviser reflects just
as poorly on Trump as it did on Romney. Leon Hadar has described him in TAC as a neoconservative
and "an academic who was involved with right-wing Christian militia groups during the Lebanese
civil war," but that doesn't do full justice to Phares' record of bad judgment and alarmist
rhetoric about foreign threats. As McKay Coppins reported shortly after Romney named Phares
as an adviser, "Throughout his career as a pundit, he has warned that some Muslims are plotting
a secret takeover of American institutions with the end goal of imposing Sharia."
Joseph Schmitz is also linked to anti-Indian and anti-Muslim efforts.
Trump Foreign Policy Advisor Tied to Montana Anti-Tribal Efforts
IREHR (Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights)
April 19, 2016
Trump Advisor Joseph Schmitz Promotes Anti-Indian and Anti-Muslim Bigotry, Calls for End to
the Vote for People Receiving Public Assistance
Lawrence Kogan is closely allied with the anti-Indian Citizens Equal Rights Alliance (CERA).
CERA aims to terminate tribes and abrogate treaties between the United States and Indian Nations.
Kogan hired longtime CERA leader Elaine Willman to assist with the case and has spoken at multiple
events with the group's leaders. Kogan and Schmitz's brief in the anti-CSKT lawsuit gained
infamy for alleging that the dam transfer could allow the Turkish government and terrorists
to obtain nuclear materials and poses a threat to national security. Rejecting the lawsuit,
U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras referenced the brief's "somewhat perplexing arguments
regarding the Turkish Government's involvement with Native Americans," concluding that "counsel
for Plaintiffs conceded that no such evidence has been submitted relating to the Plaintiffs'
alleged economic harm." (See American Lands Council and the Anti-Indian Movement). Kogan and
Willman have continued to press the CSKT-Muslim terrorist conspiracy theory in 2016 (See Bigoted
Nationalism and CERA-allied Attorney Tours).
Trump surrounds himself w/loons. I'm in CA so I get to vote for Stein but if I was in a swing
state I would lean Trump. Four years of orange tinted embarrassing hell rather than 8 years of
savvy entrenched hell.
With Clinton all of the deck chairs are assigned. With Trump, the chairs get scrambled and
it will be an opportunity for the majority but I don't see anyone in the pipeline. Sanders candidacy
advantage is he's on tape on issues for so many years.
If Clinton v. Trump is the finality I think voting for Trump creates the best path for 3rd
party emergence on the left. At that point (after a floozy democratic primary and all of their
past injustices) the Democrats will need to be hammered down, humiliated, and put in their place.
As they occupy so little of the left these days, weakening them creates an even greater "space"
on the spectrum for others to occupy. The Republicans certainly are not going to move over.
Vote Trump, but keep the progressive revolution momentum alive and organized.
I really want a new progressive party with the finch as its mascot.
If Clinton v. Trump is the finality I think voting for Trump creates the best path for 3rd
party emergence on the left. At that point (after a floozy democratic primary and all of their
past injustices) the Democrats will need to be hammered down, humiliated, and put in their place.
As they occupy so little of the left these days, weakening them creates an even greater "space"
on the spectrum for others to occupy. The Republicans certainly are not going to move over.
Vote Trump, but keep the progressive revolution momentum alive and organized.
I really want a new progressive party with the finch as its mascot.
Given that the USA (certainly) and possibly the world will go to hell if either HRC or Trump
wins, I'd choose Trump if only for the novelty and to teach the frigging Clintons they can't buy
and steal an election.
Trump will scare the shit out of the rest of the world but he seems a bit less likely to start
more wars in Syria, the Ukraine, and elsewhere.
Fair point. ROTW was over the Moon about Obama, and then look what happened. In looney bin
moron colonies like The Guardian they're still aswoon over Bush in blackface. They would
have a falling down fit over us electing Trump, but with no more real insight than they showed
in 2008. I still can't see myself actually pulling the lever for Trump, or voting for any Republicans
because Bern in Hellary, Clintons! I just want my third party option now, please, ready
or not.
$hillary milhous Clinton (if she does not walk away from the nomination process) will be remembered
as the "my turn" president who was a one term president and the last democratic party president
Are the democratic party apparatchiks so blind they can not see they could lose wholesale in
2018 and never recover ?
Actually maybe the theft of the nomination will be a good thing will expose the democratic
party and what it is today, helping push the door open for "other"(non-republican) opportunities
-The Clintonistas need Hillary. Who would hire Begala, Brazille, and Carville based on their
career outside of being attached to the 1992 election? Any prominent Democrat from the last ten
years has worn out their welcome. They need Hillary. Obama will be an ignored figure.
-Buyers remorse with Obama who ushered in the destruction of the Democratic congress and party
at the local level.
-Clinton myths. The Clintons are brilliant politicians who won in an era of GOP dominationfor
example ignoring the Democrats controlled Congress an much of the state and local governments
before Clinton ran everything into the ground.
-I dont want to limit it to Clintonistas, but Sanders despite numerous Infrastructure and financial
challenges has mounted a challenge Hillary Clinton. All the money spent on Democratic strategists
was essentially wasted. If Sanders had a little more money at the beginning this could be a very
different race, but Sanders didn't need David Brock or to pay Dick Morris $5 million. The whole
kabuki theatre of politics is at risk. Sanders much like the 50 state strategy undermine the need
for the "Democratic strategist."
A massive protest against Former First Lady Hillary R Clinton's nomination is a terrific idea!
However, remember the astonishingly low level of news coverage of the massive DC and NYC anti-invasion
protests before our wonderful Iraq adventure.
However, if first you don't succeed, try, try again!
My thoughts are already turning to logistics: Can we get enough of us there that it becomes impossible
to access the convention site?
The idea is not to get arrested by blocking access–at least not for the superdelegates, who
we want to flip to Bernie, and the masses of Bernie's elected delegates! Imagine how satisfying
it would be to hoist the superdelegates on their own petard!
I think if we start the idea now, vans and buses can be organized, places to stay, signed petitions
for those who can't attend, etc. Bernie is truly a once-in-a-lifetime candidate (certainly for
those of us who are older). I just can't see giving up without bringing all of our numbers to
bear.
I have to keep reminding people that Bernie is not The Savior and no one can save us now. Remember
that Obama was thought to be that, but he turned into another messenger of the MIC. The TBTF Empire
is doomed to dig its own grave and take the rest of the world with it. This ship is going down
and there is not the slightest "hope" for "progressive" "change" to prevent it.
Yep. There is a huge irreparable tear in the hull and the ship is no longer listing, it's gone
vertical. At this point it's a matter of trying to limit the predation of the sharks and trying
to find the last bits of humanity to appreciate like a sunrise while clinging to the side of a
raft boat.
The chance that Bernie will be the nominee is about zero. Barring an unforeseen deus ex machina
from the Justice Dept. it will be Clinton, and even given the unforeseen scenario the party brass
would be as likely to draft Biden or something similar as let Bernie win.
This seems to be an unreasonably pessimistic viewpoint. I stand behind my long held belief
that if dems want the presidency then they'd best get behind bernie because even the gods will
be unable to propel his primary opponent to victory in the general.
The question is, which do they want more, the White House or to keep the party in the hands
of their country club pals? Since the vast majority of party operatives are in the same orbit
as HRC I tend to think it's the latter. This is America after all and anyone even a smidgen to
the left of Barack Obama is considered out of bounds.
Barring the unforeseen it will be Clinton. As bad as she is she would still beat Trump in the
general and probably Cruz. The other wild card is if the GOP manages to nominate someone other
than those two, in which case HRC and the Dem party will be in trouble.
I just want them to wake up one morning and say "I'm a republican, and it's ok.". One long
term problem of lumping republicans into the evil camp has been a reluctance of some republicans
to be able to come out and be themselves for fear of ostracism. One benefit of course would be
a less harsh republican party. And are you sure she will beat trump in the general? She should
be running against trump in the republican primary. And considering the track record of the foreseen
(polls,etc ) , "barring the unforeseen" is about as likely as keeping the tide from going out.
Bernie by a length in the last furlong.
I'd love that too. Unfortunately the Democratic Party is now where former Republicans go to
continue their career. While I may consider Lincoln Chaffee largely to the left of Clinton's real
position, the fact is that neither that former Republican or Clinton and their positions are welcome
in the Grand Old Party anymore. Hell they are eating people we considered to be far right even
a decade ago for lunch. And the exiles don't seem to be willing to form the Reformed Republican
Party as long as the Clintons/DLC/Third Way/New Dems welcome them so eagerly into the Democratic
Party.
Yes, Clinton will beat Trump in the general (barring the unforeseen). He's even more widely
loathed than she is and current polling shows him with a yuuuuuge deficit to make up.
The unforeseen might include the GOP somehow nominating someone other than Trump. Cruz is also
widely despised and would probably lose to Clinton, although he might stand a slightly better
chance than Trump. A Romney/Kasich/Ryan/McCain type would be a solid favorite against her but
first the GOP has to figure out how to finesse such an outcome.
The unforeseen might also include serious allegations stemming from the e-mail investigation.
Obviously there is no way for us to know what might be in those thousands of e-mails so anything
we say here is sheer speculation, but my best guess is that Clinton will not face serious consequences
in regard to that. I wouldn't be wishing upon a star for that one if I were you, but you never
know what might happen.
Where did you get your crystal ball from? Give me some numbers why clinton will beat trump
with certainty.? At best hillary has a chance to beat trump but it certainly does not fall into
the category of likely.. Could the unforeseen be total abandonment by sanders supporters? Major
hurricanes revealing weak support structure? Market crash? oil skyrocketing to $140/bbl? As I
said the unforeseen of course will happen, and the hillary titanic will have zero maneuverability,
even now they can't take criticism. The emails may not get her indicted, but what if it just disgusts
people? Cruz/hillary_clinton. and we could get pres. stein, that would be unforeseen. You can lie, cheat,
steal, and propagandize your way to a hillary nomination and she will face a great chance of losing,
while sanders wins in almost any scenario if he can get past the upper crust of the democrat party.
Look up the popular poll aggregators - RealClearPolitics or Huffpost-Pollster - and look up
both the general election hypothetical matchups and favorability ratings of the candidates. Trump's
got a yuuuuuge problem; almost everybody has already formed an opinion about him and it's overwhelmingly
negative. Clinton's favorables are poor, too, but quite a bit better than Trump's, and she wins
all the hypothetical matchups as well.
Most Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton. The number who will not is probably not terribly
different from the number of Republicans who would rather vote for Clinton than Trump. Please
keep in mind that as disliked as Clinton is, Trump is disliked even more.
When I speak of the unforeseen I'm trying to keep to the at least minimally plausible. It's
possible that Clinton will treat Bernie so poorly at the convention that she will cause a major
schism, but she's not that stupid and I don't consider it likely. It's possible that the e-mails
contain something truly deplorable, but most politicians aren't stupid enough to put such things
in writing, and even if she did she still has the firewall of Barack Obama and Loretta Lynch.
The GOP might pull a fast one and nominate someone who could dispatch Clinton, but they have a
potential civil war problem of their own if they try that. So any of those things could happen,
but I try to keep my expectations realistic. That's just me.
"sanders wins in almost any scenario if he can get past the upper crust of the democrat party."
Yes, but one of my points all along is that the upper crust would rather lose an election than
cede any power at all to someone as left as Bernie.
Bernie still has a chance, but it's tiny. The real progress is still down the road. The tide
is turning but the interests are extremely entrenched and it's going to take some time.
The sample at our large Sanders readership says your assumption is wrong: the overwhelming
majority of Sanders voters will not vote for Clinton, particularly after the series of dirty election
tricks, with New York as a particularly appalling spectacle. They will stay home, vote for Trump,
write in Sanders, or vote for Jill Stein. And you discount the percentage that will vote Republican
to punish the Democratic party. I know, for instance, of grad of a top school who is the son of
Mexican farm workers who will vote for Trump if Sanders is not in the general. That is how deep
the antipathy for Clinton is among Sanders voters.
Bottom line is, more GOP voters say they will not vote for Trump than Dem voters say they will
not vote for Clinton. Other polling reveals basically the same thing.
I'm not sure why you are citing personal anecdotes and a blog comment section as evidence of
anything, since obviously neither are remotely representative of a large voting population.
Yes, the Clinton's are opportunists and machiavellian political operators. We've known this
for decades and so has the larger public. They're still going to vote for her over Trump, who
is more despised than she is. That's just what the polling shows I'm afraid. She's not winning
any elections here but a little blog is not the whole country.
As I've said from the start, there are still ways that it could slip away from her, but none
of them appear to be high probability. And believe me when I tell you that I take zero pleasure
in the thought of HRC as President. But one has to be realistic. I'll add, don't let what I'm
saying dissuade anybody from voting in a primary if they have the opportunity and desire to do
so, the game now would be to get as many delegates into the convention as possible as leverage
on events there, not the tiny chance that Bernie can still outright win this thing. This is an
intelligent, educated, and adult readership here that I think can handle the facts without discouragement.
Have to agree with Yves – Dems are in for a mighty shock if they believe most current Sanders
supporters will fall into line rather than sit it out:
For Sanders to even be where he is represents a major strategic error by senior Dems in not
recognizing the political reality of the public mood and not moving to squash him early; or he
is roughly where some other senior strategists wanted, perhaps unknown to Bernie i.e., Sanders
provides a good show proving democracy still 'works', that progressives voices are heard, that
the Party is open and change will come when it comes with Madame Clinton; or possibly a combo
of both, with Sanders undertaking his part with a totally unexpected degree of relish that has
infuriated Clinton. In other words, either fallibility is fully at play here, in which case a
Sanders victory is not such an unimaginable stretch – or Sanders has some important support we
don't know about.
To my mind, progressives should go for it now with as much focus, clarity of purpose and gusto
as eclipses all prior efforts. However it got here, the chance has been presented, his name is
on the ballot, and he articulates the priority of addressing 3 of the great issues of the day:
peace versus war; working stiff versus Wall Street; re-vamped social safety net. Big change is
possible when the people know what they want, and what they want is not remotely extravagant,
greedy or anything – just a decent arrangement for all.
[If electing a Republican is really Bernie's main concern, there is no reason he could not
at least run in the 40+ states where it's absolutely clear the Democratic or Republican candidate
will win, while not putting his name on the 5-10 closely contested "swing states." This could
still allow for a historic campaign if linked to building a new party for the 99% and laying the
foundation for an ongoing mass political movement to run hundreds of left candidates for all levels
of government, independent of corporate cash.]
This would work. I don't care about the D party so someone else could list the drawbacks. It
satisfies Sanders position of protecting Clinton but the movement continues. How does he turn
it down?
I wonder why the Sanders campaign doesn't bring up the fact that in '08, Obama lost NY to Hillary
Clinton by a wider margin than Sanders just did. (Leaving aside the, ahem, "voting issues"). And
that at this same point in the race, Obama had fewer delegates than Sanders does right now. Also,
in the end, it was the super-delegates switching their votes at the convention that won Obama
the nomination.
It's obvious why the media won't reminisce about the '08 election, but why won't Sanders bring
it up?
Sanders remains focused on the issues. Maybe he is right. Talking about the many election irregularity
issues would immediately dissipate the focus, energy and educating functions of his key messages.
The media blackout continues, so people are only learning more about him shortly before each primary/caucus.
If the conversation were to shift to disputes about the tempting election irregularities–horrific
as they are–the clarity of what he stands for would be lost.
"... Reaganites showed the way. However, "Clintonites," the Clintons themselves and other "new" Democrats, put the Reaganite vision into practice. ..."
"... In America these days, Reaganites think of it, Clintonites do it. Rank and file Republicans, insofar as they think at all, believe in it; rank and file Democrats don't like it, but let it happen. ..."
"... Were the United States more of a (small-d) democracy, that would be the end of the story – and of the Clintons. But there is almost nothing democratic about American politics. It therefore looks like the neoliberal era will be hanging on for a while longer, an unloved encumbrance to human progress and wellbeing. ..."
"... And, as the global hegemon goes, so go the countries it dominates. For the time being, the change so many yearn for is not quite at hand. Even so, there are reasons to hope: American politics is changing – in ways that could, before long, cause the neoliberal world order to fall. ..."
"... Thanks to Trump, there is another wrinkle to add onto the Hegelian story: that Reason has a sense of humor. Hegel had men like Julius Caesar and Napoleon in mind. But the latest world historical figure, the Donald, is the very antithesis of figures like that: he is an over the top real estate tycoon, reality TV star, and all-around buffoon. ..."
"... Hegel thought that opposites are integrally related. Democrats and Republicans certainly are. It is hardly surprising, therefore that the Democratic Party may also be on the brink of becoming undone or, failing that, of changing beyond recognition. ..."
"... This might seem unlikely now that Hillary Clinton's victory over Bernie Sanders is practically assured. But the Sanders campaign, whatever becomes of it, introduced a destabilizing element into American politics. The Democratic Party may not yet be on the brink of destruction, but there is no telling what Reason has in store. ..."
"... It was enough for me that the twenty-first century versions of New Deal-Great Society liberalism that the two of them had in mind is better by far than anything we Americans, with our bought and paid for pro-business political parties and our servile corporate media, had any right to expect. My beef with Bernie was just that he was too Clinton-friendly. No doubt, Warren is as well. ..."
"... ANDREW LEVINE is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). ..."
Think of Republicans and despair for the human race. Even
the ones who otherwise seem morally and intellectually
sound champion political views straight out of Morons
R'Us.
However, Democrats are worse - not morally or
intellectually, of course; and neither are their views
worse. But within the matrix of our semi-established two
party system, Democrats do the most harm.
The Democratic Party is, by default, the political
voice of organized labor and of social movements that
fight for racial and gender equality, environmental
sanity, and other worthy causes. Democrats can therefore
do what Republicans cannot: integrate the victims of the
status quo into a political consensus that serves and
protects those who benefit most from it – the "one
percent," the "billionaire class." They are good at this.
The generally accepted name for the socially atomizing,
inequality-generating, environmentally reckless version of
late capitalism practiced and promoted in developed
countries over the past four decades is "neoliberalism."
For most Americans, as for most people around the world,
neoliberalism has become Enemy Number One.
Republicans support neoliberal policies and practices
more fervently than Democrats do. But, for putting them
into practice, Democrats leave Republicans standing in the
dust.
The American version of neoliberal theory and practice
was concocted by Republicans and others who flocked into
the Reagan administration decades ago; call them
"Reaganites."
The villainous old Gipper, Ronald Reagan, had little to
do with it himself; he was never much of a thinker or
visionary or policy wonk. But, in the United States, the
name has stuck. It applies not only to neoliberals of the
Reagan era, but to their successors as well.
Reaganites showed the way. However, "Clintonites," the
Clintons themselves and other "new" Democrats, put the
Reaganite vision into practice.
In America these days, Reaganites think of it,
Clintonites do it. Rank and file Republicans, insofar as
they think at all, believe in it; rank and file Democrats
don't like it, but let it happen.
By now, though, nearly everyone who does not benefit
egregiously from the neoliberal world order is fed up with
its consequences. In public opinion, the
Reaganite-Clintonite era has run its course.
Were the United States more of a (small-d) democracy,
that would be the end of the story – and of the Clintons.
But there is almost nothing democratic about American
politics. It therefore looks like the neoliberal era will
be hanging on for a while longer, an unloved encumbrance
to human progress and wellbeing.
And, as the global hegemon goes, so go the countries it
dominates. For the time being, the change so many yearn
for is not quite at hand.
Even so, there are reasons to hope: American politics
is changing – in ways that could, before long, cause the
neoliberal world order to fall.
The Republican Party is destroying itself. This has
been in the works for a long time, but the Trump
phenomenon has pushed the process along, and changed its
nature.
A facetious later-day Hegelian might say of this that
the Cunning of Reason is at work.
Hegel thought that History becomes increasingly
rational and therefore intelligible through the deeds of
world historical figures, great men (always men) acting
out their passions and interests. He insisted, however,
that this only becomes apparent in retrospect. In this
case, Reason's cunning is on display even as events
unfold.
Thanks to Trump, there is another wrinkle to add onto
the Hegelian story: that Reason has a sense of humor.
Hegel had men like Julius Caesar and Napoleon in mind.
But the latest world historical figure, the Donald, is the
very antithesis of figures like that: he is an over the
top real estate tycoon, reality TV star, and all-around
buffoon.
Hegel thought that opposites are integrally related.
Democrats and Republicans certainly are. It is hardly
surprising, therefore that the Democratic Party may also
be on the brink of becoming undone or, failing that, of
changing beyond recognition.
This might seem unlikely now that Hillary Clinton's
victory over Bernie Sanders is practically assured. But
the Sanders campaign, whatever becomes of it, introduced a
destabilizing element into American politics. The
Democratic Party may not yet be on the brink of
destruction, but there is no telling what Reason has in
store.
Were the Democratic Party to vanish from the face of
the earth, it would certainly not be missed, except by
deluded liberals who think, for example, that Hillary is
one of the good guys, and that her "experience" – as an
official wife, a feckless Senator, and the worst Secretary
of State in modern times – has taught her how to get
worthwhile things done.
Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the
contrary, there are people who believe that, alarmingly
many of them. Democrats buy snake oil at Morons R'Us too.
Enter Bernie
At first, Elizabeth Warren was the Great Progressive
Hope. She had one obvious advantage over Bernie: Team
Hillary couldn't play the gender card against her. But she
said she wouldn't run, and she meant it.
Sanders therefore came to occupy the space that might
otherwise have been hers.
It was plain to progressives of nearly all stripes,
from Day One, that, if nothing else, Sanders' candidacy
would help reintroduce "socialism" - the word, if not the
idea – back into the American lexicon. This couldn't hurt,
and might actually do some good. A Warren candidacy would
not have had the same effect.
Otherwise, between Warren and Sanders, it was, as far
as anyone could tell, a wash.
One argument against Bernie was that his campaign would
redound ultimately to the benefit of Hillary's because it
would keep progressive voters on board long enough for
them to be coopted into the Clintonized Democratic Party's
mainstream. Another was that, on all but economic matters,
his views were standard Democratic Party fare. The same
arguments would likely have been deployed against Warren,
had she decided to run.
I, for one, didn't much care. It was enough for me that
the twenty-first century versions of New Deal-Great
Society liberalism that the two of them had in mind is
better by far than anything we Americans, with our bought
and paid for pro-business political parties and our
servile corporate media, had any right to expect. My beef with Bernie was just that he was too
Clinton-friendly. No doubt, Warren is as well.
Nevertheless, I decided long ago that, if Bernie was
still in the running by the time I had a chance to vote in
the primaries, that I would vote for him – if only because
a vote for Bernie would be a reasonably principled and
effective way to protest the coronation of Clintonism's
(neoliberalism's) reigning Queen.
Earlier this week, I made good on that decision. My
state, Maryland, disgraced itself more fulsomely than the
others voting that day - except Rhode Island. But even
before last Tuesday, a Sanders victory was very nearly a
mathematical impossibility.
For a few months, though, it did seem that a vote for
Bernie could be more than just a protest vote; that he
could win the nomination and therefore the presidency.
And it still seems that the "huge" crowds coming to
Bernie's rallies and feeling the Bern are part of
something a lot bigger. The differences from the Occupy
movements of 201l are significant, but the vibe is much
the same.
Oddly, leftists were less skeptical of Occupy Wall
Street and its clones than of the Sanders campaign,
especially at first. I certainly was.
This was odd because Occupy lacked a political focus –
electoral or otherwise. One didn't have to be a committed
Leninist to understand that this made it more than usually
difficult for Occupy militants to figure out what to do
next.
It was also plain that, without a more defined
political orientation, the Occupy movements would be
easily swept aside when the Forces of Order decided that
the time to repress them had come, and when the campaign
to reelect Barack Obama started sucking up all the air.
And so it was that Occupy burned out shortly after it
got started.
Even so, it seemed, at the time, that Occupy's bottom
up structure and disregard of electoral politics was its
strength. Also, the movement awakened a long dormant
spirit of resistance - in much the way that Black Lives
Matter now does.
Therefore, it wasn't so strange, after all, that
Occupy's flaws didn't seem quite as objectionable as the
shortcomings of the Sanders campaign did in the days
before it became clear that Bernie was on to something.
Unlike Occupy Wall Street, the Sanders campaign does
have a focus and a structure; it is, and could only be, a
top-down electoral campaign of the familiar kind. This is
its weakness, of course. But it is also what has enabled
it to reach more people and to change consciousness more
profoundly than the Occupy movements ever could.
Much the same could be said for Sanders' decision to
run as a Democrat. Technically, he had always been an
Independent. He was, however, an Independent who caucused
with the Democrats in the House and Senate, and who
generally voted the way a Democrat would. His change in
party affiliation was therefore of little substantive
consequence.
However, it was consequential strategically. Had Bernie
run as an Independent, he would not have been included in
debates, and he would be even more ignored by corporate
media than he has been. Also, he would have had to waste
money, time and effort just gaining ballot access.
Running as an Independent, he would almost certainly
end up doing even less well than Ralph Nader did, running
on the Green Party ticket sixteen years ago. Nader won a
whopping 2.74% of the popular vote.
On the down side, though, by running as a Democrat,
Sanders is strengthening the Democratic Party. And were he
actually to win the nomination, he would have no choice
but to cede at least some power over his campaign to that
wretched party's leaders. They would also demand a role in
his administration.
Sanders' decision to run as a Democrat may not quite
rise to the level of a Faustian bargain; he has not had to
sell his soul – not yet, anyway. But it comes close.
At the same time, by running as a Democrat, Sanders has
done a lot of good. He has shown that it is possible to
finance a Presidential campaign without relying on "the
billionaire class" or Super PACs, or nefarious lobbyists.
And he has moved the center of gravity in the Democratic
Party to the left.
Thanks to the Sanders campaign, even Hillary is now
talking the talk. Of course, in her case, it is only talk;
when there is no longer anything in it for her, she will
revert back to form. But, in politics, even insincere and
opportunistic words can have beneficial consequences in
both the short and long term.
Pundits used to say that the Sanders campaign was
doomed to fail; now that it has very nearly done so, they
are saying it again. This seems right; the institutional
Democratic Party and the corporate media that supports it
defeated Sanders, just as everyone expected they would.
But failure was not inevitable. Were it not for New
York State's election rules, which disenfranchised large
numbers of potential Sanders voters, and for the
Democratic Party machines that the Clintons concocted or
took over during the past decade and a half, Sanders might
have been able to sustain the momentum he brought into the
New York primary by winning there. He would then have been
well positioned to give the Clinton juggernaut a run for
its money in the "Acela primaries" and in the others to
come.
Hillary was never the inevitable nominee, just the most
likely one. Unfortunately, this time, the facts bore the
probabilities out.
In the end, though, her victory may be a blessing in
disguise. For reasons I will mention presently, the
Democratic nominee this year has always been sure to
prevail against Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. But, barring a
successful and profound "political revolution," he or she
would then have as hard a time governing as Obama has had.
In Obama's case, racism made the problem worse. But
Republican obstinacy will not go away just because the
color of the Democrat in the White House next year will be
white.
Republicans went after Obama mainly on domestic
matters; they were fine with his drones and "targeted
killings," his deportations, his war on whistle-blowers
and his assaults on privacy rights.
We can expect Republicans to thwart Hillary at every
turn too, except perhaps when she warmongers and otherwise
promotes Obama-style murder and mayhem. Even more than was
the case under Obama, we should be grateful that she will
seldom get her way: being clueless and inept, she has a
knack for making everything she works on worse.
Indeed, before long, even Obama will be looking good.
Expect too that, as the consequences of Hillary's
blundering unfold, many current Hillary supporters will
wise up and turn on her in much the way that LBJ's
supporters turned on him half a century ago.
We will never know for sure how a President Sanders
would fare. On the one hand, the man is a straight
shooter; even Republicans can respect him for that. But
capitalists who feel their power and privileges threatened
fight back viciously. Because they own almost the entire
political class, a "democratic socialist" who means what
he says would not be likely to be cut much slack.
Sanders is faulted for being an "idealist" and a
"dreamer." This is nonsense; what he proposes – retrieving
and then building upon progress made in the middle decades
of the last century - is eminently doable, provided there
is the political will. Countries less wealthy than ours do
similar things all the time.
But finding the political will would not be easy.
Republicans would be an obstacle, of course; but Democrats
would be a problem too.
Even if his candidacy would generate enough excitement
and voter turnout for Democrats to win control of the
Senate and the House, as happened when Obama ran in 2008,
Congress would still be in the hands of base and servile
flunkies who toe the line for their corporate paymasters.
The Democratic Congress Obama contended with during his
first two years in office is a case in point.
Let Hillary deal with problems like that. Bernie can
serve the people better in other ways.
Who's Afraid of Donald Trump?
High on the list of nonsensical things that foolish
liberals believe is the idea that because Hillary is a
"centrist," she is more electable than anyone further to
her left.
This belief is like the old notion that after a heart
attack or major surgery, patients should have complete bed
rest as they recover. This seems commonsensical, but the
idea is demonstrably false.
In this case, though, it is clear as can be that
Hillary is going to shellac Trump (or Cruz) in November.
Sanders would do the same – in all likelihood by a larger
margin.
Even a people capable of venerating Ronald Reagan and
reelecting George W. Bush in 2004, after it had become
plain to anyone with half a brain how devastating his war
against Iraq already was, would not put their country –
and its nuclear weapons – in Trump's (tiny) hands. The
Donald cannot win – no way.
To be sure, there is a fair chance that Trump is not
nearly the racist, nativist and Islamophobe that he
pretends to be. He played that part on TV, though; and he
won't be able to live it down.
America is not yet a majority-minority nation - but it
is getting there, demographically and in spirit. Therefore
anyone nowadays whose public persona resembles that of,
say, George Wallace
circa
1971 cannot win an
election that is not confined, as Republican primaries
mostly are, to out of sorts white people.
Moreover, if Trump is the Republican nominee, he will
not only have to contend with the Clintons and their
hapless minions; he will have the Republican Party, what's
left of it, against him as well.
The swords are already drawn. The Old Guard is
mobilized against Trump because he threatens their hold
over their Grand Old Party. Libertarians, theocrats and
other self-described "conservatives" are against him too -
because they realize that, despite his bluster, he is
emphatically not one of them.
It is likely, in fact, that Trump would run to
Hillary's left on most issues – trade, foreign affairs,
infrastructure development, jobs programs, holding Wall
Street banksters and other corporate criminals
accountable, and so on.
Nevertheless, liberals say that, like her or not,
Hillary is the lesser evil; and conclude, on that account,
that she merits their support.
There is no point now in going back over the case
against lesser evil voting, except to note that one of the
timeworn arguments – that it is not always clear who the
lesser evil is - is especially relevant in a Clinton vs.
Trump matchup.
But, in this instance, lesser evil considerations are
moot: Trump cannot win in November, period, full stop.
There is polling data that suggests that Bernie would
have done a lot better than he did in recent primaries
were voters more confident that a Democrat, any Democrat,
would trounce Trump (or Cruz).
In the years to come, as the horror that is Hillary
becomes apparent even to those who are now somehow able to
enthuse over her candidacy, we will all have cause to
regret that debilitating imperviousness to evidence that
afflicts Republicans and Democrats alike.
Whither Bernie?
Jesse Jackson folded the Rainbow Coalition into the
Democratic Party after the 1988 primary season. Because he
wanted to be a player, he squandered an enormous
opportunity.
If Bernie follows suit, it will nullify much of the
good his campaign has done.
Sanders seems less cooptable than Jackson.
Nevertheless, every indication so far is that he will
follow Jackson's lead.
That it could come to this has been the great fear all
along, and the main reason for faulting Sanders for
running as a Democrat. Containing progressive uprisings is
what Democrats do.
In principle, what got going under the aegis of the
Sanders campaign could survive and even flourish without
him. There is no denying, though, that, in the short run,
it will help mightily if Bernie stays on board.
For that to happen, he will have to become more like
Donald Trump. Liberal pundits and
faux
progressives are already busily telling one and all that
this would not please them one bit. No surprise there!
When Republican grandees treat the Donald badly, as
they have been doing relentlessly from the moment that it
became clear that his campaign was more than just a joke,
he has fought back with verbal retorts designed to cut
them down - supplemented with barely concealed calls for
violence.
Behind his words, however, there is, as everybody
knows, the threat of exit. Trump could bolt, taking large
swathes of the Republican base with him.
The institutional Democratic Party has treated Sanders
badly too, notwithstanding their fear that, if they go too
far, his supporters will also bolt, regardless what
Sanders tells them or what he himself chooses to do.
They want to keep as many Sanders backers on board as
they can, not because they are afraid that Trump will win
in November - that isn't going to happen – but for the
sake of down ticket Democrats. To have any chance of
taking over the Senate, the House and vulnerable State
Houses, they know that they will need to keep the people
feeling the Bern active and enthused.
Their thoroughly justifiable fear is that, without
Bernie, most of them will just sit the election out.
There is no obvious way to prevent this. With Hillary
at the head of the ticket, the temptations of quiescence
are too strong not to prevail.
But all is not lost; not by any means. It may be
impossible now for Americans opposed to neoliberalism to
elect a President who is not part of the problem; but,
thanks to the Sanders campaign, there has never been a
more propitious moment for doing something even more
worthwhile – changing the face of American politics by
building a genuinely leftwing political party.
This is why the first order of business now must be to
convince Bernie to join with those of us who would swim
through vomit before voting for any Clintonite, much less
the exceptionally inept and very dangerous "Madam
Secretary."
This won't be easy. Bernie is too nice. It doesn't help
either that liberal pundits back the Democratic Party, as
we know it, a thousand percent.
Even so, many Sanders supporters are sure to find their
way to the Greens - voting, as I probably will yet again,
for Jill Stein.
On economic matters and other domestic issues, Stein
offers essentially what Sanders does; on foreign affairs,
she offers a lot of what anti-imperialists don't like
about Sanders' views.
With these considerations in mind – and with a
Democratic victory in the Presidential contest assured – a
vote for Stein ought to be a no brainer for the vast
majority of Sandersnistas, especially those who live in
the forty or so states whose electoral votes might as well
have been assigned four years ago.
But the Greens have been going nowhere for as long as
anyone can remember, and they are not even good for
drawing protest votes. In 2012, when I would tell
people, including some who follow election news closely,
that I voted for Jill Stein, the response I would often
get is: "Jill who?" This year is looking no different.
Nevertheless, thanks to decades of perseverance, the
Greens do have ballot status in more states than any other
"third party." It is theoretically possible for them to
assemble enough Electoral College votes actually to elect
a President.
But their candidates are frozen out of media coverage.
The media's malign neglect of Sanders turned out to be not
quite fatal, because, by challenging Clinton so
successfully, his campaign was undeniably newsworthy; and
because, running as a Democrat, he couldn't be entirely
ignored. Stein can and will be ignored; diluting the value
even of the protest votes she receives.
However, were she and Bernie to join together, neither
would stand a chance of being elected President, but the
Greens would become a force to be reckoned with. This idea
is one of many being floated (
link:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/21/the-undemocratic-primary-why-we-need-a-new-party-of-the-99/
).
It is far from clear, though, that Bernie has the will, or
that the Greens have the means, to make it happen.
Now is therefore a time to be thinking hard and fast
about what is to be done.
It is also a time to be thinking about how a genuinely
leftwing party could win over Democratic politicians whose
hearts are in the right place, but who, for the time
being, have no choice but to make common cause with
Clintonites. There are only a few brave souls like that at
the national level; at the state and local levels, there
are many more.
Predictably, though, calls for party unity are already
become deafening. They should be rebutted whenever
possible, and otherwise ignored.
If the party the Clintons did so much to move to the
right is harmed by defections, so much the better.
There are Democrats who do good work at the local and
even the state level; at the national level, the good ones
could probably all fit, as they say, in one taxi, with
room left over for luggage.
Arguably, the rest do some good just by being there -
keeping Republicans at bay. That consideration aside,
today's Democratic Party is good for nothing at all - at
the national level and, with a few exceptions, further
down the line.
The GOP is a wreck. This is outstanding news. A
similarly damaged Democratic Party would be an enormously
salutary development too, an achievement of truly historic
importance.
ANDREW LEVINE
is a Senior Scholar at
the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently
of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and
POLITICAL
KEY WORDS
(Blackwell) as well as of many other books
and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book
is
In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People
.
He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at
the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a
contributor to
Hopeless:
Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion
(AK Press).
"... The Democratic Party has not been a total slouch, offering policies friendly to health-care executives, entertainment moguls, and tech titans. In fact, financial support for Democrats among the 1 percent of the 1 percent has risen dramatically , more than trebling since 1980. ..."
"... It's not dispassionate analysis that causes Chuck Schumer to waffle on the carried-interest tax loophole, Hillary Clinton to argue for raising the cap on H-1B visas, or Maria Cantwell to rally support for the Export-Import Bank. The more rich people that a party attracts, the more that the party must do to stay attractive. ..."
"... In a world of Trump_vs_deep_state and Clintonism, Democrats would become the party of globalist-minded elites, both economic and cultural, ..."
"... Erstwhile neocons would go over to Democrats (as they are already promising to do), while doves and isolationists would stick with Republicans. Democrats would remain culturally liberal, while Republicans would remain culturally conservative. ..."
The Democratic Party has not been a total slouch, offering policies friendly to health-care executives,
entertainment moguls, and tech titans. In fact, financial support for Democrats among the 1 percent
of the 1 percent
has risen dramatically, more than trebling since 1980. Traditionally, though, the Republican
Party has been seen as the better friend to the wealthy, offering lower taxes, fewer business regulations,
generous defense contracts, increased global trade, high immigration, and resistance to organized
labor. It's been the buddy of homebuilders, oil barons, defense contractors, and other influential
business leaders.
Trump_vs_deep_state changes the equation. If homebuilders face workplace crackdowns on illegal hiring, their
costs go up. If defense contractors see a reduced U.S. military presence in Asia and Europe, their
income goes down. If companies that rely on outsourcing or on intellectual property rights see their
business model upended by discontinued trade agreements, they face a crisis. Sure, many rich people
hate Obamacare, but how big a deal is it compared to other things they want: more immigration, sustained
and expanding trade, continued defense commitments? Clintonism, by comparison, starts to look much
more appealing.
All good, say some Democrats. The more people that Trump_vs_deep_state scares away, the broader and more
powerful the liberal-left coalition will be. But nobody offers their support without expecting something
in return. It's not dispassionate analysis that causes Chuck Schumer to waffle on the carried-interest
tax loophole, Hillary Clinton to argue for raising the cap on H-1B visas, or Maria Cantwell to rally
support for the Export-Import Bank. The more rich people that a party attracts, the more that the
party must do to stay attractive.
In a world of Trump_vs_deep_state and Clintonism, Democrats would become the party of globalist-minded elites,
both economic and cultural, while Republicans would become the party of the working class. Democrats
would win backing from those who support expanded trade and immigration, while Republicans would
win the support of those who prefer less of both. Erstwhile neocons would go over to Democrats (as
they are
already promising to do), while doves and isolationists would stick with Republicans. Democrats
would remain culturally liberal, while Republicans would remain culturally conservative.
The combination of super-rich Democrats and poor Democrats would exacerbate internal party tensions,
but the party would probably resort to forms of appeasement that are already in use. To their rich
constituents, Democrats offer more trade, more immigration, and general globalism. To their non-rich
constituents, they offer the promise of social justice, which critics might call identity politics.
That's one reason why Democrats have devoted so much attention to issues such as transgender rights,
sexual assault on campus, racial disparities in criminal justice, and immigration reform. The causes
may be worthy-and they attract sincere advocates-but politically they're also useful. They don't
bother rich people.
"... The Democratic Party has not been a total slouch, offering policies friendly to health-care executives, entertainment moguls, and tech titans. In fact, financial support for Democrats among the 1 percent of the 1 percent has risen dramatically , more than trebling since 1980. ..."
"... It's not dispassionate analysis that causes Chuck Schumer to waffle on the carried-interest tax loophole, Hillary Clinton to argue for raising the cap on H-1B visas, or Maria Cantwell to rally support for the Export-Import Bank. The more rich people that a party attracts, the more that the party must do to stay attractive. ..."
"... In a world of Trump_vs_deep_state and Clintonism, Democrats would become the party of globalist-minded elites, both economic and cultural, ..."
"... Erstwhile neocons would go over to Democrats (as they are already promising to do), while doves and isolationists would stick with Republicans. Democrats would remain culturally liberal, while Republicans would remain culturally conservative. ..."
The Democratic Party has not been a total slouch, offering policies friendly to health-care executives,
entertainment moguls, and tech titans. In fact, financial support for Democrats among the 1 percent
of the 1 percent
has risen dramatically, more than trebling since 1980. Traditionally, though, the Republican
Party has been seen as the better friend to the wealthy, offering lower taxes, fewer business regulations,
generous defense contracts, increased global trade, high immigration, and resistance to organized
labor. It's been the buddy of homebuilders, oil barons, defense contractors, and other influential
business leaders.
Trump_vs_deep_state changes the equation. If homebuilders face workplace crackdowns on illegal hiring, their
costs go up. If defense contractors see a reduced U.S. military presence in Asia and Europe, their
income goes down. If companies that rely on outsourcing or on intellectual property rights see their
business model upended by discontinued trade agreements, they face a crisis. Sure, many rich people
hate Obamacare, but how big a deal is it compared to other things they want: more immigration, sustained
and expanding trade, continued defense commitments? Clintonism, by comparison, starts to look much
more appealing.
All good, say some Democrats. The more people that Trump_vs_deep_state scares away, the broader and more
powerful the liberal-left coalition will be. But nobody offers their support without expecting something
in return. It's not dispassionate analysis that causes Chuck Schumer to waffle on the carried-interest
tax loophole, Hillary Clinton to argue for raising the cap on H-1B visas, or Maria Cantwell to rally
support for the Export-Import Bank. The more rich people that a party attracts, the more that the
party must do to stay attractive.
In a world of Trump_vs_deep_state and Clintonism, Democrats would become the party of globalist-minded elites,
both economic and cultural, while Republicans would become the party of the working class. Democrats
would win backing from those who support expanded trade and immigration, while Republicans would
win the support of those who prefer less of both. Erstwhile neocons would go over to Democrats (as
they are
already promising to do), while doves and isolationists would stick with Republicans. Democrats
would remain culturally liberal, while Republicans would remain culturally conservative.
The combination of super-rich Democrats and poor Democrats would exacerbate internal party tensions,
but the party would probably resort to forms of appeasement that are already in use. To their rich
constituents, Democrats offer more trade, more immigration, and general globalism. To their non-rich
constituents, they offer the promise of social justice, which critics might call identity politics.
That's one reason why Democrats have devoted so much attention to issues such as transgender rights,
sexual assault on campus, racial disparities in criminal justice, and immigration reform. The causes
may be worthy-and they attract sincere advocates-but politically they're also useful. They don't
bother rich people.
So Bernie is the poorest of all candidates, but Rick Newman stresses that his
Tax rate is lower then the rest. But how you can compare 27 million with 200K in
annual income. Those are different weight categories and it would be travesty of
justice is Clinton paid less. In any case selling Demoicratic Party to
Wall Street pays well. Much like in case of
Judas Iscariot
Bill Clinton got his
thirty silver coins (aka millions in annual income) for betrayal of the
Roosevelt's New Deal.
Notable quotes:
"... Hillary Clinton speeches: $10.5 million ..."
"... Bill Clinton speeches: $9.7 million ..."
"... Ted and Heidi Cruz are wealthy, though not in the neighborhood of the Trumps or Clintons. The couple earned $1.2 million in 2014, when Heidi Cruz was still working as a Goldman Sachs money manager. ..."
Here are the
2014 income and tax numbers for four of the five
presidential candidates (Donald Trump hasn't released
his returns). All of these figures are for husband and
wife filing jointly:
Source: Candidate web sites, IRS. Note: National
averages are preliminary data for 2014.
Here's
a breakdown of the Clintons' gross income, not counting deductions, in 2014:
Hillary Clinton speeches: $10.5 million
Bill Clinton speeches: $9.7 million
Bill Clinton consulting: $6.4 million
Hillary Clinton book royalties: $5.6 million
Various adjustments bring the Clintons' total AGI lower, and then there
are nearly $5.2 million in itemized deductions. Those deductions include
$2.8 million for state and local income taxes, $104,000 in real-estate taxes
and $42,000 in mortgage interest – the amount of annual interest you might
pay on a $1 million mortgage.
The couple also donated $3 million to the Clinton Foundation, which is a
nonprofit, so the gift counts as a charitable donation. Because of a limit
on the value of deductions they could claim, the Clintons' exemptions topped
out just under $5.2 million.
... ... ...
Ted and Heidi Cruz are wealthy, though not in the neighborhood of the
Trumps or Clintons. The couple earned $1.2 million in 2014, when Heidi Cruz
was still working as a Goldman Sachs money manager. She took leave
starting last year, while her husband was campaigning, so the family's
income will probably be lower for 2015. The couple paid the highest
effective tax rate of any presidential candidate, at 36.7%, because their
amount of itemized deductions were relatively small. With only two pages
from the return, it's hard to tell why there weren't more deductions.
So Bernie is the poorest of all candidates, but Rick Newman stresses that his
Tax rate is lower then the rest. But how you can compare 27 million with 200K in
annual income. Those are different weight categories and it would be travesty of
justice is Clinton paid less. In any case selling Demoicratic Party to
Wall Street pays well. Much like in case of
Judas Iscariot
Bill Clinton got his
thirty silver coins (aka millions in annual income) for betrayal of the
Roosevelt's New Deal.
Notable quotes:
"... Hillary Clinton speeches: $10.5 million ..."
"... Bill Clinton speeches: $9.7 million ..."
"... Ted and Heidi Cruz are wealthy, though not in the neighborhood of the Trumps or Clintons. The couple earned $1.2 million in 2014, when Heidi Cruz was still working as a Goldman Sachs money manager. ..."
Here are the
2014 income and tax numbers for four of the five
presidential candidates (Donald Trump hasn't released
his returns). All of these figures are for husband and
wife filing jointly:
Source: Candidate web sites, IRS. Note: National
averages are preliminary data for 2014.
Here's
a breakdown of the Clintons' gross income, not counting deductions, in 2014:
Hillary Clinton speeches: $10.5 million
Bill Clinton speeches: $9.7 million
Bill Clinton consulting: $6.4 million
Hillary Clinton book royalties: $5.6 million
Various adjustments bring the Clintons' total AGI lower, and then there
are nearly $5.2 million in itemized deductions. Those deductions include
$2.8 million for state and local income taxes, $104,000 in real-estate taxes
and $42,000 in mortgage interest – the amount of annual interest you might
pay on a $1 million mortgage.
The couple also donated $3 million to the Clinton Foundation, which is a
nonprofit, so the gift counts as a charitable donation. Because of a limit
on the value of deductions they could claim, the Clintons' exemptions topped
out just under $5.2 million.
... ... ...
Ted and Heidi Cruz are wealthy, though not in the neighborhood of the
Trumps or Clintons. The couple earned $1.2 million in 2014, when Heidi Cruz
was still working as a Goldman Sachs money manager. She took leave
starting last year, while her husband was campaigning, so the family's
income will probably be lower for 2015. The couple paid the highest
effective tax rate of any presidential candidate, at 36.7%, because their
amount of itemized deductions were relatively small. With only two pages
from the return, it's hard to tell why there weren't more deductions.
A question to Senator Lindsey Graham by "The Daily Show's" Trevor Noah asking why he endorsed Cruz
for the Republican Presidential candidate over Trump. Earlier, Noah ran a clip of Graham stating
it was a choice between getting shot or being poisoned and the reasoning for the choice of Cruz was
there may be "an antidote." What a lackluster answer and field of Republican candidates for the Presidency.
The last seven years of this administration's congressional support has been rife with actions by
Republicans to obstruct any action by this President. After all of the obstructionism, the electorate
has had enough and has chosen some who may not be favored by the establishment.
Senator Elizabeth Warren delivered a message to her fellow Republican Senators as detailed in
The Boston Globe,
"Do Your Job." The Senator chastises the Republican members of the Senate for seven years of
blocking anything to come before them as sponsored by President Obama (If you can not get into The
Boston Globe to read her message, you may want to try
Common Dreams.)
"through artificial debt ceiling crises, deliberate government shutdowns, and intentional confirmation
blockades, Senate Republicans have acted as though the election and reelection of Obama relieved
them of any responsibility to do their jobs. Senate Republicans embraced the idea that government
shouldn't work at all unless it works only for themselves and their friends. The campaigns of
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are the next logical outgrowth of the same attitude - if you can't get
what you want, just ignore the obligations of governing, then divert attention and responsibility
by wallowing in a toxic stew of attacks on Muslims, women, Latinos, and each other."
The most current crisis started in 2013 where the Republican Senate has stalled the process of
judicial appointments to the higher courts enough so, it forced the then in majority Democrats to
change the rules of filibuster in order to move along 3 appointments to the COA. Do not forget Senator
McConnell's pledge to make Barack Obama a one term president and the meeting after President Obama's
first election by key Republicans to block every move made by the then fledgling President. In 2015,
the Republicans gained control of the Senate and judicial appointments have ground to a halt. And
the same is occurring with Barack Obama's appointment of Merrick Garland.
March 13, 1912, President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John
Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911.
President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916; January 28, 1916 Wilson
nominated Louis Brandeis to replace Joseph Rucker Lamar, who died on January 2, 1916; the Democratic-controlled
Senate confirmed Brandeis on June 1, 1916 and John Clarke was confirmed 10 days after being nominated
on July 14, 1916 after Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court to run (unsuccessfully) for
president.
On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler,
who died on November 16, 1939.
On November 30, 1987, Republican President Ronald Reagan nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy
to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Lewis Powell and was confirmed by a Democrat
controlled Senate.
On September 7, 1956, Sherman Minton announced his intent to retire to President Dwight D.
Eisenhower and he served until October 15, 1956. With the Senate already adjourned, Eisenhower
made a recess appointment of William J. Brennan to the Court shortly thereafter; Brennan was formally
nominated to the Court and confirmed in 1957.
It should not have to be a choice between a bullet or poison; but, the Republicans have spread
so much of their conniving obstructionism with the sabotage of anything in Government today, it has
left the people in anger, angry at a Congress which does not do the job to which it is elected. They
will pick the poison over the gun shot to get things moving again.
Second, most of the complaints that Bernie has are that media, not the Clintons, are giving him a
good going over. In a way, this is a compliment since six months ago they were ignoring him and they
are now are treating him serious candidate who may become President in January. (Of course I wish
they would give Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and Paul Ryan the same treatment.)
PK's column was hard on Bernie and Bernie's campaign ("losing its ethical moorings"), but he was
writing it as a political columnist who wants a Democrat elected President in November and was criticizing
Bernie and his gang for recycling right memes against Clinton.
Finally, if Bernie does win upsets in the next few states, he is going to want Clinton supporters,
particularly women and minorities to come out and vote for him. Calling a woman "unqualified to be
President" and trashing President Obama's tenure in office as a "sell out" to the Banks and that
the Affordable Care Act is as bad as the Republicans say it is.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/obamacare-embarrasses-right.html
Finally, the Green Lanternism of Jeffrey Sachs and all the other Bernie supporters is really astounding.
Somehow electing just the right person as President will cause Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and the
Koch Brothers to run up the white flag and say we will do whatever you ask. Gobsmacking.
Reply
Friday, April 08, 2016 at 10:11 AM
Peter said in reply to sherparick...
"Somehow electing just the right
person as President will cause Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and the Koch Brothers to run up
the white flag and say we will do whatever you ask. Gobsmacking."
Nobody is saying that.
Sanders's campaign is based on the idea that we need a political revolution.
Reply
Friday, April 08, 2016 at 10:23
AM
Reg
said in reply to sherparick...
"Somehow electing just the right
person as President will cause Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and the Koch Brothers to run up
the white flag and say we will do whatever you ask. Gobsmacking."
Actually that's Hillary's
line. "Getting things done" because "experience." Sanders is very clear that electing a new
face to the Oval Office isn't going to cut it. Thus his "political revolution" - which means
that Democrats need to get off their duffs in ways we have yet to see. And that's after Obama's
"social movement" strategy - which disappeared as an independent force once he made it safely
into the White House. OFA was neutered and folded into the party establishment. And lost any
steam it might have had while the Tea Party took over the "activist" space. Big mistake. Bernie
won't let that happen to his network, even assuming he doesn't get the nomination. Sanders
has a vision and a strategy, Hillary has a personal ambition.
Reply
Friday, April 08, 2016 at 10:35
AM
Jeff Fisher said in reply
to
Reg
...
Is Sanders using his campaign
machine to induce a political swing in offices below the presidency?
Reply
Friday, April 08, 2016 at 10:49
AM
Peter said in reply to Jeff
Fisher...
He's trying to generate enthusiasm
and draw more people into the political process which means a higher voter turnout.
When he began the campaign he was at 3 percent in the polls. At that time he should have
been focused on inducing a political swing in offices below the presidency?
Reply
Friday, April 08, 2016 at 10:53
AM
Chris G
said in reply to Peter...
If he convinces people that they
can run as New New Dealers that alone would make his candidacy a success.
We need to break the "Please, Republicans, don't hurt us." mindset. Conservatives and right
wingers have been wrong about EVERYTHING for the past 50 years. Time to go on the offensive
against them.
Reply
Friday, April 08, 2016 at 01:35
PM
JF said in reply to
Chris G
...
Yes, wrong for quite a while.
Economics too.
Loanable funds theories means we need to favor capital formation and protect it from markets
using tax codes and other policies (like the funding of tax cuts with payroll tax increases).
Simply ignoring the fact that banks create credit/money (which means capital can form at
the stroke of the banks' pens).
Ignoring the plain fact that trade has distributional effects that have social effects that
are real.
Missing a concern about the concentration of wealth and control over income flows as you
watch the national fisc transfer bonds to the already wealthy as you tear up the tax bills
they alteady had. . .
Votes need to be cast!
Reply
Saturday, April 09, 2016 at
05:19 AM
Reg
said in reply to Jeff Fisher...
He's been very much part of the
DSCC fundraising machinery - and been attacked for it by the Clinton camp as a hypocrite because
a lot of "big money" donors show up for the kind of DSCC fundraising Sanders participates in.
But he doesn't personally have the network the Clintons have among big donors and is focusing
his current campaign's own efforts on the primary. Of course Hillary is able to distribute
more, which likely drives a lot of the endorsement patterns - can't be too close to the Clintons
if you are a traditional Dem pol. IMHO where we will see the difference is in how he uses this
growing network to build organization for the future, having drawn in a lot of new energy.
Reply
Friday, April 08, 2016 at 11:56
AM
Rune Lagman said in reply
to Jeff Fisher...
Bernie on top of the ticket will
do way more, for down-ballot races, than any amount of Wall-Street money brought by Hillary.
Reply
Friday, April 08, 2016 at 04:34
PM
dd said in reply to sherparick...
I guess that the single largest
bailout, 467.2 billion to Citi just went down the memory hole.
Reply
Friday, April 08, 2016 at 11:22
AM
Rune Lagman said in reply
to sherparick...
"... will cause Paul Ryan, Mitch
McConnell, and the Koch Brothers to run up the white flag ..."
Absolutely not, Bernie's revolution
will run rough-shod over them. Anyone believes that Hillary can talk sense to these guys is
smoking something awful strong. They need to be defeated at the Polls; and Bernie can do that;
Hillary can't.
Reply
Friday, April 08, 2016 at 04:29
PM
likbez said in reply to sherparick...
For all practical purposes Hillary
is a warmongering neocon. As such she in a Republican, not a Democrat.
Think about it.
Reply
Friday, April 08, 2016 at 09:54
PM
dd said...
Yes, wall street was at the heart
of the scams and that is the only reason for the bailouts or have we all forgotten Treasury
Secretary and former Goldman CEO Paulson on bended knee?
The Sanders- and Trump-led (for now) political rebellion is not
going to go away.
There are only two questions going forward:
Will it remain a
political
rebellion, one that expresses
itself through the electoral process, or will it abandon the electoral
process as useless after 2016?
Will it be led by
humanitarian populism
from the left, or
authoritarian populism
from the right?
Why is this rebellion permanent, at least until
conditions improve
? Because life in the U.S. is getting worse in a way
that can be felt by a critical mass of people, by enough people to disrupt
the Establishment machine with their anger. And because that worsening is
seen to be permanent.
Bottom line, people are reaching the breaking point, and we're watching
that play out in the 2016 electoral race.
Yes, It Is a Rebellion
There's no other way to see the Sanders and Trump surges except as a
popular rebellion,
a rebellion of the people against their
"leaders."
If one of them, Sanders or Trump, is on the ballot in
November running against an Establishment alternative, Sanders or Trump, the
anti-Establishment candidate, will win. That candidate will cannibalize
votes from the Establishment side.
That is, Sanders will attract a non-zero percentage of
Trump-supporting voters if Cruz or Paul Ryan runs against him, and he will
win. By the same token, Trump will attract a non-zero percentage
Sanders-supporting voters (or they will stand down) if Clinton runs against
him, and she will lose to him.
(In fact, we have a good early indication of what
percentage of Sanders supporters Clinton will lose
-
20%
of Sanders primary voters say they will sit out the general election if
Clinton is the candidate, and
9%
say they will vote for
Trump over Clinton. By this measure, Clinton loses 30% of the votes that
went to Sanders in the primary election.)
If they run against each other, Sanders and Trump, Sanders will win. You
don't have to take my word for it (or the word of any number of
other writers
). You can
click here
and see what almost every head-to-head poll says. As I look
at it today, the average of the last six head-to-head polls is Sanders by
almost 18% over Trump. In electoral terms, that's a wipeout. For comparison,
Obama beat McCain by
6%
and Romney by
4%
.
Note that Sanders is still surging, winning some states with 80% of the
vote (across all states he's won, he averages 67% of the vote), while Trump
seems to have hit a ceiling below 50%, even in victory. The "socialist" tag
is not only not sticking, it's seen positively by his supporters. And
finally, just imagine a Trump-Sanders debate. Sanders' style is teflon to
Trumps', and again, I'm
not alone
in noticing this.
Whichever anti-Establishment candidate runs, he wins. If both
anti-Establishment candidates face off, Sanders wins. The message seems
pretty clear.
Dear Establishment Democrats, you can lose to Sanders
or lose to Trump.
Those are your choices, and I'm more than happy
to wait until November 9 to find out what you chose and how it turned out.
Not pleased to wait, if you choose wrongly, but willing to wait, just so
we're both aware of what happened.
The Rebellion Is Not Going Away
I won't be happy with you though, Establishment Democrats, if you choose
badly. And I won't be alone. Because even if you succeed with Clinton,
Establishment Democrats, or succeed in giving us Trump in preference to
giving us Sanders, the rebellion is not going away.
If you look at the Trump side
, it's easy to see why. Are
wages rising with profits? No, and Trump supporters have had enough. (They
don't quite know who to blame, but they're done with things as they are.)
Will they tolerate another bank bailout, the one that's
inevitable
the way the banks are continuing to operate? They haven't
begun to tolerate the last one
. They
already know
they were screwed by NAFTA. What will their reaction be to
the next trade deal, or the next, or the next? (Yes, it's not just TPP;
there are three queued up and ready to be unleashed.)
Trump supporters, the core of them, are
dying of drugs and despair
, and they're not going to go quietly into
that dark night. The Trump phenomenon is proof of that.
On the Sanders side
, the rebellion is even clearer.
Sanders has energized a great many voters across the Democratic-independent
spectrum with his call for a "political revolution." But it's among the
young, the future of America, that the message is especially resonant. For
the first time in a long time, the current generation of youth in America
sees itself as sinking below the achievements of their parents.
US millennials feel more working class than any other
generation
Social survey data reveals downshift in class identity among
18-35s, with only a third believing they are middle class
Millennials in the US see themselves as less middle class and more
working class than any other generation since records began three decades
ago, the Guardian and Ipsos Mori have found.
Analysing social survey data spanning 34 years reveals that only about
a third of adults aged 18-35 think they are part of the US middle class.
Meanwhile 56.5% of this age group describe themselves as working class.
The number of millennials – who are also known as Generation Y and
number about 80 million in the US – describing themselves as middle class
has fallen in almost every survey conducted every other year, dropping
from 45.6% in 2002 to a record low of 34.8% in 2014. In that year, 8% of
millennials considered themselves to be lower class and less than 1%
considered themselves to be upper class.
Of course, that leads to this:
The large downshift in class identity among young adults may have
helped explain the surprisingly strong performance in Democratic
primaries of the insurgent presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who has
promised to scrap college tuition fees and raise minimum wages.
Will those voters, so many of them self-described "independents," return
to the Democratic Party? Only if the Party offers them a choice they
actually want. If the Party does not, there will be hell to pay on the
Democratic side as well.
America is making them poorer -
Establishment Democratic policies are making them poorer - and they're done
with it.
The Sanders phenomenon is proof of that.
Will the Very Very Rich Stand Down?
The squeeze is on, and
unless the rich who run the game for their
benefit alone decide to stand down and let the rest of us catch our breath
and a break, there will be no letting up on the reaction
. What
we're watching is just the beginning. Unless the rich and their
Establishment enablers stand down, this won't be the end but a start, and
just a start.
I'll identify the three branches to this crossroad in another piece. It's
not that hard to suss out those three paths, so long as you're willing to
look a few years ahead, into the "middle distance" as it were. The ways this
could play out are limited and kind of staring right at us.
But let's just say
for now,
America faces
its future in a way that hasn't happened since the Great Depression, another
period in which the Constitution was rewritten in an orderly way (via the
political process). Which means that for almost every living American, this
is the most consequential electoral year of your life.
Let's hope all those elites in power who are to blame for their
selfish needs causing our great country going completely down the
toilet will have a chance to finally meet their favorite lamppost
with a little rope in a nice gentle breeze.
they will fake an alien invasion or some such and put us all
under lock and key. we will either willingly give them complete
control over us or they will take it forcefully. they are
playing for all the chips, while the vast majority of sheeple
don't even realize they are in the game. i hope to hold my own
and dont expect anything more of anyone else at this stage, let
alone an organized rebellion that will deal to those most at
fault for our collective hellhole.
I kind of agree with this guy, in a round about sort of
way. If an economic collapse brought on by socialism and
central planning in inevitable, might as well have a
socialist/central planner in charge. No better way to show
people why that shit doesn't work. It would also be useful to
point to the left and say "see, I fucking told you so. this
shit doesn't work"
What "central planning" ? Shit, there's a PLAN ?? Who
would've guessed....beyond the obvious plan of the 1% to
gorge on the flesh of all the rest...
And as for your "the left", I'd sooner believe in
fairy's living at the bottom of the garden... (Of course,
you probably think all the PC wankers are a genuine "left"
....yer, lol).
Obozo pretends there is no problem as he recites
fraudulent info from the Fed...meanwhile the people on
Main Street see through the bullshit. The Obozo
Administration is a propaganda sham...he just wants the
Fed to hold it together for him until the elections.
as paradoxical as its seems, Fed.gov's only real option is actually
The Donald. He's the only one with potential to stay the rapid slide
in Fed.gov's legitimacy and mandate to unite the states.
any other president will get to preside over internal
disintegration
the harder they grasp, the faster the brass ring slides through
their greedy fingers
Reagan bought that crowd another 20 years; Trump can get them
another 10-15 if they shut up and elect him
Trump has shown nothing of the substance he would need
philosophically/charasmatically to buy this USA another 20 years.
Based on what I've seen, he's a relatively harmless blowhard
narcissist. And relative to 1980, this USA is FAR, FAR, FAR more
fractured across several critical dimensions. Further, this
polarization has been happening since the late 70s, and I cant
perceive the catalyst for an ideologic harmonization. We are past
the event horizon, in a strange environment where the rule of law
is largely suspended. The fundamental of free market economics
('risk-free rate of return') has also been fixed by .gov in an
effort to support, nay increase price inflation. The Constitution
as it relates to individual liberties has been eviscerated. There
is no turning back. A lot of suffering lies ahead. We are walking
into the valley of the shadow of death. When you are lost, a
compass can help you find the way. But when you throw away the
compass (rule of law, Consitutional liberties, focus on excellence
of thoughts), THERE CAN BE NO RETURN.
Trump sucks. Anybody saying otherwise is as dillusional as
all those Obummer voters everyone, now, loves to goof on. Who
has room for another serving of hope and change? Lucy pulls the
football away again, but Charlie Brown never learns.
Good. But rebellion alone is not enough. Anger at a corrupt system is
not enough. We must know what the goals are, what we are trying to change
and why. What should this system be replaced with and why?
So that's the take from the disaffected Democrat voter, eh? It's nice
they are being forced to confront reality in the same way the Republicans
are, but to think that Trump voters are dying from drugs and despair
while not acknowledging the same state of affairs in their own side is
silly.
Still not quite ready to lower themselves to the same level as the
rest of us. Humanitarian Left indeed.
They've managed to turn the office of the President as well as the
election process in this Country into nothing but douchebaggery fact is
the whole circus bores the shit out of me at this stage....kill each
other fighting for the ( 1 ) more food for me.
If Trump gets burned/stabbed by the GOP-E, his supporters have a moral
duty to vote Anti-Establishment, by voting for Sanders.
Because, by then, the curtain will gave been pulled back and everyone
can stop pretending. At that point, only a hard reset will work, and the
only person to bring it about sooner than later, is Sanders.
Sanders is probably a nice man who means well but his entire
philosophy is based on envy. He may be Anti-establishment now but if
he were elected, he's too weak and lacking in depth not to give into
the Establishment. Trump may be too. The pressure would be beyond
unbearable for a normal human being.
I would only vote for Sanders to accelerate the Great Reset as
other bloggers on here have said. But an added feature of supporting
naive Bernie is Democrats might finally get the blame for all the
destruction that they have caused, not the least of which is
destroying the greatest country that ever was and probably ever will
be.
The Sanders- and Trump-led (for now) political rebellion is not
going to go away.
There are only two questions going forward:
Will it remain a
political
rebellion, one that expresses
itself through the electoral process, or will it abandon the electoral
process as useless after 2016?
Will it be led by
humanitarian populism
from the left, or
authoritarian populism
from the right?
Why is this rebellion permanent, at least until
conditions improve
? Because life in the U.S. is getting worse in a way
that can be felt by a critical mass of people, by enough people to disrupt
the Establishment machine with their anger. And because that worsening is
seen to be permanent.
Bottom line, people are reaching the breaking point, and we're watching
that play out in the 2016 electoral race.
Yes, It Is a Rebellion
There's no other way to see the Sanders and Trump surges except as a
popular rebellion,
a rebellion of the people against their
"leaders."
If one of them, Sanders or Trump, is on the ballot in
November running against an Establishment alternative, Sanders or Trump, the
anti-Establishment candidate, will win. That candidate will cannibalize
votes from the Establishment side.
That is, Sanders will attract a non-zero percentage of
Trump-supporting voters if Cruz or Paul Ryan runs against him, and he will
win. By the same token, Trump will attract a non-zero percentage
Sanders-supporting voters (or they will stand down) if Clinton runs against
him, and she will lose to him.
(In fact, we have a good early indication of what
percentage of Sanders supporters Clinton will lose
-
20%
of Sanders primary voters say they will sit out the general election if
Clinton is the candidate, and
9%
say they will vote for
Trump over Clinton. By this measure, Clinton loses 30% of the votes that
went to Sanders in the primary election.)
If they run against each other, Sanders and Trump, Sanders will win. You
don't have to take my word for it (or the word of any number of
other writers
). You can
click here
and see what almost every head-to-head poll says. As I look
at it today, the average of the last six head-to-head polls is Sanders by
almost 18% over Trump. In electoral terms, that's a wipeout. For comparison,
Obama beat McCain by
6%
and Romney by
4%
.
Note that Sanders is still surging, winning some states with 80% of the
vote (across all states he's won, he averages 67% of the vote), while Trump
seems to have hit a ceiling below 50%, even in victory. The "socialist" tag
is not only not sticking, it's seen positively by his supporters. And
finally, just imagine a Trump-Sanders debate. Sanders' style is teflon to
Trumps', and again, I'm
not alone
in noticing this.
Whichever anti-Establishment candidate runs, he wins. If both
anti-Establishment candidates face off, Sanders wins. The message seems
pretty clear.
Dear Establishment Democrats, you can lose to Sanders
or lose to Trump.
Those are your choices, and I'm more than happy
to wait until November 9 to find out what you chose and how it turned out.
Not pleased to wait, if you choose wrongly, but willing to wait, just so
we're both aware of what happened.
The Rebellion Is Not Going Away
I won't be happy with you though, Establishment Democrats, if you choose
badly. And I won't be alone. Because even if you succeed with Clinton,
Establishment Democrats, or succeed in giving us Trump in preference to
giving us Sanders, the rebellion is not going away.
If you look at the Trump side
, it's easy to see why. Are
wages rising with profits? No, and Trump supporters have had enough. (They
don't quite know who to blame, but they're done with things as they are.)
Will they tolerate another bank bailout, the one that's
inevitable
the way the banks are continuing to operate? They haven't
begun to tolerate the last one
. They
already know
they were screwed by NAFTA. What will their reaction be to
the next trade deal, or the next, or the next? (Yes, it's not just TPP;
there are three queued up and ready to be unleashed.)
Trump supporters, the core of them, are
dying of drugs and despair
, and they're not going to go quietly into
that dark night. The Trump phenomenon is proof of that.
On the Sanders side
, the rebellion is even clearer.
Sanders has energized a great many voters across the Democratic-independent
spectrum with his call for a "political revolution." But it's among the
young, the future of America, that the message is especially resonant. For
the first time in a long time, the current generation of youth in America
sees itself as sinking below the achievements of their parents.
US millennials feel more working class than any other
generation
Social survey data reveals downshift in class identity among
18-35s, with only a third believing they are middle class
Millennials in the US see themselves as less middle class and more
working class than any other generation since records began three decades
ago, the Guardian and Ipsos Mori have found.
Analysing social survey data spanning 34 years reveals that only about
a third of adults aged 18-35 think they are part of the US middle class.
Meanwhile 56.5% of this age group describe themselves as working class.
The number of millennials – who are also known as Generation Y and
number about 80 million in the US – describing themselves as middle class
has fallen in almost every survey conducted every other year, dropping
from 45.6% in 2002 to a record low of 34.8% in 2014. In that year, 8% of
millennials considered themselves to be lower class and less than 1%
considered themselves to be upper class.
Of course, that leads to this:
The large downshift in class identity among young adults may have
helped explain the surprisingly strong performance in Democratic
primaries of the insurgent presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who has
promised to scrap college tuition fees and raise minimum wages.
Will those voters, so many of them self-described "independents," return
to the Democratic Party? Only if the Party offers them a choice they
actually want. If the Party does not, there will be hell to pay on the
Democratic side as well.
America is making them poorer -
Establishment Democratic policies are making them poorer - and they're done
with it.
The Sanders phenomenon is proof of that.
Will the Very Very Rich Stand Down?
The squeeze is on, and
unless the rich who run the game for their
benefit alone decide to stand down and let the rest of us catch our breath
and a break, there will be no letting up on the reaction
. What
we're watching is just the beginning. Unless the rich and their
Establishment enablers stand down, this won't be the end but a start, and
just a start.
I'll identify the three branches to this crossroad in another piece. It's
not that hard to suss out those three paths, so long as you're willing to
look a few years ahead, into the "middle distance" as it were. The ways this
could play out are limited and kind of staring right at us.
But let's just say
for now,
America faces
its future in a way that hasn't happened since the Great Depression, another
period in which the Constitution was rewritten in an orderly way (via the
political process). Which means that for almost every living American, this
is the most consequential electoral year of your life.
Let's hope all those elites in power who are to blame for their
selfish needs causing our great country going completely down the
toilet will have a chance to finally meet their favorite lamppost
with a little rope in a nice gentle breeze.
they will fake an alien invasion or some such and put us all
under lock and key. we will either willingly give them complete
control over us or they will take it forcefully. they are
playing for all the chips, while the vast majority of sheeple
don't even realize they are in the game. i hope to hold my own
and dont expect anything more of anyone else at this stage, let
alone an organized rebellion that will deal to those most at
fault for our collective hellhole.
I kind of agree with this guy, in a round about sort of
way. If an economic collapse brought on by socialism and
central planning in inevitable, might as well have a
socialist/central planner in charge. No better way to show
people why that shit doesn't work. It would also be useful to
point to the left and say "see, I fucking told you so. this
shit doesn't work"
What "central planning" ? Shit, there's a PLAN ?? Who
would've guessed....beyond the obvious plan of the 1% to
gorge on the flesh of all the rest...
And as for your "the left", I'd sooner believe in
fairy's living at the bottom of the garden... (Of course,
you probably think all the PC wankers are a genuine "left"
....yer, lol).
Obozo pretends there is no problem as he recites
fraudulent info from the Fed...meanwhile the people on
Main Street see through the bullshit. The Obozo
Administration is a propaganda sham...he just wants the
Fed to hold it together for him until the elections.
as paradoxical as its seems, Fed.gov's only real option is actually
The Donald. He's the only one with potential to stay the rapid slide
in Fed.gov's legitimacy and mandate to unite the states.
any other president will get to preside over internal
disintegration
the harder they grasp, the faster the brass ring slides through
their greedy fingers
Reagan bought that crowd another 20 years; Trump can get them
another 10-15 if they shut up and elect him
Trump has shown nothing of the substance he would need
philosophically/charasmatically to buy this USA another 20 years.
Based on what I've seen, he's a relatively harmless blowhard
narcissist. And relative to 1980, this USA is FAR, FAR, FAR more
fractured across several critical dimensions. Further, this
polarization has been happening since the late 70s, and I cant
perceive the catalyst for an ideologic harmonization. We are past
the event horizon, in a strange environment where the rule of law
is largely suspended. The fundamental of free market economics
('risk-free rate of return') has also been fixed by .gov in an
effort to support, nay increase price inflation. The Constitution
as it relates to individual liberties has been eviscerated. There
is no turning back. A lot of suffering lies ahead. We are walking
into the valley of the shadow of death. When you are lost, a
compass can help you find the way. But when you throw away the
compass (rule of law, Consitutional liberties, focus on excellence
of thoughts), THERE CAN BE NO RETURN.
Trump sucks. Anybody saying otherwise is as dillusional as
all those Obummer voters everyone, now, loves to goof on. Who
has room for another serving of hope and change? Lucy pulls the
football away again, but Charlie Brown never learns.
Good. But rebellion alone is not enough. Anger at a corrupt system is
not enough. We must know what the goals are, what we are trying to change
and why. What should this system be replaced with and why?
So that's the take from the disaffected Democrat voter, eh? It's nice
they are being forced to confront reality in the same way the Republicans
are, but to think that Trump voters are dying from drugs and despair
while not acknowledging the same state of affairs in their own side is
silly.
Still not quite ready to lower themselves to the same level as the
rest of us. Humanitarian Left indeed.
They've managed to turn the office of the President as well as the
election process in this Country into nothing but douchebaggery fact is
the whole circus bores the shit out of me at this stage....kill each
other fighting for the ( 1 ) more food for me.
If Trump gets burned/stabbed by the GOP-E, his supporters have a moral
duty to vote Anti-Establishment, by voting for Sanders.
Because, by then, the curtain will gave been pulled back and everyone
can stop pretending. At that point, only a hard reset will work, and the
only person to bring it about sooner than later, is Sanders.
Sanders is probably a nice man who means well but his entire
philosophy is based on envy. He may be Anti-establishment now but if
he were elected, he's too weak and lacking in depth not to give into
the Establishment. Trump may be too. The pressure would be beyond
unbearable for a normal human being.
I would only vote for Sanders to accelerate the Great Reset as
other bloggers on here have said. But an added feature of supporting
naive Bernie is Democrats might finally get the blame for all the
destruction that they have caused, not the least of which is
destroying the greatest country that ever was and probably ever will
be.
"... On July 25, these superdelegates will cast votes at the Democratic National Convention for whomever they want, regardless of primary and caucus outcomes. Democrats like to describe superdelegates as mostly elected officials and prominent party members, including President Obama and former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. ..."
"... But this group, which consists of 21 governors, 40 senators and 193 representatives, only makes up about a third of the superdelegates. Many of the remaining 463 convention delegates are establishment insiders who get their status after years of donations and service to the party. Dozens of the 437 delegates in the DNC member category are registered federal and state lobbyists, according to an ABC News analysis. ..."
"... In fact, when you remove elected officials from the superdelegate pool, at least one in seven of the rest are former or current lobbyists registered on the federal and state level, according to lobbying disclosure records. ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Americans of both parties fundamentally reject the regime of untrammeled money in elections made possible by the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling and other court decisions and now favor a sweeping overhaul of how political campaigns are financed, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll. ..."
"... The findings reveal deep support among Republicans and Democrats alike for new measures to restrict the influence of wealthy givers, including limiting the amount of money that can be spent by "super PACs" and forcing more public disclosure on organizations now permitted to intervene in elections without disclosing the names of their donors. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton holds a substantial edge among a particular and little-noticed kind of delegate to the Democratic National Convention: Superdelegates. ..."
"... On July 25, these superdelegates will cast votes at the Democratic National Convention for whomever they want, regardless of primary and caucus outcomes. Democrats like to describe superdelegates as mostly elected officials and prominent party members, including President Obama and former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter . ..."
"... But this group, which consists of 21 governors, 40 senators and 193 representatives, only makes up about a third of the superdelegates. Many of the remaining 463 convention delegates are establishment insiders who get their status after years of donations and service to the party. Dozens of the 437 delegates in the DNC member category are registered federal and state lobbyists, according to an ABC News analysis. ..."
"... In fact, when you remove elected officials from the superdelegate pool, at least one in seven of the rest are former or current lobbyists registered on the federal and state level, according to lobbying disclosure records. ..."
"... That's at least 67 lobbyists who will attend the convention as superdelegates. A majority of them have already committed to supporting Hillary Clinton for the nomination. ..."
"... Superdelegates are unique to the Democratic nominating process. Of the 4,763 delegates who will attend the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, 717 will be superdelegates - almost a third of the total required to win the nomination. ..."
On July 25, these superdelegates will cast votes at the Democratic National Convention
for whomever they want, regardless of primary and caucus outcomes. Democrats like to describe
superdelegates as mostly elected officials and prominent party members, including President Obama
and former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
But this group, which consists of 21 governors, 40 senators and 193 representatives, only
makes up about a third of the superdelegates. Many of the remaining 463 convention delegates are
establishment insiders who get their status after years of donations and service to the party.
Dozens of the 437 delegates in the DNC member category are registered federal and state lobbyists,
according to an ABC News analysis.
In fact, when you remove elected officials from the superdelegate pool, at least one in
seven of the rest are former or current lobbyists registered on the federal and state level, according
to lobbying disclosure records.
When it comes to presidential primaries, there isn't a whole lot of "democracy" in the Democratic
Party.
Last year, The
New York Times
published
an article examining the American attitude toward the question
of money in politics. This is what it found:
Americans of both parties fundamentally reject the regime of untrammeled money in elections
made possible by the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling and other court decisions and now favor
a sweeping overhaul of how political campaigns are financed, according to a New York Times/CBS News
poll.
The findings reveal deep support among Republicans and Democrats alike for new measures to
restrict the influence of wealthy givers, including limiting the amount of money that can be spent
by "super PACs" and forcing more public disclosure on organizations now permitted to intervene in
elections without disclosing the names of their donors.
You might think the supposedly "liberal" Democratic Party would take this sort of thing to heart,
but you'd be wrong. Not only is the super delegate system intentionally undemocratic, but a remarkable
9% of superdelegates are actually lobbyists.
Hillary
Clinton
holds a substantial edge among a particular and little-noticed kind of delegate to the
Democratic National Convention: Superdelegates.
On July 25, these
superdelegates
will cast votes at the Democratic National Convention for whomever they want, regardless of primary
and caucus outcomes. Democrats like to describe superdelegates as mostly elected officials and prominent
party members, including President Obama and former Presidents
Bill Clinton
and
Jimmy
Carter
.
But this group, which consists of 21 governors, 40 senators and 193 representatives, only
makes up about a third of the superdelegates. Many of the remaining 463 convention delegates are
establishment insiders who get their status after years of donations and service to the party. Dozens
of the 437 delegates in the DNC member category are registered federal and state lobbyists, according
to an ABC News analysis.
In fact, when you remove elected officials from the superdelegate pool, at least one in seven
of the rest are former or current lobbyists registered on the federal and state level, according
to lobbying disclosure records.
That's at least 67 lobbyists who will attend the convention as superdelegates. A majority
of them have already committed to supporting Hillary Clinton for the nomination.
Of course they have.
Superdelegates are unique to the Democratic nominating process. Of the 4,763 delegates who
will attend the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, 717 will be superdelegates - almost
a third of the total required to win the nomination.
Meanwhile, former presidential candidate and current Democratic Party superdelegate, Howard Dean,
shared his personal thoughts on democracy via Twitter the other day.
"... Brennan apologized to Senate leaders in July 2014 after CIA agents hacked Senate computers during a congressional investigation of the CIA's use of torture, but neither the torturers nor the hackers would face any consequences for their actions. ..."
"... He also criticized Obama's drone program, noting that "[t]he Fifth Amendment prohibits any president or anyone else from killing anyone without due process," and dismissed the administration's legal justifications for the killings as a "lawyerly diversion from the truth." ..."
McGovern says he believes the president can't hold either agency accountable for their
violations of the law and human rights because of the power they hold over him.
MUNICH - A former CIA analyst believes the CIA and
National Security Agency have become so powerful that the president is afraid to act against them
when they break the law.
Ray McGovern retired from the CIA in 1990, following nearly 30
years of service to the agency. He was awarded the Intelligence Commendation Medal, which is
given to agents who offer "especially commendable service" to the agency.
Outraged over the CIA's open use of torture,
he returned the medal in 2006
and became an antiwar activist. He was
arrested in 2011 for a
silent protest against a speech by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
In
an interview published
Monday by acTVism Munich, an independent media outlet, McGovern warned that U.S. intelligence
agencies are too powerful to be held accountable, even by President Barack Obama. He explained:
"I will simply say that he is
afraid of them. Now I would have never thought that I would hear myself saying that the president
of the United States is afraid of the CIA But he is. He's afraid of the NSA as well. How else to
explain that the National Intelligence director, who lied under oath to his senate overseers on
the 12th of March 2013, is still the director of National Intelligence?"
Statements made under oath to Congress in 2013 by James
Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, in which he denied mass surveillance of
Americans, were later revealed to be false by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. In 2014, some
members of Congress, including California Rep. Darrell Issa ,
moved to have Clapper dismissed from his post, but their efforts were ultimately defeated.
McGovern continued: "How else to explain that the head of CIA,
John Brennan, who deliberately hacked the computers of the senate's intelligence community,
that's supposed to be overseeing him, he's still in office?"
In the interview, McGovern lamented the fact that political
leaders, including President George W. Bush and Obama, have given their approval to
unconstitutional behavior by government officials:
"Our bill of rights has been
shredded. The Fourth Amendment specifically prohibits the kind of activities the NSA is involved
in domestically."
He also criticized Obama's drone program, noting that
"[t]he Fifth Amendment prohibits any president or anyone else from killing anyone without due
process," and dismissed the administration's legal justifications for the killings as a "lawyerly
diversion from the truth."
"Not even George Bush claimed the right to kill American
citizens without due process," McGovern said.
Activism is one way to drive positive change and resist the
erosion of Americans' civil liberties, he said.
"You do what you know is good, because it's good, and then you
have a certain peace of mind, saying, you've been an activist in a constructive way," he
concluded.
"... 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.
Looks like neocons will attack Trump, fearing that he might expose their role in 9/11 and become
an obstacle for their interventionalist foreign policy
A civil war within Republican party officially stated. The party elite opens fight against the
choice of rank-and-file members. Marco Rubio and Kasich are no longer running for president. They are
running to keep Trump from being president.
Notable quotes:
Notable quotes:
"... And it mirrored the broader slog of a Republican primary, where for months Jeb Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Chris Christie and the rest tore each other apart to prevent one another from emerging as the chief Trump alternative. All believed they could beat Trump one-on-one. None has gotten the chance. ..."
"... In failing to back a single Trump alternative, Romney essentially called for a Republican civil war to wage through this summer, a retrenchment for an irreparably divided GOP in hopes of outmaneuvering Trump at a contested convention where party elites still control some levers of power. ..."
"... Romney's speech was certainly historic. Perhaps never before has the most recent party nominee for president so thoroughly rebuked the prohibitive front-runner for the nomination four years later. But, as Romney said in his speech, "The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign." ..."
"... Romney did not stand alone. Moments after he finished speaking, Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, seconded Romney's speech. "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described," McCain said in a statement. ..."
"... Trump went on the attack even before Romney took the stage in Salt Lake City, blasting Romney for having "begged" for his endorsement four years earlier. In February 2012, Romney traveled to one of Trump's hotels to accept the endorsement. "There are some things that you just can't imagine happening in your life," Romney said then. "This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump's magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a delight." ..."
"... Romney said he expected the blowback: "This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president." As the old guard of the Republican Party cheered Romney's outspoken remarks on Thursday, there remained downside in having so prominent a party leader rip apart Trump, should he still become the nominee. ..."
It was a stirring call to arms for a strategic-voting retreat.
And it mirrored the broader slog of a Republican primary, where for months Jeb Bush, Rubio,
Cruz, Kasich, Chris Christie and the rest tore each other apart to prevent one another from emerging
as the chief Trump alternative. All believed they could beat Trump one-on-one. None has gotten the
chance.
Along the way, Trump has skated. In one remarkable statistic, Trump suffered less in attack ads
through Super Tuesday than Romney's team hurled at Newt Gingrich in the final days in Florida alone
in 2012. The Republican Party's top financiers are mobilizing now, with millions in anti-Trump ads
expected in the next two weeks, but it may be too late to slow Trump after he has carried 10 of the
first 15 contests, many of them by wide margins.
In failing to back a single Trump alternative, Romney essentially called for a Republican
civil war to wage through this summer, a retrenchment for an irreparably divided GOP in hopes of
outmaneuvering Trump at a contested convention where party elites still control some levers of power.
(Also, by not picking a single anti-Trump standard-bearer, Romney, who briefly considered running
for president again in 2016, left slightly more open the door that might allow a contested convention
to select him.)
"He's playing the members of the American public for suckers," Romney said of Trump. "He gets
a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat."
Romney's speech was certainly historic. Perhaps never before has the most recent party nominee
for president so thoroughly rebuked the prohibitive front-runner for the nomination four years later.
But, as Romney said in his speech, "The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded
during this campaign."
Romney ripped about Trump's business background, ticking off bankruptcies and abandoned efforts.
"What ever happened to Trump Airlines?" he said. "How about Trump University? And then there's Trump
Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks, and Trump Mortgage?" "A business genius he is not," Romney
said. Of Trump's varied stances on issues, Romney added, "Dishonesty is Donald Trump's hallmark."
Romney did not stand alone. Moments after he finished speaking, Sen. John McCain, the 2008
Republican nominee, seconded Romney's speech. "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend
and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described," McCain said in a statement.
"Well said," tweeted Kasich.
Trump went on the attack even before Romney took the stage in Salt Lake City, blasting Romney
for having "begged" for his endorsement four years earlier. In February 2012, Romney traveled to
one of Trump's hotels to accept the endorsement. "There are some things that you just can't imagine
happening in your life," Romney said then. "This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump's magnificent
hotel and having his endorsement is a delight."
On Thursday, Trump hammered back on NBC's "Today" show: "Mitt Romney is a stiff."
Romney said he expected the blowback: "This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament,
his stability, and his suitability to be president." As the old guard of the Republican Party cheered
Romney's outspoken remarks on Thursday, there remained downside in having so prominent a party leader
rip apart Trump, should he still become the nominee.
Said Justin Barasky, a spokesman for the super PAC dedicated to electing Hillary Clinton, understatedly,
"Certainly, having a former Republican nominee go after him is not unhelpful."
"... "These endorsements are a last-ditch effort by the DC Establishment to try to blunt our large and growing command of the race. It comes as no surprise that these moves are made just two days after
Rep. Grayson became the first major statewide candidate in the country to endorse the anti-Establishment candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, for the Presidency.
They come just one day after a new poll shows Rep. Grayson with a double-digit lead, winning among men and women, every age group, and whites, blacks and Hispanics. The anti-Democratic Party Establishment is desperate to drag Grayson's opponent, their do-nothing, errand boy for Wall Street, over the finish line. But Florida voters in both parties are fed up with egregious manipulation by outside forces to dictate our candidates.
These arrogant Empire-Strikes-Back efforts by the Democratic politburo will be no more successful than the similar failed attempts by Republican party bosses. This is the year when the voters decide." ..."
"... This simply shows that, like Charlie Crist, Murphy, the former Republican turned Democrat, cannot be trusted and will always pander to whatever group that will aid his ambition. ..."
The endorsements bring the biggest possible names into the hotly-contested race for the Democratic
nomination for Florida's U.S. Senate seat between Murphy, of Jupiter, and U.S. Rep. Alan
Grayson or Orlando.
In a news release issued by Murphy's campaign, Obama called Murphy a "tireless champion for middle-class
families."
"I am proud to endorse Congressman Patrick Murphy for the United States Senate. Patrick has been
a tireless champion for middle-class families and a defender of the economic progress that American
workers and businesses have made," Obama stated in the release. "In Congress, he's fought to strengthen
Medicare and Social Security, reform our criminal justice system, and protect a woman's right to
choose. Floridians can count on Patrick Murphy to stand up for them every day as their next Senator."
Grayson's campaign responded calling the endorsements "the DC establishment" and noted they come
one day after Grayson endorsed outsider Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders
against Hillary Clinton.
For Murphy, the endorsements could not come any higher; he already has brought in dozens of Democratic
endorsements. Grayson, meanwhile, has brought in a few of his own, mostly from people in the progressive
wing of the party.
"I am honored that President Obama and Vice President Biden are endorsing my campaign for Florida's
middle-class families," Murphy stated in the release. "The president, the vice president and I share
the same values and commitment - strengthening Social Security and Medicare for our seniors, protecting
a woman's right to choose, and growing America's middle class.
"Over the past seven years, President Obama and Vice President Biden have been champions for Democrats
and hardworking families across our country, and I am humbled and proud to receive their endorsement
and campaign shoulder-to-shoulder with them for what we believe in," he continued.
"These endorsements are a last-ditch effort by the DC Establishment to try to blunt our
large and growing command of the race. It comes as no surprise that these moves are made just
two days after Rep. Grayson became the first major statewide candidate in the country to endorse
the anti-Establishment candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, for the Presidency. They come just one
day after a new poll shows Rep. Grayson with a double-digit lead, winning among men and women,
every age group, and whites, blacks and Hispanics. The anti-Democratic Party Establishment is
desperate to drag Grayson's opponent, their do-nothing, errand boy for Wall Street, over the finish
line. But Florida voters in both parties are fed up with egregious manipulation by outside forces
to dictate our candidates. These arrogant Empire-Strikes-Back efforts by the Democratic politburo
will be no more successful than the similar failed attempts by Republican party bosses. This is
the year when the voters decide."
Here is a response from Brian Swensen, Campaign Manager for Carlos Lopez-Cantera
for U.S. Senate:
"Patrick Murphy continues on the path to become Charlie Crist 2.0 by moving further and further
to the left for political expediency and gain. This simply shows that, like Charlie Crist, Murphy,
the former Republican turned Democrat, cannot be trusted and will always pander to whatever group
that will aid his ambition.
By receiving Obama's endorsement Murphy has cast his allegiance to those who don't believe in
American exceptionalism, those whose policies have severely hindered economic growth and those who
refuse to stand with our most important ally, Israel."
Looks like neocons will attack Trump, fearing that he might expose their role in 9/11 and become
an obstacle for their interventionalist foreign policy
A civil war within Republican party officially stated. The party elite opens fight against the
choice of rank-and-file members. Marco Rubio and Kasich are no longer running for president. They are
running to keep Trump from being president.
Notable quotes:
Notable quotes:
"... And it mirrored the broader slog of a Republican primary, where for months Jeb Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Chris Christie and the rest tore each other apart to prevent one another from emerging as the chief Trump alternative. All believed they could beat Trump one-on-one. None has gotten the chance. ..."
"... In failing to back a single Trump alternative, Romney essentially called for a Republican civil war to wage through this summer, a retrenchment for an irreparably divided GOP in hopes of outmaneuvering Trump at a contested convention where party elites still control some levers of power. ..."
"... Romney's speech was certainly historic. Perhaps never before has the most recent party nominee for president so thoroughly rebuked the prohibitive front-runner for the nomination four years later. But, as Romney said in his speech, "The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign." ..."
"... Romney did not stand alone. Moments after he finished speaking, Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, seconded Romney's speech. "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described," McCain said in a statement. ..."
"... Trump went on the attack even before Romney took the stage in Salt Lake City, blasting Romney for having "begged" for his endorsement four years earlier. In February 2012, Romney traveled to one of Trump's hotels to accept the endorsement. "There are some things that you just can't imagine happening in your life," Romney said then. "This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump's magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a delight." ..."
"... Romney said he expected the blowback: "This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president." As the old guard of the Republican Party cheered Romney's outspoken remarks on Thursday, there remained downside in having so prominent a party leader rip apart Trump, should he still become the nominee. ..."
It was a stirring call to arms for a strategic-voting retreat.
And it mirrored the broader slog of a Republican primary, where for months Jeb Bush, Rubio,
Cruz, Kasich, Chris Christie and the rest tore each other apart to prevent one another from emerging
as the chief Trump alternative. All believed they could beat Trump one-on-one. None has gotten the
chance.
Along the way, Trump has skated. In one remarkable statistic, Trump suffered less in attack ads
through Super Tuesday than Romney's team hurled at Newt Gingrich in the final days in Florida alone
in 2012. The Republican Party's top financiers are mobilizing now, with millions in anti-Trump ads
expected in the next two weeks, but it may be too late to slow Trump after he has carried 10 of the
first 15 contests, many of them by wide margins.
In failing to back a single Trump alternative, Romney essentially called for a Republican
civil war to wage through this summer, a retrenchment for an irreparably divided GOP in hopes of
outmaneuvering Trump at a contested convention where party elites still control some levers of power.
(Also, by not picking a single anti-Trump standard-bearer, Romney, who briefly considered running
for president again in 2016, left slightly more open the door that might allow a contested convention
to select him.)
"He's playing the members of the American public for suckers," Romney said of Trump. "He gets
a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat."
Romney's speech was certainly historic. Perhaps never before has the most recent party nominee
for president so thoroughly rebuked the prohibitive front-runner for the nomination four years later.
But, as Romney said in his speech, "The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded
during this campaign."
Romney ripped about Trump's business background, ticking off bankruptcies and abandoned efforts.
"What ever happened to Trump Airlines?" he said. "How about Trump University? And then there's Trump
Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks, and Trump Mortgage?" "A business genius he is not," Romney
said. Of Trump's varied stances on issues, Romney added, "Dishonesty is Donald Trump's hallmark."
Romney did not stand alone. Moments after he finished speaking, Sen. John McCain, the 2008
Republican nominee, seconded Romney's speech. "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend
and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described," McCain said in a statement.
"Well said," tweeted Kasich.
Trump went on the attack even before Romney took the stage in Salt Lake City, blasting Romney
for having "begged" for his endorsement four years earlier. In February 2012, Romney traveled to
one of Trump's hotels to accept the endorsement. "There are some things that you just can't imagine
happening in your life," Romney said then. "This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump's magnificent
hotel and having his endorsement is a delight."
On Thursday, Trump hammered back on NBC's "Today" show: "Mitt Romney is a stiff."
Romney said he expected the blowback: "This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament,
his stability, and his suitability to be president." As the old guard of the Republican Party cheered
Romney's outspoken remarks on Thursday, there remained downside in having so prominent a party leader
rip apart Trump, should he still become the nominee.
Said Justin Barasky, a spokesman for the super PAC dedicated to electing Hillary Clinton, understatedly,
"Certainly, having a former Republican nominee go after him is not unhelpful."
The crisis of Republican
Party then establishment no longer can control rank-and-file members reflects not only the crisis
of neoliberalism as a social system, but might also reflect the fact that with 300 million of people
the county became too big and too diverse to be governed from a single center of political power in
non authoritarian ways. a Hillary v Trump scenario will bee a difficult choice
for most Americans. A jingoistic sociopathic woman, essentially a puppet of financial oligarchy, who
is a front for the neoliberal forces hell-bent of destroying Russia vs. a narcissistic person with zero
political experience and vague set of ideas (but at the same time with more realistic foreign
policy ideas at least).
Notable quotes:
"... I'm afraid this strategy will have the exact opposite effect. To Trump, an attack from Rubio or Cruz is a badge of honor. ..."
"... 80% of young people are for Sanders. If he gets unfairly dumped, they will never forgive the Democrapic party. Both parties are in danger of losing the duopoly. ..."
"... We're a divided country, living separate cultures over four time zones (mainland alone). We're a big big country with big big problems. I don't know how it will shake out, especially when the bills come due. I only wish we had the problems of a small European country that you can drive across in four hours. That's a luxury. ..."
"... Hillary and Trump make Nixon look like a stand up guy. There is only one authentic, principled and electable candidate in the race. Bernie Sanders, the only candidate with a positive national favorability rating. ..."
"... Donald Trump is almost entirely a creation of the media. Most people don't realize it, but the media got addicted to him back in the early 1980, when he became one of the most flamboyant characters on the New York scene with a string of bimbos by his side, splashing around money, mostly not his, and creating the Trump brand, which he used to get into business with OPM (other people's money). ..."
"... Sadly, this is exactly what America has become. Fox News, talk radio, lunatics and raving psychopaths, a cesspool of fear and hate. The candidates are what we have become. We're in a canoe headed for the waterfall and all we hear is "Paddle faster! Paddle faster!" What the American people will do in the end is anyone's guess. ..."
"... Headline news says in Iran ... hardliners suffer defeat as reformists make gains ... And ... in the USA ...? hardliners on the rampage? O Tempora ... O Mores .... ..."
"... I agree that the republican party is a despicable joke, but a look at the turnout suggests that they will very likely control the WH, senate, and increass their majority in the House. Its unfortunate, but that is definitely the way it looks right now! ..."
"... "I believe that a first-rate con artist is on the verge of taking over the party of Reagan and Lincoln." Pretty funny comment. They are all con artists. And Hillary can match them con for con. ..."
"... Yup it's a shitfest all-round, the Dems debate schedule was so openly biased towards Hillary that it was comical but at least they were talking about substantive issues. ..."
"... "Struggling Americans"? Since when has Rubio's ultra-corporate free market ideology recognised their struggle? What the fuck does he have to offer except rich man's You're OK I'M OK preaching? ..."
"... Fuck off, Rubio -- We are going to vote Trump. ..."
"... Trump is not Mussolini, his political, economic and social thinking has very little, if anything, in common with that man. He may be dangerous, but that doesn't mean he is a Fascist. ..."
"... Yep, MIC depends on bankster puppets like Rubio and Clinton following their orders. Oh and the power of money is so persuasive. Bill Clinton is a very bright guy and he still repealed Glass Steagall under orders...... ..."
"... The problem is that Rubio and Cruz are just as bad -- or worse. They're a bit more polished politically but they have the same awful mindset and espouse the same awful policies. ..."
"... Anyway, ganging up on Trump is likely to backfire. Unlike most politicians Trump makes absolutely no attempt to hide who he is and what he stands for. People respect that even as they ignore that what he stands for is corporatism -- he's not the reincarnation of Hitler (as those two MX has-been described him), he's Mussolini. ..."
"... I think Rubio and Cruz's attempts to destroy Trump will backfire. He can just say he is the outside being ganged up on by the establishment and how he "wont be pushed around just like America wont be pushed around anymore! blah blah". ..."
"... The establishment will do and say anything to get Trump out. They have total control over all the others but not Trump. Donald is the only candidate who will do what's right for the country and the people and make America great again. TRUMP 2016 ..."
"... Rubio seems power-mad. Another reason why he is deeply unsuitable to wield ultimate power. ..."
"... As a democrat I am terrified and so too should all democrats be. Turnout so far has been down about 26% compared to 2008. The republicans on the other hand have seen an increase of almost the smae amount compared to their 2012 numbers! Thats a disaster waiting to happen in November. Turnout in primaries is one of the best indicators, if not the best, of what will happen in a general election. ..."
"... Indeed. If I was American, a Hillary v Trump scenario would be mindscrewingly difficult to choose between. An evil woman who is a front for all the neoliberal forces out there. Or an evil man who is a complete moron and will drive America to its knees. ..."
"... "Donald Trump is a liberal Republican" In the crazy world of Republican politics 2016 you're not wrong. You then drift of into a fantasy world where Trump actually wins the presidency. More people hate him than love him, with barely anything in-between. Plus they've only just started digging for dirt. ..."
"... Guardian sub-heading: "Rubio attacks 'con artist' as Cruz links Trump to mafia" I link all of them to oligarchy, patriarchy and Christian jihadism. Admittedly, there are some conceptual overlaps there. ..."
"... OMG Cruz, Rubio or Trump vs Hilary Clinton. Jeez, America. I got kids to care about - is that IT? ..."
"... Rubio isn't what he presents himself as. Look at his voting record- http://politicsthatwork.com/voting-record/Marco-Rubio-412491 Does that match up to the way he talks about his policies? I don't think so. ..."
"... One "good" thing about Trump in this election is that he is clearly not a consultant-packaged candidate (like Rubio) or a fake (like Cruz), but Trump is a quintessentially amoral salesman. He pitches whatever the customers want to hear. Customers need to read the fine print before buying products from him. ..."
"... Truth is both parties pander to the emotions -- the more frenzied the better it seems -- none of the candidates respect voters enough to discuss policy with anything even resembling depth. Politics is cotton candy in America, sprinkled with just enough cayenne to arouse burnt tongues. Oh what a tangled web we weave... ..."
"... Unless she is indicted before the election. Then it might be problematic. Look up Spiro Agnew if you think investigations are all for show. ..."
"... I can't stand Trump...but he seems to be better than Cruz & Rubio...the problem seems to be a politically bankrupt party disintegrating before our eyes... ..."
"... Full blown panic mode now by the GOP establishment, as they belatedly realize they have a problem with no agreeable solution. ..."
"... But let's notice one more time that all the discomfort about Trump as expressed by the GOP functionaries is centered around their suspicions that he may be a closet "liberal". They're worrying aloud about whether he'd support single-payer healthcare insurance, or refuse to vigorously oppose gay marriage or draconian positions on abortion. ..."
"... Supporting war in Iraq was spectacularly I'll judged. ..."
"... Trump's game seems to have been to use The Republican Party's machinery to boost himself, aware that his appeal to the populace is that he is counter the old guard, awaiting that old guard's attempt to ditch him and then becoming his own man with his own party. That would split the GOP's ranks; if, having only, say, half its voters so not winning this time, he will have sown the seed in his long game to win next time. ..."
"... When Trump was still normal, he left The Reform Party because David Duke from the KKK had joined it. Now, he says doesn't know David Duke, not even the KKK!!!! ..."
"... As Cruz desperately tries to salvage something before slithering under the exit door Rubio keeps insisting that he will keep receiving participation ribbons just for showing up and they will add up to victory. ..."
"... Trump looks more and more like the mature actor in the room. From lunatic insider to the presumptive candidate for the republican party in about 6 months. Pretty impressive. The voters will flock to Trump, who in the end will do what all presidents do and screw the voters and support the rich. Both parties do it to the voters, but the voters never learn. ..."
"... Hillary doesn't exist politically. It is a front for banks and foreign investments. A sham. ..."
"... This is awesome, America is embarking on a long overdue conversation. The Republicans are now using tax returns to play the 1% card on Trump, yes they hate those richer than themselves as well as poorer. You wonder why they bother, and I'm sure some of them are. So hate it will be from the Republicans and 'love and kindness' from Hillary. It's mapping out. ..."
Democratic party is not investing in voting drives this year because doing so would benefit Sanders,
whereas a low voter turnout favors Clinton (who is increasingly unpopular and looks increasingly
likely to lose the general).
Sanders was nearly tied with Clinton in delegates before South Carolina. So it's very close right
now.
80% of young people are for Sanders. If he gets unfairly dumped, they will never forgive
the Democrapic party. Both parties are in danger of losing the duopoly.
What everyone is glossing over, is that the country is too big and the politics have become too
small. You have a special problem with the presidency in that the person who occupies it should
embody the basic American ethos from Boston to Honolulu and from Miami to Anchorage. No one exists
who can do this.
We're a divided country, living separate cultures over four time zones (mainland alone).
We're a big big country with big big problems. I don't know how it will shake out, especially
when the bills come due. I only wish we had the problems of a small European country that you
can drive across in four hours. That's a luxury.
Hillary and Trump make Nixon look like a stand up guy. There is only one authentic, principled
and electable candidate in the race. Bernie Sanders, the only candidate with a positive national
favorability rating.
Donald Trump is almost entirely a creation of the media. Most people don't realize it, but
the media got addicted to him back in the early 1980, when he became one of the most flamboyant
characters on the New York scene with a string of bimbos by his side, splashing around money,
mostly not his, and creating the Trump brand, which he used to get into business with OPM (other
people's money).
A lot of his revenues come from licensing out the Trump name out to various
development ventures into which he doesn't contribute a penny, and which generate a large income
that finances his extravagant lifestyle. He is basically a con man, always has been. The corporate
media refrains from mentioning his four bankruptcies, despite inheriting a quarter of a billion
dollars from his father. They media wants him to stay on the campaign scene till the end, because
he is the largest entertainment story that have had in years, and covering his carnival act keeps
generating great revenues for them.
Sadly, this is exactly what America has become. Fox News, talk radio, lunatics and raving
psychopaths, a cesspool of fear and hate. The candidates are what we have become. We're in a canoe
headed for the waterfall and all we hear is "Paddle faster! Paddle faster!" What the American
people will do in the end is anyone's guess.
Headline news says in Iran ... hardliners suffer defeat as reformists make gains ... And ...
in the USA ...? hardliners on the rampage? O Tempora ... O Mores ....
Think how many billions are tied up in an establishment win. Trump will be taxing companies that
move blue collar jobs out of the US. He will be a jobs president. I am really really suspicious
of papers and parties like the Guardian and Labour that don't support this agenda.
Destroy Trump? CNN has placed Trump on hard rotation since mid-2015, to join their rolling Clinton
love-in. They haven't reported on him so much as run his campaign. That would imply that they'
re getting paid down the line.
I agree that the republican party is a despicable joke, but a look at the turnout suggests
that they will very likely control the WH, senate, and increass their majority in the House. Its
unfortunate, but that is definitely the way it looks right now!
"I believe that a first-rate con artist is on the verge of taking over the party of Reagan
and Lincoln." Pretty funny comment. They are all con artists. And Hillary can match them con for
con.
Yup it's a shitfest all-round, the Dems debate schedule was so openly biased towards Hillary
that it was comical but at least they were talking about substantive issues.
The main thing that interests me though is the money still pouring into the GOP even though
it's clear that the party has become unelectable.
Pressed on whether he could win in this week's elections, the 12-state "Super Tuesday" contest,
Rubio said: "Sure. That's not the plan, by the way, but sure."
"He then voiced anxieties that have coursed through the Republican party for months: "I believe
that a first-rate con artist is on the verge of taking over the party of Reagan and Lincoln."
Calling the billionaire "a clown act" who is "preying on" struggling Americans, Rubio warned
that..."
"Struggling Americans"? Since when has Rubio's ultra-corporate free market ideology recognised
their struggle? What the fuck does he have to offer except rich man's You're OK I'M OK preaching?
I seem to recall that Benito embroiled Italy in fruitless war or two....
Trump is not Mussolini, his political, economic and social thinking has very little, if
anything, in common with that man. He may be dangerous, but that doesn't mean he is a Fascist.
Yep, MIC depends on bankster puppets like Rubio and Clinton following their orders. Oh and
the power of money is so persuasive. Bill Clinton is a very bright guy and he still repealed Glass
Steagall under orders......
The problem is that Rubio and Cruz are just as bad -- or worse. They're a bit more polished
politically but they have the same awful mindset and espouse the same awful policies.
A Trumpohpile told me that the reason he likes Trump (and possibly Sanders) is that neither
of them are likely to end up embroiling us in yet more fruitless wars. I understand where he was
coming from -- we've been conned so many times by the political establishment that voting is really
choosing the lesser of evils. People are tired of this.
Anyway, ganging up on Trump is likely to backfire. Unlike most politicians Trump makes
absolutely no attempt to hide who he is and what he stands for. People respect that even as they
ignore that what he stands for is corporatism -- he's not the reincarnation of Hitler (as those
two MX has-been described him), he's Mussolini.
I think Rubio and Cruz's attempts to destroy Trump will backfire. He can just say he is the
outside being ganged up on by the establishment and how he "wont be pushed around just like America
wont be pushed around anymore! blah blah".
Trump will emerge the victor. I'm almost positive.
The establishment will do and say anything to get Trump out. They have total control over
all the others but not Trump. Donald is the only candidate who will do what's right for the country
and the people and make America great again. TRUMP 2016
Clinton: When i'm POTUS we will attack Iran!
Trump : Let's work with Russia to destroy ISIS!
Out of the two, i'm thinking Clinton is a total psychopath.
As a democrat I am terrified and so too should all democrats be. Turnout so far has been down
about 26% compared to 2008. The republicans on the other hand have seen an increase of almost
the smae amount compared to their 2012 numbers! Thats a disaster waiting to happen in November.
Turnout in primaries is one of the best indicators, if not the best, of what will happen in a
general election.
If this trend doesnt change (and theres no reason to believe it will) then we are not only
looking at a Republican controlled WH, but democrats will have almost no chance of regaining control
of the Senate and they could even increase their majority in the House (which they are going to
control no matter what happens)
Indeed. If I was American, a Hillary v Trump scenario would be mindscrewingly difficult to
choose between. An evil woman who is a front for all the neoliberal forces out there. Or an evil
man who is a complete moron and will drive America to its knees.
I think the best option is not to play
"Donald Trump is a liberal Republican" In the crazy world of Republican politics 2016 you're
not wrong. You then drift of into a fantasy world where Trump actually wins the presidency. More
people hate him than love him, with barely anything in-between. Plus they've only just started
digging for dirt.
Guardian sub-heading: "Rubio attacks 'con artist' as Cruz links Trump to mafia" I link all
of them to oligarchy, patriarchy and Christian jihadism. Admittedly, there are some conceptual
overlaps there.
One "good" thing about Trump in this election is that he is clearly not a consultant-packaged
candidate (like Rubio) or a fake (like Cruz), but Trump is a quintessentially amoral salesman.
He pitches whatever the customers want to hear. Customers need to read the fine print before buying
products from him.
Truth is both parties pander to the emotions -- the more frenzied the better it seems -- none
of the candidates respect voters enough to discuss policy with anything even resembling depth.
Politics is cotton candy in America, sprinkled with just enough cayenne to arouse burnt tongues.
Oh what a tangled web we weave...
I can't stand Trump...but he seems to be better than Cruz & Rubio...the problem seems to be
a politically bankrupt party disintegrating before our eyes...
Full blown panic mode now by the GOP establishment, as they belatedly realize they have a
problem with no agreeable solution.
But let's notice one more time that all the discomfort about Trump as expressed by the
GOP functionaries is centered around their suspicions that he may be a closet "liberal". They're
worrying aloud about whether he'd support single-payer healthcare insurance, or refuse to vigorously
oppose gay marriage or draconian positions on abortion.
Not a word about his promise to be a war criminal by torturing people "because they deserve
it", or unconstitutionally banning entry to the US on religious grounds or his support for the
idea of rendering the press vulnerable to lawsuits under brand spanking new libel laws.
The guy has come out brazenly in support of attitudes that the GOP has been covertly dog-whistling
about for years, and now they're panicking.
Embracing him as their candidate destroys the brand.
Torpedoing his candidacy by deploying internal party shenanigans either in the remaining days
of the campaign and/or at the convention will fracture the party.
All the people who Trump has excited with his "he's just saying what people are really thinking"
meme are sure as hell not going to just roll over and let their hero "be robbed" of the nomination.
And you can bet that's how, with Donald's help, they will see it.
Trump's game seems to have been to use The Republican Party's machinery to boost himself,
aware that his appeal to the populace is that he is counter the old guard, awaiting that old guard's
attempt to ditch him and then becoming his own man with his own party. That would split the GOP's
ranks; if, having only, say, half its voters so not winning this time, he will have sown the seed
in his long game to win next time.
When Trump was still normal, he left The Reform Party because David Duke from the KKK had
joined it. Now, he says doesn't know David Duke, not even the KKK!!!!
As Cruz desperately tries to salvage something before slithering under the exit door Rubio
keeps insisting that he will keep receiving participation ribbons just for showing up and they
will add up to victory.
Trump looks more and more like the mature actor in the room. From lunatic insider to the presumptive
candidate for the republican party in about 6 months. Pretty impressive. The voters will flock
to Trump, who in the end will do what all presidents do and screw the voters and support the rich.
Both parties do it to the voters, but the voters never learn.
This is awesome, America is embarking on a long overdue conversation. The Republicans are
now using tax returns to play the 1% card on Trump, yes they hate those richer than themselves
as well as poorer. You wonder why they bother, and I'm sure some of them are. So hate it will
be from the Republicans and 'love and kindness' from Hillary. It's mapping out.
"... "She's a creature of a fundamentally corrupt system, who comfortably operates within that system and accepts it as legitimate. Clinton has had trouble countering that critique because, well, it's true. It's not that she's been bought, it's that she bought in "One problem afflicting our online discourse is that many of her dimmer fellow liberals in the press keep being baffled at Clinton opposition from leftists who extensively criticize the institutions of American liberalism." ..."
"... She's a creature of a fundamentally corrupt system, who comfortably operates within that system and accepts it as legitimate. Clinton has had trouble countering that critique because, well, it's true. It's not that she's been bought, it's that she bought in. ..."
I can't break out my Magic Markers™ for
the Sanders v. Clinton debate last Thursday because there's not enough time in the world. So
I want to look at three seemingly distinct topics: corruption, health care, and what the smart people
who ride the Acela call "theories of change." For each topic, I will compare and contrast Sanders
and Clinton; and I'll weave the three topics together at the end.
Before I begin, though, let me set the context for the (
"truly
great" ) debate: Elite panic at Clinton's performance.
McClatchy :
Dick Harpootlian, a prominent criminal defense lawyer in Columbia, South Carolina, and former
chair of that key Southern state's Democratic Party, said the addition of more debates reflects
panic among Clinton and Democratic figures who support her in the wake of Sanders' unexpectedly
strong challenge.
"Hillary was against having more debates, now she's for debates," Harpootlian told McClatchy.
"This is what's wrong with our party. The minute she's in trouble, they decide they need more
debates. If she had done much better in Iowa, there wouldn't be more debates."
Others agree.
The Los Angeles Times uses more measured language than (Sanders supporter (!)) Harpootlian, which
is not hard, but the conclusion is the same:
The fact the session took place at all was a reflection of the changed nature of the contest.
Originally, Clinton agreed to just six debates sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee,
which has weathered criticism it tried to shelter the party's front-runner and stave off a serious
challenge.
Her willingness to join Sanders onstage - and agree to later debates in Michigan and California
- was just one sign the race has grown much tougher than Clinton and her supporters had hoped.
Now, I'm assuming Wasserman-Schulz is still di– messing around with the schedule, and so
a viewership ranked 17 of 19 debates, equivalent to a Republican undercard debate , wasn't a
bug, but a feature. If that's true, I'd argue that the Clinton campaign hoped both to keep Clinton
wrapped in tissue paper and land a knockout blow in the form of an admission or a gaffe
suitable for YouTube; Clinton's diatribe on "If you've got something to say, say it directly" looks
a lot like a setup for such a punch. If so, Sanders didn't fall for it and wasn't rattled, and he
wins by not losing. (In fact, the Sanders campaign landed a solid counterpunch of its own, as we
shall see under "Corruption," below, and enabled Sanders himself to stay on the high road. That's
how it's done.)
SANDERS: What being part of the establishment is, is, in the last quarter, having a super PAC
that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one's life raised a whole lot of money
from the drug companies and other special interests.
To my mind, if we do not get a handle on money in politics and the degree to which big money
controls the political process in this country, nobody is going to bring about the changes that
is needed in this country for the middle class and working families.
CLINTON: Yeah, but I - I think it's fair to really ask what's behind that comment. You know,
Senator Sanders has said he wants to run a positive campaign. I've tried to keep my disagreements
over issues, as it should be.
But time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting
forth, which really comes down to - you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees
from any interest group has to be bought.
And I just absolutely reject that, Senator. And I really don't think these kinds of attacks
by insinuation are worthy of you. And enough is enough. If you've got something to say, say it
directly.
But you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that
I ever received .
CLINTON: So I think it's time to end the very artful smear that you and your campaign have
been carrying out
Shorter Clinton: "You say I'm corrupt. Prove it!" In longer form, Clinton makes the strong claim
that "you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that
I ever received." This claim can be disproved with a single example. Here ya go.
Let's look at what Elizabeth Warren has to say on Clinton and the bankruptcy bill; note the appeal
to those burdened with student loans. (Many of you may have seen this, but it's well worth a second
look.
The video was "blasted out" to the press "almost instantaneously" by the Sanders campaign , to
whom we should give credit both for being both better at oppo and more agile than we might think.)
Here it is:
ELIZABETH WARREN: One of the first bills that came up after she was Senator Clinton was the
bankruptcy bill. This is a bill that's like a vampire. It will not die. Right? There's a lot of
money behind it, and it
BILL MOYERS: Bill, her husband, who vetoed
ELIZABETH WARREN: Her husband had vetoed it very much at her urging.
BILL MOYERS: And?
ELIZABETH WARREN: She voted in favor of it.
BILL MOYERS: Why?
ELIZABETH WARREN: As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different. It's a well-financed
industry. You know a lot of people don't realize that the industry that gave the most money to
Washington over the past few years was not the oil industry, was not pharmaceuticals. It was consumer
credit products. Those are the people. The credit card companies have been giving money, and they
have influence.
BILL MOYERS: And Mrs. Clinton was one of them as Senator.
ELIZABETH WARREN: She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about
them as a constituency.
Well, so much for "artful smear." (I saw that one go by on the Twitter, and thought "Uh oh," but
then it suddently died, as if some decision had been made no longer to propagate it. Perhaps this
video was why.)
Note how narrow Clinton's definition of corruption is: Money in exchange for a vote. That is the
criminal definition of corruption - the quid pro quo - as we've seen from
Zephyr Teachout, but corrupton as the Framers understood it , as an infection in the body politic,
has a far broader definition: "The self-serving use of public power for private ends."[1] Clearly,
using one's official position as a former Secretary of State and a likely future President to collect
$675,000 from Goldman is exactly that. And I'm amazed how many Clinton supporters, at least on the
Twitter, simply refuse to see this. Do they believe, as Yves asks, that Goldman is investing in Clinton
with no thought of return? If so, I've got a campaign headquarters I'd like to sell. Transpose the
example from high politics to local politics. Assume Clinton's running for re-election as dog-catcher.
She gives a speech at Premier EZ Catch, Inc. for $675, and then later awards Premier EZ Catch the
contract for dog catching nets. Am I entitled to call that corrupt? Of course; Clinton would never
have been offered the $675 had she not been, as a public official, in a position to award the contract.
Would I vote to re-elect Clinton as dogcatcher? Of course not.
And now to compare Clinton to Sanders: Things are a lot simpler with Sanders; his net worth is
$419,000 [2]. Let me break out my calculator And so his lifetime accumulation of wealth
is $256,000 less than the $675,000 Clinton made for three speeches at Goldman. And then there's the
campaign fundraising model: 70 percent small donors.
"[T]he $20 million it reports to have raised in January came almost exclusively from online donations
averaging $27 a piece." So, with Sanders, even if we use Clinton's definition of corruption,
the question of quid pro quo doesn't arise. There's not enough quid.
Health Care
To health care. Rather than shredding Clinton's false claims about Sanders on health care policy,
I want to compare and contrast their health care policy successes. First, Clinton.
The transcript :
CLINTON: Before it was called Hillarycare - I mean, before it was called ObamaCare it was called
Hillarycare because we took them on, and we weren't successful, but we kept fighting and we got
the children's health insurance program . Every step along the way I have stood up,
and fought, and have the scars to prove it.
With "kept fighting," Clinton is being a little disingenuous. The Clinton administration began
their effort in 1993, and the "Health Security Act" was deep-sixed by the leadership in 1994. The
State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was only proposed in 1997; it's not part of
the Health Security Act's legislative history at all. That said, it's a good program, and Hillary
Clinton can take some of the credit for passing it. From
Factcheck.org :
Hillary Clinton took a major role in translating the new law into action. The program leaves
to the states the job of setting up coverage and getting children enrolled, a task that continues
to be a struggle to this day. In April that year the first lady gave a speech saying nearly
1 million children had been enrolled during the previous year, but that increasing the figure
was "one of the highest priorities" of her husband's administration. She said the president would
seek $1 billion to fund a five-year "outreach" effort, with a goal of increasing enrollment to
5 million by 2000. Our conclusion: Clinton is right [to take credit].
SANDERS: And let me just say this. As Secretary Clinton may know, I am on the Health Education
Labor Committee. That committee wrote the Affordable Care Act. The idea I would dismantle health
care in America while we're waiting to pass a Medicare for All is just not accurate.
So I do believe that in the future, not by dismantling what we have here - I helped write that
bill - but by moving forward, rallying the American people, I do believe we should have health
care for all.
Sanders, with "I helped write that bill," is claiming at once too much and too little. Too much,
because - thank heavens - Sanders didn't architect or draft the ACA; that was a job for Max Baucus
and the insurance companies. Too little, because what Sanders did do was get Community Health
Centers into the bill:
However, as negotiations were in their final stage, Sanders successfully pushed for the inclusion
of $11 billion in funding for community health centers, especially in rural areas. The insertion
of this funding helped bring together both Democratic lawmakers on the left and Democrats representing
more conservative, rural areas.
"There was no one who played a more important role than Sen. Sanders" in securing that funding,
Daniel Hawkins, vice president of the National Association of Community Health Centers, told the
Intercept last year. (Sanders' camp forwarded PolitiFact the Intercept article as evidence for
his statement.)
The new law provides an additional $9.5 billion in operating costs and $1.5 billion for new
construction. With this additional funding, community health centers will be able to double the
number of patients they serve to up to 40 million annually by 2015.
Now let's step back and compare and contrast Clinton and Sanders:
1) Sanders, just like Clinton, is capable of being "pragmatic," if that's defined as settling
for a partial good. Clinton got CHIP initiated; Sanders got CHC expanded.
2) If we take coverage numbers as a metric, Sanders is a more successful pragmatist than Clinton;
6 million covered by Clinton, vs. 20 million covered by Sanders.
3) Sanders is most certainly capable not only of legislative achievement but of coalition-building.
In a time of divided government and partisanship even more ruthless than under the Clintons, Sanders
could "bring together both Democratic lawmakers on the left and Democrats representing more conservative,
rural areas."[3]
So one could certainly make the case - at least in health care - that Sanders is a more effective
politician, and a more effective pragmatist, than Clinton. (Of course, Sanders didn't have to cope
with the reputational effects of the HillaryCare debacle. So there's that.) Why would that be? I
think there are two reasons (and I'll get to the second in the next section). First, Sanders had
set high goals in the beginning of the legislative process. He didn't negotiate with himself, or
start from the perspective that he had to ask for half a loaf because that's all we was going to
get.
Politifact summarizes the legislative history :
Still, when Sanders says he "helped write" the bill, it would be reasonable to imagine that
Sanders was an integral player in the crafting of the bill over a long period of time - an insider
in the process. And that's not the reality.
Before the final bill was enacted, Sanders and his allies on the party's left flank regularly
expressed frustration at the concessions they had to make during the legislative process.
"Public-option proponents, including Sanders and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, say they already
have given up enough," Politico reported in late November 2009. "They agreed to forgo a single-payer
system. They decided not to push a government plan tied to Medicare rates. And they accepted (Harry)
Reid's proposal to include the opt-out provision. That's it, they say."
Politico went on to quote Sanders saying, "I have made it clear to the administration and Democratic
leadership that my vote for the final bill is by no means guaranteed."
If Sanders had started from Clinton's perspective of
fear of "contentious debate" and what is "achievable," and made his first offer his final offer,
would he and his allies have achieved even as much as the CHC? I doubt it.
Theory of Change
Elsewhere,
I contrasted Clinton's theory of change as "trench warfare" with Sanders' theory of change as "breakthrough."
Here, I want to weave together theories of change with corruption, using health care as an example.
Above, I presented one reason that Sanders is an effective and pragmatic politician: He set high
goals. (Clinton characterizes having a high goal as an initial offer as "Making promises you can't
keep.") Here's the second reason: He had the right kind of outside pressure to help him. To see this,
let's look at the what happened to single payer advocacy in the HillaryCare debacle.
From Vicente Navarro, who was inside the process :
Jesse Jackson, Dennis Rivera (then president of Local 1199, the foremost health care workers
union), and I went to see Hillary Clinton. We complained about the commitment to managed care
competition without due consideration of a single-payer proposal supported by large sectors of
the left in the Democratic Party. We emphasized the need to include this proposal among those
to be considered by the task force. Mrs. Clinton responded by asking Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition
to appoint someone to the task force with that point of view. And this is how I became a member
of the White House task force. I later found out that there was considerable opposition from senior
health advisors, including Starr and Zelman, to my becoming part of the task force. According
to a memo later made public and published in David Brock's nasty book The Seduction of Hillary
Clinton, Starr and Zelman disapproved of my appointment "because Navarro is a real left-winger
and has extreme distaste for the approach we are pursuing"– which was fairly accurate about my
feelings, but I must stress that my disdain for managed competition and the intellectuals who
supported it did not interfere with my primary objective: to make sure that the views of the single-payer
community would be heard in the task force. They were heard, but not heeded. I was ostracized,
and I had the feeling I was in the White House as a token - although whether as a token left-winger,
token radical, token Hispanic, or token single-payer advocate, I cannot say. But I definitely
had the feeling I was a token something.
(If only Jesse Jackson had run, and not Michael Dukakis!) This is the inside game: "appoint someone
to the task force"
Then comes the outside pressure :
It was at a later date, when some trade unions and Public Citizen mobilized to get more than
200,000 signatures in support of a single-payer system, that President Clinton instructed the
task force to do something about single-payer. From then on the battle centered on including a
sentence in the proposed law that would allow states to choose single-payer as an alternative
if they so wished.
Now let's contrast the outside pressure - considering national union leadership as outsiders,
for the sake the argument - for single payer when ObamaCare was being passed. There were petition
drives, and also (some) unions, like National Nurses United, though shamefully not the SEIU. But
there were also these
forms of elite reaction to outside pressure (somewhat reformatted):
(It looks like the lesson the Democratic establishment took from the HillaryCare debacle was not
to appoint single payer advocates at all, instead of putting them on committees and then shunning
them.) All these examples exhibit outside pressure exerted by single payer advocates on
elites in the Obama administration and its allies in the political class. Now review Navarro's narrative.
Do you see any similar examples there? (It's possible that such examples did happen - readers? -
but it seems unlikely to me that Navarro would not have mentioned them). It could be that I'm too
close to the single payer battle to be objective, but this is a distinction. I don't recall
people getting arrested on behalf of single payer in Senate hearing rooms when HillaryCare was going
down, for example. So that, to me, is the second reason for Sanders success with CHC.
And where, pray tell, would such outside pressure on the political class come from, in a Sanders
administration? Well, that would be the political revolution that Sanders constantly speaks of:
SANDERS I'm running for president because I believe it is just too late for establishment politics
and establishment economics. I do believe we need a political revolution where millions of people
stand up and say loudly and clearly that our government belongs to all of us and not just a handful
of wealthy campaign contributors.
And is there an example in recent history of a movement that could perform this task? Why yes.
Yes there is. It was called Obama for America, and it was highly effective in 2008.
Here's what happened to it:
As Jessica Shearer, a top Obama field organizer in 2008, who managed nine key states for the
campaign, said
a year ago at our PDF symposium on networked organizing after the Tea Party and Occupy Wall
Street, the Obama team had basically "kneecapped" their grassroots after the 2008 victory. "If
Dean had been put in charge of the Democratic Party after that election, that list might have
really built the democracy. It might have built a party. It might have allowed people a place
to engage. Instead, it was this weak echo chamber, where they couldn't be one step to the left
or one step to the right of anything the president said."
Marshall Ganz, who initiated and organized Obama for America,
agrees with
Shearer :
President Obama, Ganz says ruefully, seems to be "afraid of people getting out of control."
He needed the organizing base in 2008, but he and his inner circle were quick to dismantle it
after the election. Yes, Ganz concedes, they kept Organizing for America, with its access to the
vast volunteer databases, alive; but they made a conscious decision to neuter it, so as to placate
legislators who were worried about the independent power base it could give Obama. Following a
meeting of key members of the transition team, they placed it under the control of the Democratic
National Committee.
So a Sanders theory of change doesn't have to be that hard: Don't replicate the Democrat's
strategic failure - I'm being very charitable here - of gutting a movement once built. We
know how to do the right thing; so do it. Change is hard; but the theory of change is not hard.
And this brings me right back round to corruption. The Democrat Party and, more importantly, its
voters and constitutents, are not faced with a choice between Clinton's incremental, insider-driven
trench warfare strategy, and Sanders' breakthrough, outsider, movement strategy. The first cannot
work; the second can. Why?
The insider strategy founders on corruption. You saw that in Warren's video on Clinton and the
bankruptcy bill. When Clinton's private interests changed after her transition from First Lady to
Senator, she flipped on policy to favor her new Wall Street contributors constituents; "the self-serving
use of public power for private ends." And exactly the same thing will happen with any insider strategy
today; corruption will defeat it.
A movement strategy is the only way forward. And we already know how to do it!
NOTES
[1] Under oligarchy, we might ask ourselves if corruption is the normal - indeed, normative -
interface between state and civil society, at least for elites.
If you want to depict NC as having a house position, it is that Clinton 1. Has a vastly overblown
track record (as in she's held plummy jobs but either accomplished little or had negative accomplishments
at each of them and 2. She and Bill are hopelessly corrupt, going back to the late 1970s (!!!)
commodity trades, which became public only after Bill became president.
So we are solidly anti-Clinton. I still have reservations about Sanders despite his successes
so far and him having a much better economic policy and foreign policy position than she does
(as in he is merely not very enthusiastic about moar warz, as opposed to against them).
If you say nice stuff re Trump you will get shot at in a big way. Honestly, I don't see how
anyone with an operating brain cell can have any enthusiasm for any of the leading Republican
candidates.
Interesting that OFA was gutted because the status quo types were worried about Obama having
an "independent" power base. And Obama seems to have been more than happy to go along and
let his independent base be dismantled.
Someone had a quote from Michael Hudson the other day (citation needed) about how he was told
that he wouldn't be successful running for office because the elite king-makers won't back anybody
without some kind of dirt on them, to ensure their tractability. This OFA things sounds to me
like Obama rolling over and showing the power-structure his tummy. "Don't worry, I'm a submissive
lapdog. I won't bite anybody you don't tell me to."
Lambert, excellent post to be chewed and digested thoroughly!
Glenn Greenwald also points to a passage in Alex Pareene's "Hillary Clinton Has a Henry Kissinger
Problem" that captures a key part of Clinton v. Sanders that many pundits haven't grasped
"She's a creature of a fundamentally corrupt system, who comfortably operates within that system
and accepts it as legitimate. Clinton has had trouble countering that critique because, well,
it's true. It's not that she's been bought, it's that she bought in
"One problem afflicting our online discourse is that many of her dimmer fellow liberals in
the press keep being baffled at Clinton opposition from leftists who extensively criticize the
institutions of American liberalism."
She's a creature of a fundamentally corrupt system, who comfortably operates within that
system and accepts it as legitimate. Clinton has had trouble countering that critique because,
well, it's true. It's not that she's been bought, it's that she bought in.
I keep seeing the $675K in speaking fees, what hasn't gotten enough attention is the total
that the Clintons have received: over $150M (Bill and Hillary). Sure, they are doing what others
have done, but they have been doing it on an industrial scale.
"Note how narrow Clinton's definition of corruption is: Money in exchange for a vote. That
is the criminal definition of corruption - the quid pro quo - as we've seen from Zephyr Teachout,
but corrupton as the Framers understood it, as an infection in the body politic, has a far broader
definition: "The self-serving use of public power for private ends."[1] Clearly, using one's official
position as a former Secretary of State and a likely future President to collect $675,000 from
Goldman is exactly that."
Wonderful analysis.
I would just note that it seems to me that the Clintons and their ilk epitomize modern corruption
– The Clintons don't change their views because of bribes. A Rhodes scholar doesn't need to get
a brown paper bag stuffed with hundreds to do what his client wants. The client does what Clinton
wants. It just so happens that the Clintons and the bankers are of the same Davos Man elite, and
share the same world and policy views. The Clintons don't have to be paid to try and make Goldman
Sachs richer – they already believe that!
The Clintons are much more like consultants anticipating what political issues could come up,
and through a comprehensive program of appointments, alliances (including marriage), and preemptive
attacks, neutralization of any anticipated problems, as well as providing insights into future
opportunities. Indeed, the Clintons get hired by Goldman for exactly the same reason that Goldman
gets hired by the market. Goldman's insider knowledge and connections make them more valuable.
Goldman has so many employees who have been Treasury secretaries well, because they love America?
Well, of course they love America – it works great for them. And for anyone who is smart, hard
working, and plays the game the way it IS SUPPOSE TO BE PLAYED. And they, and their defenders,
certainly don't want it changing in ANY substantive way that could possibly make them poorer,
OR even reduces the RATE that their wealth ever increases. Nothing so crass or venal as bribes
have to happen. You just have to understand who your friends are, and what you do for them. A
really expensive prostitute never takes the cash in advance – the clients want to enumerate them
generously. And at this level of "service" the provider truly wants a happy client .win-win as
they say in Davos.
I am sure in the mind of Hillary that she honestly believes she is serving Goldman Sachs honestly,
honorably, and to the best of her ability. She believes that the "Davos Man" elite view provides
the framework for great material growth – she understands not to even ASK if the growth is equitable.
Their are plenty of lawyers, economists, and policy elites that can marshal "sophisticated"
arguments for such a viewpoint. The fact that this viewpoint has guided US policy for near 50
years, and that corresponds exactly to the diminution of the middle class, is something that Hillary
Clinton could not accept. The Clintons, like many successful people who get rich who attribute
their good fortune to diligence, hard work, and upstanding moral behavior, instead of because
of the true reason – – luck, brown nosing, and unabashed grandstanding, will like most humans
be incapable of facing that their beliefs are wrong and the people they have allied themselves
with are self promoters and sycophants, and bad.
good addition to the thread, Fresno Dan. I think you put your finger on something important-
Hillary Clinton believes herself to be a good person doing good work. And she believes also that
her view of the realities of elite class political life is pragmatic and furthermore she succeeds
within that world by dint of hard work and diligence and therefore has achieved and deserves wealth.
I think she's deeply insulted to be accused of corruption. However, is she deliberately blind
to the systematic corruption of the political process?
"As senator, Wall Street was part of my constituency." Or word to that effect. Believes she
is doing good in a good system? Really? "We came, we saw, he died" cue the Monte Burns cackle
But was Shkreli's performance actually more objectionable than that of the legislators who
were performing alongside him? Elijah Cummings, of Maryland, is the ranking Democrat on the committee,
and he used his allotted time to deliver a scolding. "Somebody's paying for these drugs, and it's
the taxpayers that end up paying for some of them," he said. "Those are our constituents." In
fact, it's hard to figure out exactly who is paying what for Daraprim. Shkreli and Turing have
claimed that hospitals and insurance companies will pay, while patients who can't afford it will
get a discount, or get it for free. And Nancy Retzlaff, Turing's chief commercial officer, told
the committee about her company's efforts to get the drug to people who can't afford it. The arrangement
she described sounded like a hodge-podge, an ungainly combination of dizzyingly high prices, mysterious
corporate bargaining, and occasional charitable acts-which is to say, it sounded not so much different
from the rest of our medical system.
Even so, Cummings acted as if Shkreli were the only thing preventing a broken system from being
fixed. "I know you're smiling, but I'm very serious, sir," he said. "The way I see it, you can
go down in history as the poster boy for greedy drug-company executives, or you can change the
system-yeah, you." Cummings has been in Congress since 1996, and he is a firm believer in the
power of government to improve industry through regulation. And yet now he was begging the former
C.E.O. of a relatively minor pharmaceutical company to "change the system"? It seemed like an
act of abdication.
..
One of the strangest things about the anti-Shkreli argument is that it asks us to be shocked that
a medical executive is motivated by profit. And one of the strangest things about Shkreli himself
is that he doesn't seem to be motivated by profit-at least, not entirely. Last fall, Derek Lowe,
a chemist and blogger affiliated with Science, criticized Shkreli's plan to raise prices as a
"terrible idea," not least because such an ostentatious plan posed "a serious risk of bringing
the entire pricing structure of the industry under much heavier scrutiny and regulation." He called
on the pharmaceutical industry to denounce Shkreli as a means of protecting its own business model;
from an economic point of view, Shkreli's strategy seemed self-defeating. At least one person
close to Shkreli seems to have agreed. One of the most revealing documents uncovered by the committee
showed an unnamed executive imploring him not to raise the price of Daraprim again, saying that
the risk of another media firestorm outweighed the benefit. "Investors just don't like this stuff,"
the e-mail said. Shkreli's response was coolly noncommittal: "We can wait a few months for sure."
A truly greedy executive would keep a much lower profile than Shkreli: there would be no headline-grabbing
exponential price hikes, just boring but reliable ticks upward; no interviews, no tweeting, and
absolutely no hip-hop feuds. A truly greedy executive would stay more or less anonymous. (How
many other pharmaceutical C.E.O.s can you name?) But Shkreli seems intent on proving a point about
money and medicine, and you don't have to agree with his assessment in order to appreciate the
service he has done us all. By showing what is legal, he has helped us to think about what we
might want to change, and what we might need to learn to live with.
===================================
Reminds me very much of a movie were the "good" vampires have to kill a "rogue" vampire who is
just sucking up way more blood than he needs or deserves. Because the villagers apparently are
willing to give up a few people as the normal course of events
Of course, the hardest thing to take is the unbelievable rationalization proffered by FDA officials
(at the behest of their bosses, congress of course) to prevent willing buyers from buying from
willing sellers .because those sellers are in those hell holes of filth and decomposition like
Germany, Switzerland, and France. Funny how wonderful the market is .except when it isn't. So
much better that people go without heat than risk buying prescription drugs from Europe because
our government is SO CONCERNED about their health.
I know many NC readers are also fans of Harry Shearer's weekly radio show/podcast Le Show
. This week's episode features a delicious segment of Clintonsomething wherein Hillary
and Bill discuss what the new think tank should be named. Priceless and available for free (eventually)
at http://harryshearer.com/le-show/
or other podcast servers (i.e. iTunes etc.)
Forced myself to watch a HRC townhall this morning and she was again harping on Sanders wanting
to get rid of the ACA and start over and how we'll lose the ACA in a huge fight in Congress. Add
to that her pollsters that are push polling with questions like "Do you want Sanders single payer
health care that's going to cost $20 trillion or HRC's improvement of the ACA?" and you know she's
in trouble, and it's just started. Sanders can be one smart politician and I think she's in over
her head as she can't see beyond the "corruption is normal" framework she's coming from. Talk
about being compromised – wow
It's really hard to see the point of this sort of thing. So her son-in-law has money or works
in banking so what? Do you really think Bernie, as President, is somehow going to ride in and
take trillions of dollars from the wealthy and spread them around? There seems to be a huge amount
of fantasy and unreality afoot a sort of George McGovern idealism that somehow pushing a 'pure'
candidate for President will change the world, or even change a significant number of mind in
the US or even make any difference at all. Well, except end us up with a 6-3 conservative majority
on the Court. Now, THAT would be an important change. You want that?
Your anti-purity, fantasy, unreality statement insults the intelligence of everyone who wants
a return to human decency in government. No president has ever changed things alone and never
will. If Bernie wins, it's because he will have inspired us to form a movement for change. Just
like Reagan and movement conservatism. They succeeded and so can we.
Krugman's latest hit piece on Bernie's electability has pissed me off. Here was my comment:
Here is something another political scientist has discovered:
"Interviewing a roomful of undeclared voters recently, Neil Levesque, executive director of
Saint Anselm College's New Hampshire Institute of Politics, asked which presidential candidate
they were most likely to support when the state holds the country's first primary in two weeks.
The majority of these New Hampshire voters, he said in a phone interview from Manchester, cited
the Republican real estate developer, Donald Trump. Their second choice? Bernie Sanders, the
self-styled social democratic senator from Vermont."
How many "undecideds" do you think will flock to Clinton if Trump loses the nomination? Who
really has a better chance to win the national election?
This is one of the few times I have seen the pollster ask who would be your second choice without
limiting it to party, as in who is your second choice among the Republican candidates?
"... If youre relying on seeing your favorite candidates name the most times in a Google search, do keep in mind that only young low information voter relies on technology to determine whos popular. The old folks still rely on talk radio. ..."
"... Clinton is the Democratic Party candidate of the Military Industrial Complex ..."
"... Trump says insane things, of course every news outlet covers him, I dont really think he counts. MSNBC is by far the worst of the lot when it comes to spoon feeding. I dont like FOX any better when they bring on their Holy band of extreme right commentators either. ..."
"... As a young female undecided voter, its hard not to be fooled by the celebrity game show host. And on the other hand, its hard not to support my fellow gender and vote Hillary (until you look at the baggage). Now, if I listen to my brain as opposed to emotions, the common sense of Bernie on the one side or Rand Paul on the other has a distinct appeal. Theyre quite interesting to listen to and they do it without invoking terror, hatred, scare tactics or even biblical quotes. How refreshing! ..."
"... The bankruptcy argument is a bunch of bs. Hes a billionaire now. If I could become a billionaire by going bankrupt Id do it in a heartbeat. The truth is that he figured out how to rise out of bankruptcy and is now financing a presidential campaign and manhandling his opponents who have received millions in contributions. ..."
"... Ive been a democrat all my life and hope that Sanders wins. But if it comes down to Hillary and Trump, Im voting Trump. If it comes down to Hilary and any republican not named Trump, Ill hold my nose and vote for Hilary. I really dont care for her. ..."
"... Its heartening to see that Clinton is polling lower than Sanders when it comes to young women, perhaps indicative of the post-sexism ideal were going for; younger women are judging the candidates on their actual policies and character, as opposed to being swayed by the infantile because shes a woman appeal. ..."
"... Given TTP and TTIP, NAFTA, the actions of the IMF and World Bank, the moves by the EU and Anglosphere away from social democracy and the continuing prescription of liberal economic policy for all states, deregulation, plans to expand recourse to investor-state dispute settlement courts, and the overall small state philosophy, often enforced by military interventionism or sanctions, it seems as if pro-capital policy, deregulation and the resulting inequality havent obtained a status quo that will be maintained under Hilary or the GOP so much as an agenda that has been pushed globally, and will go further in the direction that many voters on the left and centre of politics and even the traditional conservative right and far-right, probably the majority of Americas and the worlds population, oppose. ..."
"... The Guardian and the rest of the UK media are giving Trump the same treatment as they gave Arthur Scargill in the 1980s. ..."
"... The UK Establishment and media and their overseas supporters (in the other direction) and we all know who that is. are schit scared in case Trump gets in. The British establishment has been bought. British 'informed democracy', is dead. Censorship, is rife. And the British People know it. ..."
"... Does any of this really matter? The United States is an empire and, regardless of who is anointed President by the Koch brothers and the rest of the American aristocracy, the empire will still require a military budget of at least $500,000,000,000 and American jobs will still go to China because that's profitable for the corporations and for the aristocrats who own and run those corporations. ..."
"... The far-left attacks again, well I have to give them credit, they are really trying harder than ever. Anyway, these polls are always adulterated by special interests ..."
"... We do not have a democracy. Freedom of speech democratic freedom of thought, yes. Democracy is an unfulfilled philosophical idea and wishful thinking. For decades, we have been under the total rule of organized business - as are many developed nations. ..."
"... I have been a lifelong Democrat and my first choice is Bernie Sanders. With my meagre income I will continue to contribute to his campaign. My alternate choice is, anyone but Hillary Clinton. For the life of me, I cannot imagine anyone who reads the news can vote for this Wall St. puppet. ..."
"... Be that as it may, the US average voter owes to Donald Trump for standing up to the corporate media that we always criticise for influencing elections, while other candidates of both parties bend over backwards to curry their favor. ..."
"... Yes, the corporate media as a result are going after him, but he still gets votes. This election, the case the US Voter vs. Corporate Media, the Voter won thanks to Trump. ..."
"... People have unfavourable opinions of politicians they actually vote for. Nearly all Repubs will vote for trump if he is the nominee and whether it's Hillary or Sanders, a fair size of one time Obama voters are switching to the Repubs because they want action taken against the rapid erosion of what they consider to be American values. ..."
"... It appears that the Guardian continues to show it's bias toward Clinton. How about being balanced and reporting the news instead of trying to create the news and influence the outcome. If we want bias we can drift over to Fox Fake news ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is not on the left. She is right center. ..."
"... Cruz is genuinely dangerous. A religious zealot and a war monger, it would be a massive step back for America and the world if this man became president. ..."
"... It's because many people who are centrist or left leaning have a sense of morality and principles.. It's not about voting for who stinks less.. It's about standing up for what you consider right and if you can't do that during the election process then what's the bloody point of democracy.. Take the case of Occupy Wall Street.. supported by most left leaning people. ..."
"... the media wants us to frame everything into left wing or right wing. However I don't buy into that paradigm anymore. When Clinton was about to send the jobs away, I saw effectively Pat Buchanan (staunch conservative but poplulist) effectively joining forces with Ralph Nader (perhaps as far left as anyone can go but still populist). You think any democrat would be better than any republican. I think that if we don't fix something soon, this whole thing is going to collapse. For my money only 3 candidates are actually pledging to fix something (Sanders, Paul and Trump). ..."
"... Remember that socialist is a dirtier word in much of the U.S. than neo-liberal is in Western Europe. There's also the very pertinent question of whether the U.S. is ready to elect a Jewish president. ..."
"... Obama came in surrounded by Wall Street execs and stooges and from the outset had no intention of challenging the power of the capitalist class or affecting change that was anything other than rhetorical in nature. ..."
"... Clinton is the one candidate who can lose to Trump, and if she win's she will govern like Bush. It's disgusting how the establishment is pushing her so hard, but it does inform us that we should reject her. Clinton is a candidate like Obama - runs on hope and change, than nothing changes - same old attitude that Government exists to protect the profits of the 1% and **** Working Class Americans ..."
"... Sanders' mild social democratic policies - which require moderate and easily affordable sacrifices on the part of the rich - are of course very realistic and practical. Or at least they are realistic in countries that are at least reasonably politically sane. But since US politics is the very definition of insanity, Sanders policies are not realistic . ..."
Let's not forget Bill Clinton's brother Roger's involvement in the Iran Contra affair. Clinton's
have been involved in drugs and gun running for a long time.
skipsdad -> André De Koning 30 Jan 2016 21:03
Putin did more damage to Isis in 6 weeks, than Obama and Nato did in six years.
The Turkish fox, is in the Nato chicken coop. Turkey has been getting oil from Syria for years.
Obama knew about it. The Russians were threatening to reveal the deceit, and that's why their
plane was shot down.
Now Turkey is claiming another Russian violation. The fox is looking to start WWIII.
Obama has been dealing with 'moderate terrorists' for years, and Putin exposed him.
Obama and the US - Running with the foxes, and hunting with the hounds.
Trump will clean that cesspit of corruption out.
johnf1 30 Jan 2016 20:58
Who in God's name cares what anyone in Iowa thinks about who should be president. As far as
I know neither Iowa nor New Hampshire has ever been important in any presidential election. Pennsylvania,
Florida, Nevada, Ohio, the voters in those states are important.
nnedjo 30 Jan 2016 20:56
The former first lady run in the elections for the Democratic presidential candidate for the
second time, and claims to have a trump cards for it; "Only she is able to defeat Trump!"
However, the problem is that in addition to trump cards Hillary also has Trump's money. You remember
that she took the money from Trump, as a fee for coming to his wedding.
Now it raises a hypothetical question: What if in the middle of the election campaign Trump
decides to pay Clinton a little more than before, as "a fee for the lost elections"?
So, in my opinion it is not unthinkable at all that Hillary could sell elections to Trump in exchange
for a certain sum of money, the only question is how much money would that be.
And after all, Trump himself has already stated that he is looking forward to get Hillary Clinton
as an opponent in the presidential race, so draw your own conclusions?
André De Koning -> skipsdad 30 Jan 2016 20:50
Pity we only get a silly picture of Putin via western media. Reading his speeches, especially
the last one at the UN (28th Sept.), he was the clearest and summed up the issues of western caused
chaos with its invasions and claim of 'being special'(US, especially hypocritical and doing the
opposite of what it preaches). Putin is thoughtful, strategic and a leader, while in the US there
are no leaders and even more is done by the so-called intelligence agencies' that by the Russian
FSB (more control over them than over the NSA). One debate with Putin would be more interesting
than any of this American waffle that has never changed their superficial, cruel foreign policies.
I discovered this by reading other literature about Putin than you can ever find in the misleading
demonization of any leader who is opposed to US policies. The press lied about Gadaffi too, so
take some trouble to find out what these so-called enemies are actually about.
RusticBenadar -> carson45 30 Jan 2016 20:42
Actually, if you had done your due diligence and researched Bernie's track record you would
see he is a master of bipartisan success; it was said of his mayorship that he "out republicaned
the republicans" achieving all the fiscal objectives they had long sought in Butlington but failed
to accomplish until Bernie came along.
TettyBlaBla 30 Jan 2016 20:39
I find all the predictions of who will win the General Election in November quite amusing.
Primary elections haven't even started and neither major political party has declared which candidates
in the present fields will represent them. The choice of Vice Presidential candidates could well
change the scenarios many are now presenting.
If you're relying on seeing your favorite candidate's name the most times in a Google search,
do keep in mind that only young low information voter relies on technology to determine who's
popular. The old folks still rely on talk radio.
atkurebeach 30 Jan 2016 20:34
if the democrats vote for Hillary, who is tight with Wall Street money, especially when there
is such a clear alternative for the poor, to me that means there is no difference between the
two parties. I might as well vote for Trump, at least he is less likely to start a war.
digitalspacey -> Calvert 30 Jan 2016 20:32
As an outsider looking in (from Australia) what you describe actually works in favour of the
Democrats.
Think about it.
An intransigent Republican party continually blocks what the President wants to do. Now I'm
assuming that if people vote in Bernie it's because they actually want what he has to sell.
So if the Republicans keep playing this game it's really gonna start to grate on people.
There will come a tipping point where people will say 'enough!' and the removal of the Republicans
will commence.
It may take several terms but the Republicans are in egret signing their own death warrant.
Merveil Meok -> Logicon 30 Jan 2016 20:12
There are very powerful forces in America that would NEVER let Bernie Sanders win the White House.
He has said stuff that has disqualified him (in the eyes of those forces) for the role of president.
You can't run against the military, cops, oil companies, Wall Street, the richest people on the
planet, big pharma, and win. That only happens in movies.
SeniorsTn9 30 Jan 2016 20:09
The U.S. campaign is nearly over and two choices remain. Everyone knows America is broken.
Candidates promoting staying the course and being politically correct have no place in America's
future. They broke the America we have today. The realities are obvious; Clinton is to the past
as Trump is to the future. After all the campaigning dust settles, Americans who want American
back will vote for Trump. Trump will make America great again. It really is that simple.
redwhine -> Merveil Meok 30 Jan 2016 20:01
It's good that they have to win over people in Iowa and New Hampshire, and I say this as a
Californian who only ever hears of politicians visiting my state to raise money at the homes of
rich people before leaving the same day. The point is that politicians need to show that they
are willing to work for their votes. They need to hit the pavement. They need to convince people
to vote for them even if they know that the votes in those states don't amount to much. If politicians
only campaigned in California, New York, Texas, and Florida and then skipped the rest, I'd see
no evidence of grit and determination, just lazy opportunism.
ID4352889 30 Jan 2016 19:56
Clinton is a deeply unpleasant character, but Americans will vote for her over the decent Sanders.
It's just the way they do things in the US. Clinton is the Democratic Party candidate of the
Military Industrial Complex and will take the cake. Bernie is just there to make people think
they have a choice. They don't.
redwhine consumerx 30 Jan 2016 19:52
Plenty of people have inherited millions and still ended up penniless. You can't call Trump
an idiot even if you maintain that he could have become a billionaire merely by putting all his
daddy's money into the bank and leaving it there (which we know he didn't, because he's built
at least a dozen skyscrapers and golf courses). By the way, Fred Trump (Donald's dad) was rich
but he was not astronomically rich. As for his lawyers, plenty of lawyers of rich men have done
worse; in trying to denigrate Trump people are reflexively making his dad into some sort of financial
wizard and everyone around Trump to magically have helped him in every step of the way like guardian
angels surrounding him his whole life. It just doesn't work like that.
Merveil Meok 30 Jan 2016 19:42
The political system allows two states (Iowa and New Hampshire) to dictate the future the country.
Some candidates are forced to quit after one or two Caucuses (as money sponsors quit on them),
even if, only God knows, they could have picked up steam later.
I would be in favor of adding three or more states in the first round of the caucuses so that
most of America is represented, not states which have no real power in American daily life - economically
and otherwise.
These two states represent 1.5% of America's population and a ridiculously low percentage of
national GDP.
ChiefKeef 30 Jan 2016 19:39
Sanders will be the best president theyve ever had. The lefts popularity is rocketing across
the west in response to austerity and the endless cycle of imperialism and international crisis.
A new generation of activists, unencumbered by the diminished confidence of past defeats, have
risen spectacularly in defense of equality against the attacks of the right.
Steven Wallace 30 Jan 2016 19:33
Hillary is a devout psychopath whereas Trump is a total doughnut ,seriously who the hell would
vote for these animals ?
Pinesap -> TaiChiMinh 30 Jan 2016 19:31
Trump says insane things, of course every news outlet covers him, I don't really think
he counts. MSNBC is by far the worst of the lot when it comes to spoon feeding. I don't like FOX
any better when they bring on their Holy band of extreme right commentators either. Like
I've said before when your in the middle like me, your screwed. NO news outlets and NO candidates
that could win. Screwed like deck boards I tell you.
WarlockScott -> carson45 30 Jan 2016 19:31
Sorry who was president before Bush? Bill Clinton? and who was Bush running against? Central
figure in the Clinton administration Al Gore?.... oh, woops.
Experience as secretary of state? US foreign policy has got much better since Kerry took over.
Healthcare? the woman that takes bundles of money from Big Pharma, who is now saying that UHC
is fundamentally a pipe dream for the US?
She's a poor choice compared to Sanders imo, If she was running against Biden or another centrist
democrat yeah sure but against a Sanders figure? nah
Jill McLean 30 Jan 2016 19:28
As a young female undecided voter, it's hard not to be fooled by the celebrity game show
host. And on the other hand, it's hard not to support my fellow gender and vote Hillary (until
you look at the baggage). Now, if I listen to my brain as opposed to emotions, the common sense
of Bernie on the one side or Rand Paul on the other has a distinct appeal. They're quite interesting
to listen to and they do it without invoking terror, hatred, scare tactics or even biblical quotes.
How refreshing!
redwhine -> consumerx 30 Jan 2016 19:26
The bankruptcy argument is a bunch of bs. He's a billionaire now. If I could become a billionaire
by going bankrupt I'd do it in a heartbeat. The truth is that he figured out how to rise out of
bankruptcy and is now financing a presidential campaign and manhandling his opponents who have
received millions in contributions.
redwhine 30 Jan 2016 19:19
I've been a democrat all my life and hope that Sanders wins. But if it comes down to Hillary
and Trump, I'm voting Trump. If it comes down to Hilary and any republican not named Trump, I'll
hold my nose and vote for Hilary. I really don't care for her.
JoePomegranate 30 Jan 2016 19:17
It's heartening to see that Clinton is polling lower than Sanders when it comes to young
women, perhaps indicative of the post-sexism ideal we're going for; younger women are judging
the candidates on their actual policies and character, as opposed to being swayed by the infantile
"because she's a woman" appeal.
Logicon 30 Jan 2016 19:08
Bernie has to win the ticket -- the 'best' revolutionary will win the general election:
Trump vs Clinton = trump wins
Trump vs bernie = bernie wins
Cafael -> ponderwell 30 Jan 2016 19:06
Given TTP and TTIP, NAFTA, the actions of the IMF and World Bank, the moves by the EU and
Anglosphere away from social democracy and the continuing prescription of liberal economic policy
for all states, deregulation, plans to expand recourse to investor-state dispute settlement courts,
and the overall 'small state' philosophy, often enforced by military interventionism or sanctions,
it seems as if pro-capital policy, deregulation and the resulting inequality haven't obtained
a status quo that will be maintained under Hilary or the GOP so much as an agenda that has been
pushed globally, and will go further in the direction that many voters on the left and centre
of politics and even the traditional conservative right and far-right, probably the majority of
America's and the world's population, oppose.
Patrick Ryan 30 Jan 2016 18:58
Most polls are shite as extrapolating from relatively small samples never tells you the
true story.... We'll know better after the Caucuses.... the fear factor and the worries of a
nation will play a big part in the selective process - This is not a sprint and race is only
beginning... Having Trump in the mix has shaken up system and he has clearly got the super
conservative media's knickers in a twist...
skipsdad 30 Jan 2016 18:54
The Guardian and the rest of the UK media are giving Trump the same treatment as they
gave Arthur Scargill in the 1980s.
The UK Establishment and media and their overseas supporters (in the other direction) and
we all know who that is. are schit scared in case Trump gets in. The British establishment has
been bought. British 'informed democracy', is dead. Censorship, is rife. And the British
People know it.
Douglas Lees 30 Jan 2016 18:53
The is only one decent candidate and that's Bernie Sanders. The others are a collection of
fruit loops and clowns (all deranged and dangerous) with the exception of Clinton who is
experienced intelligent and totally corrupt. She will cause a war with Iran... Let's hope it's
Bernie maybe a hope for some changes. The last 36 years have been fucked
Canuck61 30 Jan 2016 18:45
Does any of this really matter? The United States is an empire and, regardless of who
is anointed President by the Koch brothers and the rest of the American aristocracy, the
empire will still require a military budget of at least $500,000,000,000 and American jobs
will still go to China because that's profitable for the corporations and for the aristocrats
who own and run those corporations. Enjoy the show, but don't assume that it actually
means anything.
LeftRightParadigm 30 Jan 2016 18:35
The far-left attacks again, well I have to give them credit, they are really trying harder
than ever. Anyway, these polls are always adulterated by special interests, just look in
the UK at IPSOS MORI with CEO who worked for the cabinet office - no bias there! IPSOS said
the majority of British people want to remain in the EU... LOL
Trump is the best candidate, all the others are untrustworthy to the extreme due to who's
funding them, namely Goldman Sachs.
ponderwell -> thedono 30 Jan 2016 18:35
We do not have a democracy. Freedom of speech & democratic freedom of thought, yes.
Democracy is an unfulfilled philosophical idea and wishful thinking. For decades, we have been
under the total rule of organized business - as are many developed nations.
jamesdaylight 30 Jan 2016 18:28
i so hope trump or sanders wins. the establishment needs a new direction.
AdrianBarr -> ID7004073 30 Jan 2016 18:26
I have been a lifelong Democrat and my first choice is Bernie Sanders. With my meagre
income I will continue to contribute to his campaign. My alternate choice is, anyone but
Hillary Clinton. For the life of me, I cannot imagine anyone who reads the news can vote for
this Wall St. puppet. The recent Guardian article by a Wall St. insider about Hillary's
connections and the money she had received from Wall St. should make anyone shudder of her
presidency. Let alone the money the Clinton Foundation had received from other countries when
Hillary was the Secy. of State.
Be that as it may, the US average voter owes to Donald Trump for standing up to the
corporate media that we always criticise for influencing elections, while other candidates of
both parties bend over backwards to curry their favor.
Yes, the corporate media as a result are going after him, but he still gets votes. This
election, the case the US Voter vs. Corporate Media, the Voter won thanks to Trump.
If Bernie is cheated out of the nomination process that the DNC had worked from the beginning
to crown Hillary. I will vote for Trump to save what is left (pun intended) of the Democratic
party. Hillary way far right of Trump. Hillary was a Goldwater Republican, while Trump is a
Rockefeller REpublican. Take your !
elaine layabout -> sammy3110 30 Jan 2016 18:18
He doesn't care about them so long as they are unsubstantiated allegations. When the FBI
announces the result of their investigation, he will give his opinion, so long as it is
relevant to the welfare of the American people.
But using mid-investigation rumors and allegations against an opponent to distract the
American people from the actual, fact-based issues is hardly a failing. I would say it
demonstrates Sanders' commitment to fairness and truth and the best interests of the American
people.
elaine layabout -> Philip J Sparrow 30 Jan 2016 18:12
That would be news to the folks in Burlington, who elected Bernie Sanders to 4 terms as
mayor, during which time he cut their budget, streamlined city services, revitalized their
commercial district and restored their lakefront, AND he was judged one of the top 20 mayors
in the country.
The folks in the State of Vermont would also be surprised to hear this about the man who
served them in the House of Representatives for 16 years. During that time, when the extreme
right wing of the Republican party ruled Congress, Bernie (an Independent) passed more
legislative amendments than any other congressman, even the Republicans themselves. And this
was not watered-down legislation, it was pure, progressive gold.
Those same folks would be surprised to hear this about the Senator whom they last re-elected
with 71% of their votes. I guess that they were thinking of his ability to, again, passed a
series of progressive amendments in a Republican-controlled Congress, including the first-ever
audit of the Federal Reserve -- you know that thing that Ron Paul had been trying to do for
decades. And then there was the Veterans Administration Bill that Republican Jack Reed said
would never have passed without Bernie Sanders' ability to build bi-partisan coalitions.
Bringing 30 Jan 2016 18:12
People have unfavourable opinions of politicians they actually vote for. Nearly all
Repubs will vote for trump if he is the nominee and whether it's Hillary or Sanders, a fair
size of one time Obama voters are switching to the Repubs because they want action taken
against the rapid erosion of what they consider to be American values.
OurPlanet -> eveofchange 30 Jan 2016 18:06
"Does corporate supported Clinton, support gun/missile/bomb "control" of the Army, Police
and state apparatus,or just ordinary people ?"
Took the words out of my mouth. I wonder if
those folks who are thinking of voting for her will stretch their brain capacity to think
seriously about the consequences of voting for her. Do they want more of their tax $ spent on
even more wars?
peacefulmilitant 30 Jan 2016 17:50
But it's simple enough to point out that a minority of Americans are Republicans, and
that even among Republicans about 30% have a negative opinion of Trump. You can see where
the 60% might come from.
The Kochs will forward his thoughts along to him in time.
Harry Bhai 30 Jan 2016 17:48
meanwhile: Iowa's long-serving senior senator, Chuck Grassley, who last weekend
popped up at a Trump event
Rats are coming out of holes to pay respect to Trump the cat.
ID7004073 30 Jan 2016 17:46
It appears that the Guardian continues to show it's bias toward Clinton. How about
being balanced and reporting the news instead of trying to create the news and influence the
outcome. If we want bias we can drift over to Fox Fake news
Bernie has solutions that Fox feels is too boring but solutions about economic and national
security are what America and our world needs. Boats that won't float right and F35
billionaire toys dressed up as the ultimate killing machine will never make America and our
world strong. Economic policies that Bernie promotes that actually employ more people is the
only solutions.
TaiChiMinh -> TheAuthorities 30 Jan 2016 17:36
Hillary Clinton is not "on the left." She is right center. Your attempt to put the
debate between her advocates and those of Sanders into the realm of Stalin-Spanish
Republicans-etc is delusional. Maybe, just maybe the people having this discussion are engaged
in real disagreements, not dogmatic and factional maneuvering.
nnedjo 30 Jan 2016 17:08
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, whose once-mighty lead in the Hawkeye
state has narrowed to paper-thin margins, is focusing on rival Bernie Sanders' complicated
history on gun control in the final days of the Iowa campaign. The former secretary of state
will be joined by former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a survivor of a 2011 mass shooting
that claimed the lives of six people.
Hillary stands for a gun control in order "to disarm"
Bernie, but voters say they would not vote for Hillary even if someone put a gun to their
forehead.
The reason for this is obvious, she is able to exploit even the survivors of the mass
shooting, just to satisfy her own selfish political interests.
Saltyandthepretz -> MasonInNY 30 Jan 2016 16:47
Except a circus is funny. The anti-human, repugnant policies put forward by these two are
in fact quite serious. Trump is crazy, of the A grade variety, but Cruz is genuinely
dangerous. A religious zealot and a war monger, it would be a massive step back for America
and the world if this man became president.
Fentablar -> turnip2 30 Jan 2016 16:21
Rubio is terrible, he's pandering even more than Hillary does (well, if nothing else he
does it just as much) and I'm not sure anyone knows what he actually stands for, even himself.
loljahlol -> godforbidowright 30 Jan 2016 16:15
Yeah, the Libyan people thank her
PlayaGiron -> SenseCir 30 Jan 2016 16:11
aka Wall Street's "progressive" voice as opposed to the Wall Street Journal its
"conservative" voice. In the end two sides of the same neo-liberal beast. "There is no
alternative"! Your corporatist elites have spoken!
elaine layabout -> greven 30 Jan 2016 16:05
True that.
Wall Street and it's lackey pols are playing with fire, because although many Americans had
savings and assets and/or family members with savings and assets and/or access to the
beneficence of local churches and charities, we are all tapped out.
The next time we fall, we fall hard. And we will be taking Wall Street down with us.
vishawish -> TheAuthorities 30 Jan 2016 15:53
It's because many people who are centrist or left leaning have a sense of morality and
principles.. It's not about voting for who stinks less.. It's about standing up for what you
consider right and if you can't do that during the election process then what's the bloody
point of democracy.. Take the case of Occupy Wall Street.. supported by most left leaning
people.
The only candidate who would support and encourage that is Sanders. So how do
you expect people not to support him and go out to support someone who is basically a quasi
republican?
Principles and ideologies matter.
marshwren -> GaryWallin 30 Jan 2016 15:19
Uh, it's not as if Iowans haven't had at least eight months to make up their minds, even
with the advantage of being able to see ALL of the candidates up close and personal, unlike
those of U.S. in late states (such as NJ, where i live, on June 7th or so). Besides, when
people vote in primaries on machines, they have 2-3 minutes to mull things over in the booth.
I appreciate your disdain, but caucus season in IA is like beach season in NJ--a tiresome
inconvenience, but an economic necessity given how many non-residents arrive to spend their
money. And you only have to put up with it once every four years, while ours is an annual
event.
curiouswes MartinSilenus 30 Jan 2016 15:14
Personally, I would prefer not to sit in either, wouldn't you?
Thanks for being logical. Now, the media wants us to frame everything into left wing or
right wing. However I don't buy into that paradigm anymore. When Clinton was about to send the
jobs away, I saw effectively Pat Buchanan (staunch conservative but poplulist) effectively
joining forces with Ralph Nader (perhaps as far left as anyone can go but still populist). You
think any democrat would be better than any republican. I think that if we don't fix something
soon, this whole thing is going to collapse. For my money only 3 candidates are actually
pledging to fix something (Sanders, Paul and Trump). Cruz says he wants to fix everything
by using that same old tired republican bs, so he isn't really planning on fixing anything.
Basically he is Steve Forbes without glasses and with a face lift. Paul would actually try to
fix something, but at this stage, he is a long shot and barring any 11th hour surge, I don't
need to discuss him much at this time. I would classify Trump as a populist, but a loose
cannon that isn't "presidential".
Voting for Trump is sort of an act of desperation. It isn't quite like being a suicide
bomber, but more like going all in just prior to drawing to an inside straight. Sanders is a
populist also. Some people think we can't afford his programs. However the reason the nation
is broke (financially) is because it is broke (as in broken). Sanders has vowed to fix this
(it won't be easy but with the people standing behind him, it is possible). The rest of the
candidates won't fix anything (just try to move the nation either to the left or the right as
it continues it's downward spiral.
We have to stop that downward motion or it won't matter whether we move to the left or right.
Unfortunately everybody doesn't see stopping this downward motion as job one.
For example: take Greece and their financial troubles. Even though our debt is higher, we
aren't in as bad shape as the Greeks, however we really need to stop the bleeding. We really
need to get a populist in there. I'm no economist but according to my understanding, there is
this thing called the money supply which is a bit different than the money itself. While the
government controls the money, it doesn't control the money supply. It needs to control both
or else we are just one "bad" policy away from economic disaster because whoever controls the
money supply controls the economy. If you remember in 2008 the credit dried up and that can
happen again if somebody isn't happy.
WarlockScott 30 Jan 2016 14:33
Can any Clinton supporter cogently argue why they've plumped for her over Bernie? He's far
closer to the social democracy the Democrats espouse (albeit have rarely put into action since
1992), polls show him to be more electable than Clinton, he has a far greater chance of
passing his programs for numerous reasons (better bargaining position, not as hated by
opposition, running a proactive rather than defensive campaign) and he has the popular
touch... Which even Hillary would admit she lacks. I'm hoping perhaps vainly the first answer
won't be about her gender.
TheAuthorities -> NotYetGivenUp 30 Jan 2016 14:12
I'm guessing you don't have a lifetime's experience observing U.S. presidential elections.
Sanders does well in the polls you cite because, so far, the Republicans haven't even begun to
attack him. In fact, they're positively giddy that Clinton looks to be faltering and that
Sanders actually seems closer to the nomination today than anyone would have thought 6 months
ago. Nothing will make GOP strategists sleep more soundly than the prospect of a Sanders
nomination.
In the still-unlikely event that Sanders gets the Democratic nomination, the Republicans will
turn their heavy artillery on him and -- you can trust me on this -- the end result won't be
pretty. Actually, I think it may not even take that much from the Republican character
assassins to convince most Americans not to vote for someone with Sanders's convictions and
political record. Remember that "socialist" is a dirtier word in much of the U.S. than
"neo-liberal" is in Western Europe. There's also the very pertinent question of whether the
U.S. is ready to elect a Jewish president.
Again, if you're unfamiliar with the American electoral process, you've never seen anything
like the Republican attack machine. ESPECIALLY if your reference point is a British election.
It's like comparing a church picnic with a gang fight.
Another factor to consider is that, just as the GOP establishment is trying to undercut Trump,
so the Democratic Party leadership could possibly draft somebody else to run (Biden?) if
Clinton does go down in flames.
TaiChiMinh -> Winner_News 30 Jan 2016 14:06
Obama came to office basically bragging that he had the key to a post-partisan,
collaborative way of governing - above the issues, above parties, above rancor. During the
crucial period, when he had momentum and numbers, he trimmed on issue after issue - starting
with single payer. The Tea Party was perhaps an inevitable response but its strength, and the
success of the intransigents in Congress, were not inevitable. But the Tea Party began with a
protest of floor traders against protections for people in mortgage trouble - but its momentum
really came with the movement against the ACA and in the off-year elections in 2010. A strong
president reliant on a mobilized coalition of voters - rather than a pretty crappy deal maker
(who liked starting close to his opponents' first offer) backed by corporate elites - would
perhaps have seen different results. Obama never gave it a go. And here we are . . . I imagine
that I join eastbayradical in some kind of astonishment at the extent to which "progressives"
want to keep at what has shown itself a losing proposition . .
westerndevil -> Martin Screeton 30 Jan 2016 13:50
I spent 18 months in my twenties as a debt collector for people who defaulted on student
loans...a soul crushing job. Virtually everybody who defaulted either...
A-attended some diploma mill like University of Phoenix and not surprisingly had no job
prospects after they left...or
B-dropped out or flunked out
We need to encourage more young people to work as electricians, plumbers, machinists and
in other blue-collar occupations.
GaryWallin 30 Jan 2016 13:49
April Fool's Day comes two months early here in Iowa this year. The Iowa Presidential
Caucuses are one of the greatest Political Hoaxes of all time. They are filling our
newspapers, radio, and neighborhoods with an all time record appeal to nonsense.
As Iowan's we've had the endure nearly a full year of lying and misleading politicians,
newspapers that give us the latest spin on the political horse-race (under the guise of
journalism), phone calls from intrusive pollsters and political operatives, emails from
assorted special and political interests; and we've even had to watch our mail carriers
burdened with the task of delivering many oversized junk mail advertising pieces.
Let me make it clear that I am not opposed to political parties holding caucuses. I
think it is a good idea for them to get together in formal and informal settings:
caucuses, parties, picnics, and civic observances. But I think the choice for our next
President is too important to be left to a voter suppressing, low turn-out, media event
such as the Iowa Presidential Caucuses. The goal should be to be inclusive of all
Iowans; not to have a record (but suppressed) turnout.
We've had to endure this nonsense for months, while the politicians are given multiple
and varied means to get their message out. But the voters get only an hour or so to make
their decisions, and even then in my party, the so-called 'Democratic' one, they don't
even get the right to a secret ballot, or the right to cast an absentee ballot if they
cannot attend. Instead of including all Iowans, this Circus gives special interests,
establishment political operatives, and elites an unfair advantage. This is voter
suppression and manipulation. Too few care if there might be a snow storm coming, or
someone has to be up early the next morning for surgery at a local hospital, or if
someone has to make a living by working at the time of the caucus. In this circus-like
atmosphere it is all too important to our elites to bring in the millions of dollars in
advertising money that this charade provides to local media. Dollars come before
democratic principles.
I certainly hope that my party, the Democrats, have the courage to reject all delegates
chosen by this non-democratic process when the National Convention comes around. It is
time for Party members outside of Iowa to stand up for real democracy, free and fair
candidate selection with secret ballots, and inclusive party processes that expand and
grow the Political Party.
In Iowa we need to make a few changes. I suggest a few:
Requiring every television station, radio station, and newspaper to give daily public
updates on how much and who bought political advertising.
Requiring every piece of political advertising mailed to people in Iowa to have the cost
of that item listed on the mailing.
Requiring all politicians, political parties, and PACs to honor the 'Do Not Call' list.
I often tell these callers I will not vote for anyone who annoys me with a phone call,
but this seems to have little deterrence value to phone centers and robo-calls.
Requiring that all major political parties in the state give voters the right to choose
candidates by secret ballot. No more forcing people to publicly declare for one
candidate or another. People should have the right to make their individual choices
known if they so choose; or keep them private if that is what they want.
Gary Wallin, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 30 Jan 2016
eastbayradical -> Winner_News 30 Jan 2016 13:16
The capitalist system will surely attempt to "brick wall" any authentic attempt at
change Sanders might try to implement.
But to compare him to Obama is off.
Obama came in surrounded by Wall Street execs and stooges and from the outset had no
intention of challenging the power of the capitalist class or affecting change that was
anything other than rhetorical in nature.
The Republicans' "brick walling" of his agenda was made far, far easier because he
didn't articulate, let alone mobilize around, one that named the enemy and communicated
specific progressive changes he sought to achieve.
This was seen vividly during the fight over health care reform, where Obama, in the face
of widespread support for single-payer health care, took single-payer off the table from
the outset and negotiated away the public option for nothing of substance in return.
This allowed the Republicans an open field to attack his reform's unpopular and
unprogressive features--the mandate and the general complexity of a system that retained
the insurance cartel's power over health care.
Marcedward 30 Jan 2016 13:11
Clinton is the one candidate who can lose to Trump, and if she win's she will
govern like Bush. It's disgusting how the establishment is pushing her so hard, but it
does inform us that we should reject her. Clinton is a candidate like Obama - runs on
hope and change, than nothing changes - same old attitude that "Government exists to
protect the profits of the 1% and **** Working Class Americans"
JoePomegranate 30 Jan 2016 13:09
The feting of Clinton over a genuine, principled and subversive politician like
Sanders - when subversion is exactly what is needed - reveals the complete paucity of
argument behind so much "progressive" thought nowadays.
The idea that the lying, the patronisation, the cynicism, the cronyism and the ghastly
thirst for power by any means can be simply offset by the fact that she's a woman is
appalling. It's retrograde, sexist bollocks.
Sanders is the candidate people need and his nomination would put down a marker for real
disenfranchised and impoverished Americans to fix their country. How anyone who purports
to call themselves liberal or reformist can opt for Hillary over him, I have no idea.
James Eaton -> CurtBrown 30 Jan 2016 13:02
The myth of "American Exceptionalism" is cracking. Many folks are actually able to
see how things work in other places around the globe and not simply react with the knee
jerk "it ain't gonna work here, this is 'Murica!"
eastbayradical 30 Jan 2016 12:49
The NY Times' argument that Sanders' proposals for achieving change are unrealistic
suggests that the differences between him and Clinton are chiefly tactical in nature.
This is a clever dodge that relieves the Times of the need to address the fact that, far
from being an agent of change, Clinton, like her husband and Obama--both of whom it
supported--has a consistent record of carrying water for Wall Street, the Pentagon, and
the national security/police-state apparatus, one that that she will undoubtedly carry
on as president if elected.
Madibo 30 Jan 2016 12:17
Sanders' mild social democratic policies - which require moderate and easily
affordable sacrifices on the part of the rich - are of course very realistic and
practical. Or at least they are realistic in countries that are at least reasonably
politically sane. But since US politics is the very definition of insanity, Sanders
policies are "not realistic".
"... 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.
The truth is the Democratic Party is dominated by neoliberals and became just a left wing of
Republican party. They sold themselves to Walll street and now they despite common folk much
like republicans do. As gore vidal aptly noted: "There is one political party in this country,
and that is the party of money. It has two branches, the Republicans and the Democrats, the
chief difference between which is that the Democrats are better at concealing their scorn for
the average man."
But it turns out that mainstream Democrats believe just the opposite – that with the GOP spiraling,
the party should now brook even less dissent within their ranks. They'd like a primary season with
no debate at all, apparently.
This isn't about Hillary. The lesser evil argument has been a consistent feature of Democratic
Party thought dating all the way back to the late Reagan years, long before Hillary Clinton was herself
a candidate. The argument always hits the same notes:
The essentially antiwar, anti-inequality platform progressives want will never win a national
election in this country, because McGovern, etc.
Therefore we must instead support corporate-sponsored Candidate A, who will help us bridge the
fundraising gap with the evil Republicans.
And we should vote for Candidate A anyway, because even though he doesn't always (or even often)
show it with his votes, deep down, he's a true believer on the issues.
Frank hit all of these notes in his piece, with special emphasis on point #3. He insisted that
people like Hillary, John Kerry and Joe Biden didn't mean it when they voted for the Iraq War, that
they only did it out of political expediency. "I regard liberal senators' support for the Iraq War
as a response to a given fraught political situation," Frank wrote, "rather than an indication of
their basic policy stance."
... ... ...
It's not an accident that The Daily Show turned into the most trusted political news program
in America during the Bush years. When the traditional lefty media became so convinced by the "lesser
evil" argument that it lost its sense of humor about the Democratic Party, people had to flee to
comedy shows for objective news.
Even worse, a lot of Democratic-leaning campaign reporters are to this day so convinced by the
lesser evil argument that they go out of their way to sabotage/ridicule candidates who don't fit
their idea of a "credible" opponent for Republicans.
I've seen this countless times, usually with candidates like Dennis Kucinich who didn't have a
real chance of winning the Democratic nomination (although early 2004 frontrunner Howard Dean
also fell into this
category). Sanders, who was ludicrously
called
the Trump of the left by bloviating Meet the Press hack Chuck Todd last week, is another
longshot type getting the royal treatment by "serious" pundits now.
But framing every single decision solely in terms of its utility in beating the Republicans leads
to absurdities. Not every situation is a ballot with Ralph Nader on it.
The Democrats insisted they had to support the Iraq War in order to compete with Bush, but they
ended up not competing with Bush anyway and supporting a crappy war that no sane person believed
in. All it won Democratic voters in the end was a faster trip into Iraq, and the honor of having
supported the war at the ballot box.
When the Democrats had a legitimate electoral threat in the Republicans to wave in front of their
voters, they used that as currency to buy their voters' indulgence as they deregulated Wall Street,
widened the drug war, abandoned unions in favor of free-trade deals and other horrors, and vastly
increased the prison population, among
innumerable other things.
But now that the rival electoral threat is mostly gone, they want permission to take the whole
primary season off so they can hoard their money for massive ad buys targeting swing votes in Tennessee
or whatever. In other words, even though the road ahead is easier for them, they want increased latitude
to take their core voters for granted.
The Democrats could take this godsend of a Trump situation and use it as an opportunity to finally
have a healthy primary season debate about what they want to stand for in the future. But nah to
that. They'll probably just hoover donor cash and use press surrogates to bash progressives the way
they always have. Trump or no Trump, if politicians don't have to work for your vote, they won't.
"... One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly, their collective destiny. ..."
"... In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence." ..."
"... There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy. ..."
"... "We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey. ..."
"... And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power. ..."
"... The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts. ..."
"... It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure, a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend corporate interests worldwide. ..."
"... US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents" and other figureheads sell at home and abroad. ..."
"... @15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus. ..."
"... The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back. If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington). ..."
"... The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie is full of shit (as is Trump). ..."
"... Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan. ..."
"... "You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing the Mujahideen. ..."
"... Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter ..."
"... Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement. Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes, all under the guise of promoting the public interest. ..."
"... The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and voted," the book says. ..."
"... You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign. ..."
"... This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas. ..."
"... Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive to Trump's dogwhistle. ..."
"... The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state. ..."
"... Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike. ..."
For all of those who keep on arguing about the benefits of one US candidate over the other,
they could save their energy for more constructive efforts.
One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the
last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that
American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly,
their collective destiny.
In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites
and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on
US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or
no independent influence."
Then in October of the same year, a Tufts University professor published a devastating critique
of the current state of American democracy, "National Security and Double Government," which
catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing,
with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses
the term "double government":
There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind
it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere
cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.
The Boston Globe's write-up of the book was accompanied by the brutal headline, "Vote all
you want. The secret government won't change." Imagine a headline like that during the Hope
and Change craze of 2008. Yeah, you can't. Because nobody's that imaginative.
Yes, people are beginning to smell the rot - even people who watch television in hopes of
not having to confront the miserable reality that awaits them once they turn off their 36-inch
flatscreens. In September, Jimmy Carter warned Oprah Winfrey:
"We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the
worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that
I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey.
The live audience were probably hoping for free Oprah cars. Instead, an ex-president told
them that their democracy is in the gutter. What a bummer.
The latest canary in the coal mine is none other than ex-longtime GOP staffer turned best-selling
author Mike Lofgren, whose new book, "The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the
Rise of a Shadow Government," confirms what is already painfully apparent:
The deep state has created so many contradictions in this country. You have this enormous
disparity of rich and poor; and you have this perpetual war, even though we're braying about
freedom. We have a surveillance state, and we talk about freedom. We have internal contradictions.
Who knows what this will fly into? It may collapse like the Soviet Union; or it might go
into fascism with a populist camouflage.
Some excerpts from Salon's recent interview with Lofgren:
On how the deep state operates:
Well, first of all,
it is not a conspiracy. It is something that operates in broad daylight.
It is not a conspiratorial cabal. These are simply people who have evolved [into] a kind
of position. It is in their best interest to act in this way.
And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes
up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this
is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what
it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power.
On who (and what) is part of the deep state:
The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial
complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security
apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern
district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts.
And you
got this kind of rump Congress that consists of certain people in the leadership, defense and
intelligence committees who kind of know what's going on. The rest of Congress doesn't really
know or care; they're too busy looking about the next election.
Lofgren goes on to explain that the private sector works hand-in-hand with the deep state,
regardless of which "party" is in power. According to Lofgren, "There are definable differences
between Bush and Obama. However, the differences are so constrained. They're not between the
40-yard lines; they are between the 48-yard lines."
Of course, millions of Americans will still enjoy rooting for the candidate whom they would
most enjoy drinking Bud Lite Lime with, but probably deep in their hearts they all know they're
doomed.
@12, Only a coward would submit to such a threat, instead of regarding it as a challenge to be
defied. If the worst came to the worst, one would at least have died heroically. And such a president,
if he did die, could have taken steps before he died to make sure the public would learn how and
why he died. So it would not be a death without purpose.
How does the deep state ensure that only cowards become president?
@10 Blackmail?
Don't know if true but I remember reading something to the effect that after Obama was sworn in,
he met with Bush sr. and co who told him that he now worked for them with threats to his family
if he wouldn't submit..
What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?
It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure,
a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend
corporate interests worldwide.
US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into
specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents"
and other figureheads sell at home and abroad.
@15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the
right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with
pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus.
People hate being conned more than con men, and they concoct rationalizations for being duped
that often defy logic.
@10 'What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?'
1. DS vets prospective candidates beforehand, only allowing candidates aligned with deep state
authorities to begin with.
2. DS doesn't make the payoff until successful applicants have left office with an 'acceptable'
record.
3. Assassination is always an option in extreme cases, real or imagined.
The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back.
If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get
the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want
it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington).
Now, if you want to be President, you've got to have "experience" in Congress or in state gubmint.
The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared
with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie
is full of shit (as is Trump).
That is a very good explanation of 'Deep State'. My only caveat is that it doesn't completely
describe the oligarchy because it leaves out the corporate component. When money became speech
a huge mountain of power devolved to the rich. They'd always had clout as the graphs describing
the separation of the rich from the not-so-well off and the rest of us have made clear - but now
the ugly truth is unavoidable and it all goes together to produce what President Carter described.
Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski
was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross
around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to
stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan.
"You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing
the Mujahideen.
Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter
... It looks to be another corker ...
Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the
hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement.
Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think
tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government
and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes,
all under the guise of promoting the public interest.
The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a
small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured
money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and
voted," the book says.
Many of the families owned businesses that clashed with environmental or workplace regulators,
come under federal or state investigation, or waged battles over their tax bills with the Internal
Revenue Service, Ms. Mayer reports. The Kochs' vast political network, a major force in Republican
politics today, was "originally designed as a means of off-loading the costs of the Koch Industries
environmental and regulatory fights onto others" by persuading other rich business owners to
contribute to Koch-controlled political groups, Ms. Mayer writes, citing an associate of the
two brothers.
@10 "What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?"
Money.
You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap
into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign.
Without that largess you are not going to get elected, and people who have $billions are
the going to be the very same people who make up the Deep State.
So you either get with the program or you get.... nothing. Not a cent. Not a hope.
This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already
has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas.
Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr
Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive
to Trump's dogwhistle.
Which, basically, is this: why are you bothering with any of these chattering monkeys? Their
votes will end up belonging to people like me anyway, so you may as well just cut out the middle-man.
The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government
, chapter 10
Eisenhower's innate midwestern sense of decency initially made him recoil from backing Britain's
colonial siege of Iran. He rebuffed the Dulles brothers' advice, suggesting that it might be
a better idea to stabilize Mossadegh's government with a $100 million loan than to topple it.
If Eisenhower had followed through on his original instincts, the bedeviled history of U.S.-Iran
relations would undoubtedly have taken a far different course.
Realizing that Eisenhower was not inclined to defend British imperial interests, the Dulles
brothers reframed their argument for intervention in Cold War terms. On March 4, 1953, Allen
appeared at a National Security Council meeting in the White House armed with seven pages of
alarming talking points. Iran was confronted with "a maturing revolutionary set-up," he warned,
and if the country fell into Communist hands, 60 percent of the free world's oil would be controlled
by Moscow. Oil and gasoline would have to be rationed at home, and U.S. military operations
would have to be curtailed.
In truth, the global crisis over Iran was not a Cold War conflict but a struggle "between
imperialism and nationalism, between First and Third Worlds, between North and South, between
developed industrial economies and underdeveloped countries dependent on exporting raw materials,"
in the words of Ervand Abrahamian.
The author pours it on thick with zero references but, overall ...
1.
The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street
financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry
and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state.
2. Ike came cheap. He felt it was his duty to help out if the people he looked up to thought
he was the right man at the right time.
3.
Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley
Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike.
The DS uses the same M.O. ... O tempora, o mores ... mutatis mutandis.
"... One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly, their collective destiny. ..."
"... In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence." ..."
"... There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy. ..."
"... "We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey. ..."
"... And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power. ..."
"... The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts. ..."
"... It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure, a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend corporate interests worldwide. ..."
"... US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents" and other figureheads sell at home and abroad. ..."
"... @15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus. ..."
"... The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back. If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington). ..."
"... The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie is full of shit (as is Trump). ..."
"... Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan. ..."
"... "You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing the Mujahideen. ..."
"... Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter ..."
"... Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement. Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes, all under the guise of promoting the public interest. ..."
"... The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and voted," the book says. ..."
"... You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign. ..."
"... This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas. ..."
"... Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive to Trump's dogwhistle. ..."
"... The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state. ..."
"... Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike. ..."
For all of those who keep on arguing about the benefits of one US candidate over the other,
they could save their energy for more constructive efforts.
One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the
last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that
American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly,
their collective destiny.
In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites
and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on
US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or
no independent influence."
Then in October of the same year, a Tufts University professor published a devastating critique
of the current state of American democracy, "National Security and Double Government," which
catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing,
with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses
the term "double government":
There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind
it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere
cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.
The Boston Globe's write-up of the book was accompanied by the brutal headline, "Vote all
you want. The secret government won't change." Imagine a headline like that during the Hope
and Change craze of 2008. Yeah, you can't. Because nobody's that imaginative.
Yes, people are beginning to smell the rot - even people who watch television in hopes of
not having to confront the miserable reality that awaits them once they turn off their 36-inch
flatscreens. In September, Jimmy Carter warned Oprah Winfrey:
"We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the
worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that
I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey.
The live audience were probably hoping for free Oprah cars. Instead, an ex-president told
them that their democracy is in the gutter. What a bummer.
The latest canary in the coal mine is none other than ex-longtime GOP staffer turned best-selling
author Mike Lofgren, whose new book, "The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the
Rise of a Shadow Government," confirms what is already painfully apparent:
The deep state has created so many contradictions in this country. You have this enormous
disparity of rich and poor; and you have this perpetual war, even though we're braying about
freedom. We have a surveillance state, and we talk about freedom. We have internal contradictions.
Who knows what this will fly into? It may collapse like the Soviet Union; or it might go
into fascism with a populist camouflage.
Some excerpts from Salon's recent interview with Lofgren:
On how the deep state operates:
Well, first of all,
it is not a conspiracy. It is something that operates in broad daylight.
It is not a conspiratorial cabal. These are simply people who have evolved [into] a kind
of position. It is in their best interest to act in this way.
And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes
up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this
is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what
it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power.
On who (and what) is part of the deep state:
The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial
complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security
apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern
district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts.
And you
got this kind of rump Congress that consists of certain people in the leadership, defense and
intelligence committees who kind of know what's going on. The rest of Congress doesn't really
know or care; they're too busy looking about the next election.
Lofgren goes on to explain that the private sector works hand-in-hand with the deep state,
regardless of which "party" is in power. According to Lofgren, "There are definable differences
between Bush and Obama. However, the differences are so constrained. They're not between the
40-yard lines; they are between the 48-yard lines."
Of course, millions of Americans will still enjoy rooting for the candidate whom they would
most enjoy drinking Bud Lite Lime with, but probably deep in their hearts they all know they're
doomed.
@12, Only a coward would submit to such a threat, instead of regarding it as a challenge to be
defied. If the worst came to the worst, one would at least have died heroically. And such a president,
if he did die, could have taken steps before he died to make sure the public would learn how and
why he died. So it would not be a death without purpose.
How does the deep state ensure that only cowards become president?
@10 Blackmail?
Don't know if true but I remember reading something to the effect that after Obama was sworn in,
he met with Bush sr. and co who told him that he now worked for them with threats to his family
if he wouldn't submit..
What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?
It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure,
a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend
corporate interests worldwide.
US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into
specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents"
and other figureheads sell at home and abroad.
@15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the
right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with
pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus.
People hate being conned more than con men, and they concoct rationalizations for being duped
that often defy logic.
@10 'What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?'
1. DS vets prospective candidates beforehand, only allowing candidates aligned with deep state
authorities to begin with.
2. DS doesn't make the payoff until successful applicants have left office with an 'acceptable'
record.
3. Assassination is always an option in extreme cases, real or imagined.
The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back.
If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get
the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want
it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington).
Now, if you want to be President, you've got to have "experience" in Congress or in state gubmint.
The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared
with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie
is full of shit (as is Trump).
That is a very good explanation of 'Deep State'. My only caveat is that it doesn't completely
describe the oligarchy because it leaves out the corporate component. When money became speech
a huge mountain of power devolved to the rich. They'd always had clout as the graphs describing
the separation of the rich from the not-so-well off and the rest of us have made clear - but now
the ugly truth is unavoidable and it all goes together to produce what President Carter described.
Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski
was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross
around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to
stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan.
"You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing
the Mujahideen.
Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter
... It looks to be another corker ...
Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the
hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement.
Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think
tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government
and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes,
all under the guise of promoting the public interest.
The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a
small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured
money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and
voted," the book says.
Many of the families owned businesses that clashed with environmental or workplace regulators,
come under federal or state investigation, or waged battles over their tax bills with the Internal
Revenue Service, Ms. Mayer reports. The Kochs' vast political network, a major force in Republican
politics today, was "originally designed as a means of off-loading the costs of the Koch Industries
environmental and regulatory fights onto others" by persuading other rich business owners to
contribute to Koch-controlled political groups, Ms. Mayer writes, citing an associate of the
two brothers.
@10 "What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?"
Money.
You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap
into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign.
Without that largess you are not going to get elected, and people who have $billions are
the going to be the very same people who make up the Deep State.
So you either get with the program or you get.... nothing. Not a cent. Not a hope.
This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already
has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas.
Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr
Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive
to Trump's dogwhistle.
Which, basically, is this: why are you bothering with any of these chattering monkeys? Their
votes will end up belonging to people like me anyway, so you may as well just cut out the middle-man.
The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government
, chapter 10
Eisenhower's innate midwestern sense of decency initially made him recoil from backing Britain's
colonial siege of Iran. He rebuffed the Dulles brothers' advice, suggesting that it might be
a better idea to stabilize Mossadegh's government with a $100 million loan than to topple it.
If Eisenhower had followed through on his original instincts, the bedeviled history of U.S.-Iran
relations would undoubtedly have taken a far different course.
Realizing that Eisenhower was not inclined to defend British imperial interests, the Dulles
brothers reframed their argument for intervention in Cold War terms. On March 4, 1953, Allen
appeared at a National Security Council meeting in the White House armed with seven pages of
alarming talking points. Iran was confronted with "a maturing revolutionary set-up," he warned,
and if the country fell into Communist hands, 60 percent of the free world's oil would be controlled
by Moscow. Oil and gasoline would have to be rationed at home, and U.S. military operations
would have to be curtailed.
In truth, the global crisis over Iran was not a Cold War conflict but a struggle "between
imperialism and nationalism, between First and Third Worlds, between North and South, between
developed industrial economies and underdeveloped countries dependent on exporting raw materials,"
in the words of Ervand Abrahamian.
The author pours it on thick with zero references but, overall ...
1.
The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street
financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry
and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state.
2. Ike came cheap. He felt it was his duty to help out if the people he looked up to thought
he was the right man at the right time.
3.
Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley
Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike.
The DS uses the same M.O. ... O tempora, o mores ... mutatis mutandis.
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.
"... So self-identifying as a Republican now means associating yourself with a party that has moved sharply to the right since 1995. If you like, being a Republican used to mean supporting a party that nominated George H.W. Bush, but now it means supporting a party where a majority of primary voters **** support Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. Being a Democrat used to mean supporting a party that nominated Bill Clinton; it now means supporting a party likely to nominate, um, Hillary Clinton. And views of conservatism/liberalism have probably moved with that change in the parties. ..."
"... Yes the differences between candidates may not be nearly as great as you want it to be - but the idea that it makes no difference whether the GOP or Democratic candidate gets to be president is idiotic. Anybody who can be bothered looking through executive actions during Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama years will recognize a huge difference. ..."
"... The world of the NY Times, Wapo, the Atlantic, the New Republic, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, National Review - its all one intellectually gated community where the affluent talk among themselves at the club house about their slightly different approaches to maintaining order are protecting elite privileges and power. ..."
"... I didnt say they were either stupid or corrupt. They are intelligent people whose political orientation reflects the general predilections and interests of their class. Thats really not much different than most people in America. But the class divides are intensifying, which is why the discourse of that establishment group is of increasingly diminished relevance to what the other 80% of the country is talking about. ..."
"... The difference between Sanders and Clinton when it comes to income inequality, TBTF, and financial regulation is stark. These economic issues are studiously avoided by DeLong and Krugman because they are, and always have been, loyal insiders to the establishment. ..."
"... I took it that what Julio was mainly referring to was that the establishment discourse has moved so far to the right that someone like Krugman now represents the far left of what that establishment will tolerate. ..."
"... I think Krugman the columnist started as someone above the fray , engaged in an academic exercise; and has since learned he must support his allies, even if he has intellectual disagreements with them. ..."
"... However there is one key difference: Sanders has been able to energize the Democratic base in a way that Clinton the policy wonk simply cant. ..."
"... The studied failure of the fierce critic of the Washington Post and New York Times from the economics department of the University of California at Berkeley to so much as regret the firing of the only writer on labor affairs at either paper tells of just how little regard there is for the affairs of ordinary workers. ..."
"... Even Brookings is getting worried about whats going on with the growing cultural isolation of the relatively affluent: ..."
"... I had a very similar experience with the people I met at my Ivy League university. A depressing percentage of the student body consisted of spoiled trust fund babies, many of whom were apparently ignored or otherwise mistreated by their parents and exhibited a shocking array of psychological and substance abuse problems. ..."
"... But these people were of a distinctly different class than the many nominally upper-middle class people I encounter in daily life. Even now, high as my household income is, I would immediately be detected as a mere prole by them, a lower class person. ..."
"... Fitzgerald was absolutely right -- the truly well off are indeed different from you and me. Even if you dont realize it, rest assured that they do. ..."
"... The concept of class is also just a model, and not rigidly tied to economic markers. People in comparable occupational settings or type of economic participation can have very different incomes and ability to afford certain lifestyles. ..."
"... E.g. regardless of your pay level, if your occupational situation is such that you have to essentially show up for work every day and follow somebody elses directives (to make a relatively low-risk income), then it would be a stretch to consider you upper middle class. ..."
"... From what Ive observed, following the 2008 crash a lot of upper-middle class people suddenly realized that the differences between themselves and those living in poverty are actually much smaller than the differences between themselves and the truly wealthy. ..."
You might think that this is obvious. But on the left, in particular, there are some people
who, disappointed by the limits of what President Obama has accomplished, minimize the differences
between the parties. Whoever the next president is, they assert - or at least ... if it's not
Bernie Sanders - things will remain pretty much the same, with the wealthy continuing to dominate
the scene. ...
But the truth is that Mr. Obama's election ... had some real, quantifiable consequences. ...
If Mitt Romney had won, we can be sure that Republicans would have found a way to prevent these
tax hikes. ...
Mr. Obama has effectively rolled back not just the Bush tax cuts but Ronald Reagan's as well...,
about $70 billion a year in revenue. This happens to be in the same ballpark as both
food stamps
and ... this year's net
outlays
on Obamacare. So we're not talking about something trivial.
Speaking of Obamacare, that's another thing Republicans would surely have killed if 2012 had
gone the other way. ... And the effect on health care has been huge...
Now, to be fair, some
widely predicted
consequences of Mr. Obama's re-election - predicted by his opponents - didn't
happen. Gasoline prices didn't soar. Stocks didn't plunge. The economy didn't collapse..., and
the unemployment rate is a full point lower than the rate Mr. Romney promised to achieve by the
end of 2016.
In other words, the 2012 election didn't just allow progressives to achieve some important
goals. It also gave them an opportunity to show that achieving these goals is feasible. No, asking
the rich to pay somewhat more in taxes while helping the less fortunate won't destroy the economy.
So now we're heading for another presidential election. And once again the stakes are high.
Whoever the Republicans nominate will be committed to destroying Obamacare and slashing taxes
on the wealthy - in fact, the current G.O.P. tax-cut plans make the Bush cuts look puny. Whoever
the Democrats nominate will, first and foremost, be committed to defending the achievements of
the past seven years.
The bottom line is that presidential elections matter, a lot, even if the people on the ballot
aren't as fiery as you might like. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Via Noah Smith, * an interesting back-and-forth about the political leanings of professors.
Conservatives are outraged ** at what they see as a sharp leftward movement in the academy:
[Graph]
But what's really happening here? Did professors move left, or did the meaning of conservatism
in America change in a way that drove scholars away? You can guess what I think. But here's some
evidence. First, using the DW-nominate measure *** - which uses roll-call votes over time to identify
a left-right spectrum, and doesn't impose any constraint of symmetry between the parties - what
we've seen over the past generation is a sharp rightward (up in the figure) move by Republicans,
with no comparable move by Democrats, especially in the North:
[Graph]
So self-identifying as a Republican now means associating yourself with a party that has
moved sharply to the right since 1995. If you like, being a Republican used to mean supporting
a party that nominated George H.W. Bush, but now it means supporting a party where a majority
of primary voters **** support Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. Being a Democrat used to mean supporting
a party that nominated Bill Clinton; it now means supporting a party likely to nominate, um, Hillary
Clinton. And views of conservatism/liberalism have probably moved with that change in the parties.
Furthermore, if your image is one of colleges being taken over by Marxist literary theorists,
you should know that the political leanings of hard scientists are if anything more pronounced
than those of academics in general. From Pew: *****
[Chart]
Why is this? Well, climate denial and hostility to the theory of evolution are pretty good
starting points.
Overall, the evidence looks a lot more consistent with a story that has academics rejecting
a conservative party that has moved sharply right than it does with a story in which academics
have moved left.
Now, you might argue that academics should reflect the political spectrum in the nation - that
we need affirmative action for conservative professors, even in science. But do you really want
to go there?
Wild conservatives have been attacking supposed liberals at universities since the time of Joseph
McCarthy. The attacks have changed in nuance now and again but been persistent since the close
of the 1940s. Whether the attacks extend back before the late 1940s is a matter I have to look
into.
DeDude :
Yes the differences between candidates may not be nearly as great as you want it to be - but
the idea that it "makes no difference" whether the GOP or Democratic candidate gets to be president
is idiotic. Anybody who can be bothered looking through executive actions during Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama
years will recognize a huge difference.
Dan Kervick :
Elections matter. Nominations matter too. But the only nomination battle Paul Krugman is apparently
interested in is the Republican one, which he trolls constantly to amuse himself. This despite
the fact that there are very major policy difference, both foreign and domestic, present on the
Democratic side - along with major differences in political alliances, monetary support bases
and key constituencies.
Paul Krugman is a middle of the road, mainstream fellow who manages to line up on the "left"
according to the austerely conservative economic standards of the establishment media. If Krugman
were chief economic adviser - or even president - nothing very important in America would change
economically. So when he tries to tell "progressives" about what would advance "their goals",
his words are a good candidate for in one ear, out the other treatment.
Harold Meyerson, the Democratic Socialist op-ed columnist for Wapo, was just canned by Fred
Hiatt. Apart from removing another left wing economic voice from the establishment public sphere,
this helps clear the decks for a 2017 Middle East war after Clinton gets control of the war room
from Obama. Not a word on that firing from sometime scourge of the Washington Post, Brad DeLong
- who I guess is pretty cool with it.
The world of the NY Times, Wapo, the Atlantic, the New Republic, LA Times, Chicago Tribune,
Wall Street Journal, National Review - it's all one intellectually gated community where the affluent
talk among themselves at the club house about their slightly different approaches to maintaining
order are protecting elite privileges and power.
Dan Kervick -> EMichael...
I didn't say they were either stupid or corrupt. They are intelligent people whose political
orientation reflects the general predilections and interests of their class. That's really not
much different than most people in America. But the class divides are intensifying, which is why
the discourse of that establishment group is of increasingly diminished relevance to what the
other 80% of the country is talking about.
Dan Kervick -> EMichael...
That's what the elite is always going to do. People who are interested in significant social change
should never count on elitists coming down out of the clouds to save them.
anne -> Dan Kervick...
Harold Meyerson, the Democratic Socialist op-ed columnist for Wapo, was just canned by Fred Hiatt....
Not a word on that firing from sometime scourge of the Washington Post, Brad DeLong - who I guess
is pretty cool with it....
[ Telling and saddening, but this should not be a surprising silence by an academic who periodically
wildly smashes liberals. ]
"Paul Krugman is a middle of the road, mainstream fellow..."
I am old enough to remember a time when he would have been one. But not now.
"So when he tries to tell "progressives" about what would advance "their goals", his words
are a good candidate for in one ear, out the other treatment."
No: they are a candidate for a place to start a conversation with liberals, to expand their
views of what's possible.
Krugman is not interested in such discussions. As has been pointed out several times, he and DeLong
have studiously avoided any engagement with the issues that are being hotly contested in the Democratic
Party's primary campaign. They are bright and well-informed fellows, so this is no ignorant oversight
and is certainly a deliberate, tactical political choice.
EMichael -> Dan Kervick...
Why in the world do you care why two economists who you disrespect on many levels have not discussed
the Dem candidates?
yuan -> EMichael...
Funny how you skipped over the word "issues" and moved the goal post to "dem candidates".
The difference between Sanders and Clinton when it comes to income inequality, TBTF, and
financial regulation is stark. These economic issues are studiously avoided by DeLong and Krugman
because they are, and always have been, loyal insiders to the establishment.
"The difference between Sanders and Clinton when it comes to income inequality, TBTF, and
financial regulation is stark."
Sanders shouts about income inequality but like Hillary has no real plan to impact it except
at the margins.
On financial regulation also, Sanders makes the louder noises and trots out Glass Steagall
often, but Hillary, not Bernie, is the one who actually has a coherent and plausible plan for
limiting systemic financial risk. Bernie fans seem fundamentally incapable of unwilling to process
this fact, to the detriment of everyone.
Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
I take exception to your (mis)use of Krugman to support your narrative. As Julio notes above (I
think), Krugman's early writings were notably more middle of the road; he started off as a committed
centrist, taking on left and right equally whenever he felt one side or the other was peddling
nonsense. Over time I've seen his writing become more political and more consistently liberal,
even as his paycheck has presumably increased.
As an example, back in the '90s Krugman was slamming Robert Reich as a nonsense-peddling "policy
entrepreneur", but by 2015 he was writing a glowing review of Reich's book, "Saving Capitalism".
Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
I took it that what Julio was mainly referring to was that the establishment discourse has
moved so far to the right that someone like Krugman now represents the far left of what that establishment
will tolerate.
I would not call his review "glowing", but I agree with your example.
I think Krugman the
columnist started as someone "above the fray", engaged in an academic exercise; and has since
learned he must support his allies, even if he has intellectual disagreements with them.
So? If I am correct in stating that he represents a lot of the liberal spectrum, then those
are the people we need to move "left" or, as I prefer to put it, enlarge their view of what's
possible.
Sanders IMO is doing a good job of this. He is being loudly ignored by Krugman, which makes
your point; and also by a lot of liberals who think he cannot win because, um, he's unelectable
-- which makes mine.
It doesn't seem like we disagree much on the background facts. But if someone is engaging in a
deliberate strategy of ignoring the left, there doesn't seem to be much point in pretending they
are having a discussion with the left.
One way to try to move more people to the left is to encourage them to stop lending so much
credence to establishment opinions. Krugman's ego is big enough that if he detects his relevance
and popularity slipping away, he will move along with the zeitgeist to go where the people are.
Bernie Sanders Hints At What A Sanders Administration Cabinet Could Look Like
Democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) offered a first glimpse
on Sunday of some of the people he might consider for his cabinet in a potential Sanders administration,
and a few that he certainly won't.
"My cabinet would not be dominated by representatives of Wall Street," Sanders said on CNN's
"State of the Union." "I think Wall Street's played a horrendous role in recent years, in negatively
impacting our economy and in making the rich richer. There are a lot of great public servants
out there, great economists who for years have been standing up for the middle class and the working
families of this country."
Prompted by host Jake Tapper, Sanders went on to praise Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist
and Nobel Prize-winning economist. Krugman is a vocal opponent of tax cuts for the rich, and he
has warned readers for years about the dangers of income inequality. "Krugman does a great job,"
Sanders said.
Also doing a great job, Sanders said, is Columbia University economics professor and Nobel
laureate Joseph Stiglitz, whose recent work has focused on the perils of radical free markets,
such as those espoused by some in the libertarian wing of the GOP.
Sanders also singled out Robert Reich, the former labor secretary under President Bill Clinton,
now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley: "I think [he] is doing a fantastic
job." Reich has long been an influential backer of labor unions, which have come under attack
from Republican governors in recent years.
Still, Sanders said, "it's a little bit too early, I must say, to be appointing a cabinet.
Let me get elected first."
In recent weeks, Sanders' long shot campaign for the Democratic nomination has captured a swell
of momentum on the left, drawing larger crowds in Iowa than Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic
front-runner.
"All over this country, younger people, working people, elderly people, are moving in our direction,
because they want a candidate to take on the establishment," Sanders said.
I don't think Krugman disagrees with Sanders, but he seems to ignore him. Like everyone else in
the media, he's devoted much more time to the Republicans.
But that's because it's always been his style to write that way. Krugman has always spent most
of his effort attacking those who he perceives as peddling nonsense, or providing additional evidence
to back up a position he has taken against a nonsense peddler. He rarely spends time talking about
those he agrees with. Even in cases where he has written approvingly about Obama or the ACA, he's
done so primarily as a counterweight to all those he sees taking the opposite (and incorrect)
view.
While he hasn't said much about Sanders aside from praising his example of Denmark as a role
model for change, he hasn't said a whole lot about Clinton either. Probably his most explicit
comment on either was in his column comparing their proposed Wall Street reforms, where he concluded:
"If a Democrat does win, does it matter much which one it is? Probably not. Any Democrat is
likely to retain the financial reforms of 2010, and seek to stiffen them where possible. But major
new reforms will be blocked until and unless Democrats regain control of both houses of Congress,
which isn't likely to happen for a long time.
"In other words, while there are some differences in financial policy between Mrs. Clinton
and Mr. Sanders, as a practical matter they're trivial compared with the yawning gulf with Republicans."
Yes, but there are clearly more differences between Clinton and Sanders than just differences
over financial policy - the most obvious and large one being their differences over health care.
Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
In terms of what they're likely to be able to deliver in the current political climate there really
doesn't seem to be that much difference between them.
However there is one key difference: Sanders has been able to energize the Democratic base
in a way that Clinton the policy wonk simply can't.
But we digress.
pgl -> Dan Kervick...
Bernie is endorsing single payer. That was HillaryCare ala 1993. That was her position in 2008...
Dan Kervick -> pgl...
What the heck are you talking about? The Clinton health Care Plan of 1993 was not a single payer
plan. The 2008 plan was also by no means a single payer plan. And single payer is certainly not
her position now, since she has come out strongly against it on the oh-so-progressive grounds
that it will ... (gasp) ... raise taxes! Good grief.
Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
Do you really think that the differences between Sanders and Clinton on how college education
is to be paid for, to take one example, is trivial?
Painting the large differences between Clinton and Sanders as trivial seems like a case of
dumbing down the debate so that people don't pay attention to it.
Krugman frequently devotes a great deal of time to people who are not peddling nonsense. He
just participated in an involved debate with DeLong and Summers, two people he agrees with on
most issues. And he has done the same in many past columns debating the views of various esteemed
economics colleagues at length.
pgl -> Syaloch...
"Sanders went on to praise Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning
economist. Krugman is a vocal opponent of tax cuts for the rich, and he has warned readers
for years about the dangers of income inequality."
Even more places where Bernie Sanders has basically called JohnH a liar.
If I am correct in stating that he represents a lot of the liberal spectrum, then those are the
people we need to move "left" or, as I prefer to put it, enlarge their view of what's possible.
Sanders IMO is doing a good job of this. He is being loudly ignored by Krugman...
[ Nicely expressed. ]
pgl -> Dan Kervick...
So go write these comments over at Paul's place. Oh wait - you are a coward. Never mind.
You know, of all the insults you freely toss about, this "cowardice" one is the dumbest. We're
all here to discuss Thoma's selections, but we're cowards if we criticize them here?
Dan Kervick -> pgl...
I have written several comments at "Paul's" blog that were directly critical of his arguments.
I have also posted many critical comments on Twitter directly @ Krugman. I have no problem going
right at people. But I don't like the NY Times format as much because it is harder to have a live
debate there.
anne -> Dan Kervick...
The word "troll" is used to intimidate and silence, and used to depict the writer in question
is wildly false and mean-spirited.
Dan Kervick -> anne...
Lol... yeah, I know the feeling.
Sanjait -> pgl...
Delong isnt a socialist, democratic or otherwise.
And this bent of creating purity tests for commentators and politicians to define who is sufficiently
progressive or more progressive or whatever, it reeks of Republicans and their conservative tribalism.
It's asinine and anti intellectual, and I condemn it unequivocally.
Dan Kervick -> Sanjait...
It's not a purity test of any kind. I don't know what "purity" means in this context. There is
no sense in which democratic socialists are "purer" than liberals. They just have different values
and goals. For socialists, a society based on sharing, solidarity, equality and cooperation is
the highest ideal, where for liberals the highest idea is the expression of personal liberty,
potential and individuality. There are certainly ways in which these outlooks can find specific
expressions at a given point in time that involve significant overlap, but their chief governing
ideals are different.
I agree with you completely that DeLong simply has a different ideology or social philosophy than
someone like Sanders or Meyerson, and I object to the dumbing down of the debate between these
two camps by such trite slogans as "Oh, you know after all, we are all on the same team". That's
silly. It confuses the highly contingent, shifting and adventitious alliances that are part of
the American party system with the coherence of a philosophical stance. These differences and
disputes should be debated, instead of attempting to muddy and flatten them all under the foolish
fantasy that it doesn't make a dime's worth of difference whether a society moves toward an ideal
of progress fashioned from democratic socialist principles or one fashioned from liberal principles.
I brought DeLong in this context because he is a noted scourge of the Washington Post and its
op-ed writers, so if he had any sympathy for Meyerson's views, this would be more low-hanging
fruit for him. But nothing so far. And my guess is that the main reason is that Meyerson is just
not DeLong's cup of tea. But who knows. the year is young.
Sanjait -> Dan Kervick...
Tl;dr
What I do notice is a lot of navel gazing talk about how "left" this or that commentator is,
which as I said is asinine, anti-intellectual, and ironically very similar to the way conservatives
operate.
Dan Kervick -> Sanjait...
Great. You think it's navel gazing. Easy for you to say from your desk writing insurance policies
or whatever the hell it is you do. But it does make a real difference to millions and millions
of people who don't have the lives you and I have, and whose lives aren't going to get *notably*
better once Krugman, DeLong and Summers decide which particular version of capitalist oppression
their best models point toward. Those people are dying of American capitalism, and their kids
are going to die of it too, and whether the ruling class decides on one set of interest rates
or a slightly higher set of interest rates only marginally affects the precise speed at which
the barons who own their lives are able to kill them.
If people have the honestly to tell me, "Look, I'm a believer in good ol' American capitalism,
and that lefty stuff just won't fly with me," that's one thing. But when they try to convince
me that the kind of world they are after is really the same kind of world I want, just so I'll
vote for their politicians - then I get ornery. Maybe I'd have an easier time with the conservatives
because at least the look me in the face and say, "I hate your pinko guts".
The debate has gotten half crazy. Someone like Brad DeLong has called himself a "card-carrying
neoliberal". And yet I get pilloried for calling DeLong a neoliberal - as though I libeled him
- or for calling attention to the apparently uncomfortable fact that since neoliberals are obviously
not leftists, then DeLong is no kind of leftist whatsoever. Or for noting that since DeLong is
a loyal student of his mentor and adviser Larry Summers - who is about as mainstream a player
as they come in the global capitalist system - that makes Delong a thoroughly establishment economist.
(This isn't about "purity". DeLong is not an "impure" half-assed lefty. He's just a mainline capitalist.)
Or for having the audacity to want to *debate* from the left the ideas that come up here instead
of joining in with the yea-and-amen corner where everybody just agrees with one another. Oh no,
we're all on the same team! Stop being such an annoying troll and criticizing the team! Larry
Summers - that great man on the make who was the highest paid professor in the history of Harvard,
and sold himself and his thoroughly mainstream "advice" to some Wall Street firm for $5 million/yr
in between other gigs - he's also on the team bro!
I've made many good faith efforts in the past to calmly debate the ideas of people whose moral
outlooks I disdain and whose best proposals amount to no more than marginal differences in a system
I detest. In return, I get insulted routinely and asked to leave. But hey, we're all on the same
team!
It seems to me that the liberals are having a crisis of faith and confidence because their
late 20th century paradigm is crumbling apart from the inside, they don't know what to replace
it with, and they don't know what side they are going to end up standing on when it falls. Look
at poor pgl. He can't even remember what "single payer" means any more. I haven't encountered
a single liberal Clinton supporter who is positively enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton. Frankly,
they all seem defensive at best about her, and somewhat scared. But they fell in early with the
TINA argument and the strategy of smothering debate under the Clinton machine, and now having
let the Inevitability Express get so far down the tracks they don't know what else to do. And
when that crazed, neocon-tilting fanatic launches her global military crusades in 2017, you guys
will all be investing some sob story about how Bush is to blame, or Reagan is to blame, or Calvin
Coolidge or William McKinley is to blame. A fat lot of good that will do the body parts she scatters
all over the West Bank, Syria, Iran or whatever other places we're into by then.
Krugman had a meltdown last week - as he and the other chronic countercyclical stabilizers
apparently do whenever anybody uses that dangerous and threatening word "structural", pointing
at the possibility of changing the system and not just stabilizing it - because even a middle
of the road guy like Tim Taylor had the audacity to "change the subject" and talk about something
he actually wants talk about ... as though Paul Krugman gets to decide what the "subject" is,
and everyone who doesn't talk about what Krugman demands they talk about is written up for changing
that subject. Screw Krugman. He wouldn't know what "the subject" is if he tripped over it lying
in the street on his way to some Manhattan train station. In fact, he probably has tripped over
it.
I'm so tired of dealing with liberals with their chronic cases of double-think, unresolved
intellectual conflicts, self-deluding irony and fuzzy, snarky ambivalence about everything. Pick
a damn side. You are either with the plutocratic owners who dominate and run everyone else's lives
- or you are on the side of taking them down and leveling the field.
No Happy New Year at the Washington Post: Harold Meyerson Gets the Boot
The Washington Post opinion pages is not a place most people go for original thought, even
if they do provide much material for Beat the Press. One major exception to the uniformity and
unoriginality that have marked the section for decades was Harold Meyerson's column. Meyerson
has been writing a weekly column for the Post for the last thirteen years. He was told by opinion
page editor Fred Hiatt that his contract would not be renewed for 2016. *
According to Meyerson, Hiatt gave as his reasons that his columns had bad social media metrics
and that he focused too much on issues like worker power. The first part of this story is difficult
to believe. Do other Post columnists, like Beat the Press regulars Robert Samuelson and Charles
Lane, really have such great social media metrics?
As far as the second part, yes Meyerson was a different voice. His columns showed a concern
for the ordinary workers who make up the overwhelming majority of the country's population. Apparently
this is a liability at the Post.
The studied failure of the fierce critic of the Washington Post and New York Times from the
economics department of the University of California at Berkeley to so much as regret the firing
of the only writer on labor affairs at either paper tells of just how little regard there is for
the affairs of ordinary workers.
Not surprising, but disappointing nonetheless.
Sanjait -> anne...
Oh please.
Delong has been writing loudly about the need for pro labor fiscal and monetary policy for
the last 6 years. He's a leading voice on this topic, despite being "shrill."
To anyone that has been paying attention even a little, he has more than firmly established
his concern for workers.
You're just weirdly upset because he called the Yale protesters stupid. Others here are upset
because, like conservative tribalists, they think the best way to promote progressive causes is
to ignore fact based debates and instead talk about who is or isn't an apostate. It's really very
ugly.
ken melvin -> Dan Kervick...
Two states, maybe?
am -> Dan Kervick...
Harold Meyerson, the Democratic Socialist op-ed columnist for Wapo, was just canned by Fred Hiatt.
Apart from removing another left wing economic voice from the establishment public sphere, this
helps clear the decks for a 2017 Middle East war after Clinton gets control of the war room from
Obama. Not a word on that firing from sometime scourge of the Washington Post, Brad DeLong - who
I guess is pretty cool with it.
This is from your comment. You go from the sacking of a journalist to clearing the ground for
a middle east war and then connect it all to Brad De Long. I hope you see the defects in your
thinking.
Dan Kervick -> am...
OK, let's wait and see what DeLong says.
However, I stand by the idea that one of Hiatt's beefs with Meyerson is that Meyerson is a
critic of the generally neoconservative foreign policies that Hiatt staunchly promotes. I think
Hiatt is likely rubbing his hands in glee over the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency, since
her foreign policy will be much more aggressive and neocon-friendly than Obama's - and also much
more so than a president Trump, for that matter, whom the neocons despise and fear.
djb -> Dan Kervick...
sorry to bother you dan but I couldn't help notice your comment to Egmont about consumption being
greater than income
"As you can see, consumption runs consistently and significantly higher than wages and salaries."
why do you think that is?
Dan Kervick -> djb...
djb, to be accurate, I pointed out that consumption was higher than wage and salary income. And
clearly one reason for that is that is that wage and salary income is only one portion of national
income. Besides other returns to labor like bonuses, a lot of income consists in profits and other
returns to capital.
Dan Kervick :
Even Brookings is getting worried about what's going on with the growing cultural isolation
of the relatively affluent:
This Brookings piece doesn't contribute much of anything to the conversation either. Mostly it
just provides a working definition of upper middle class. The "getting worried" part is pretty
much limited to the conclusion, and even then mostly outsourced to a conservative writer over
at Slate:
And if we go and read the Slate piece we find out that it's mostly BS -- even the Brookings
article warns us in advance that it's "hyperbole, of course."
All of that said I do think there is an important point to be made, one that I was making the
other day -- if you let a small number of people accumulate extreme levels of wealth, these people
will tend to focus their philanthropic efforts on the sorts of problems that get discussed in
their rather limited social circle, which may not be what the broader population views as the
most pressing issues. However, I was talking about billionaires (and tech billionaires in particular,
who tend to view things through an even narrower lens. In contrast, here we're talking about a
much larger and more diverse group -- 15-20% of the working-age population according to the article
-- many of whom came from middle class or lower-middle class backgrounds and who strongly identify
with these groups and their concerns.
EMichael -> Syaloch...
Of course it doesn't contribute to the discussion, not unless you read between the kervick lines
and understand that the separation is sinister, aided and abetted by pols and economists on both
sides as they are all elites.
"When everyone is out to get you, paranoia is just being careful." Dan K, err, I mean Woody Allen.
Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
The Brookings title for the article describes the separation as "dangerous". Isn't that an instance
of worrying?
The point isn't that the upper middle class is engaged in some sort of sneaky, diabolical plot
to "ruin" America, but rather that the emergence of growing cultural, educational and economic
gaps between different classes of Americans is bad for the country, and that the greater the degree
of class separations, the greater likelihood that the discourse of people who belong to a particular
class will tend to reflect the preoccupations and values of that class alone.
At all times and in all societies the preoccupation of those who have most greatly benefited
from a given social order will tend to be focused on how to defuse, appease or discipline dissenting
elements without disrupting the social order.
Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
The Brookings title appears to be mere clickbait, with little in the article to back the claim
up. The main thrust of the piece is that those who've managed to make it to the upper end of the
middle class have been more successful than those with less income. Big surprise there.
I have no objection to the claim that growing economic gaps are bad for the country. However,
I do think your attempt to cast this as an internal conflict within the middle class is nonsense.
I mean, Bernie Sanders' net worth is reportedly $700,000, which is roughly three times the
median for someone his age ($232,100 as of 2013). Isn't he part of this elite class you describe,
doing what elites always do? Does his political orientation reflect the general predilections
and interests of his class?
Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
It seems to me the article documents trends in several areas, all meant to back up the summary
story told in the opening paragraph:
"The American upper middle class is separating, slowly but surely, from the rest of society.
This separation is most obvious in terms of income-where the top fifth have been prospering while
the majority lags behind. But the separation is not just economic. Gaps are growing on a whole
range of dimensions, including family structure, education, lifestyle, and geography. Indeed,
these dimensions of advantage appear to be clustering more tightly together, each thereby amplifying
the effect of the other."
cm -> Syaloch...
Considering current real estate evaluations (I suppose Mr. Sanders owns a house), I don't think
700K is a net worth that confers any kind of elite status (where in this discussion "elite" must
be understood as being able to set or influence policy, without necessarily holding public office).
Syaloch -> cm...
The current median sales price for homes in Burlington VT is around $270,000, so Sanders must
be living in an "elite" home appropriate to his class.
More seriously, I don't think $700K necessarily confers elite status either, I'm just poking
holes in the arguments of those who want to drive wedges between different segments of the middle
class.
Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
I don't think it's so much a matter of driving wedges, but recognizing the wedges that are already
there.
Of course, some individual people who have lots of money are capable of adopting political
stances that range outside their class interests. The similarity between political outlook and
class interest is a strong general tendency, not an iron rule.
Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
Your understanding of class relationships is flawed.
Perhaps one has to actually be part of the upper middle class to see how these things actually
work?
The county where I live is one of the richest in the country, and it consistently votes Democrat.
But then again the cost of living is very high here, so a lot of people who appear to have high
incomes by national standards actually live quite modest lifestyles. And many people who live
here came from other lower-income areas to find work, and probably relate most strongly with the
places and backgrounds from which they came (even after 25 years of living in the DC suburbs my
wife and I still tend to answer the question, "where are you from?" with the states we were born
in).
The relationship between income and "class interest" is apparently quite complicated.
cm -> Syaloch...
**my wife and I still tend to answer the question, "where are you from?" with the states we were
born in**
Isn't that what the questioner is actually asking? I always understood this question as "what
is your cultural (often more specifically ethnic) background". The question often comes in the
form "where's your *accent* from".
Syaloch -> cm...
Sometimes it's unclear, but generally the context is ah, so you're a visitor here, where is your
home located?
We still have a hard time saying we're "from" Virginia, as the part of Virginia that borders
DC bears little relationship culturally, politically, or economically with the rest of the state.
Culturally we're still very much Northerners.
cm -> Syaloch...
Perhaps, though I often respond jokingly stating the city where I live, and then there is *always*
the clarification "no where are you originally from". The larger area here has a lot of immigration
from other places (inside and outside the US), and a lot of people with immigrant family background.
It seems to be a common (and reliable) conversation opener.
cm -> Syaloch...
"The relationship between income and "class interest" is apparently quite complicated."
A large part of the complication is adjustment to local cost structures. Another is that "class"
is a fairly abstract concept, which I define more by socioeconomic autonomy and participation
in the societal decision making process (at higher or lower levels) than by income. Of course
the former strongly correlates with income. E.g. when obtaining one's income absolutely requires
personal daily commitment to some activity (e.g. employment), one cannot be consider "upper" of
anything.
I would even question whether middle to upper corporate management falls in the upper middle
class - let's say Director to VP levels. They are paid quite well and can generally afford living
in "good neighborhoods" with higher end houses and cars, and perhaps even domestic "help", but
can they influence policy outside their company?
And one more before the day's round of media stuff begins.
Another weirdly persistent myth is that rich people vote Democratic, while working stiffs vote
Republican. Here's Tucker Carlson: *
"OK, but here's the fact that nobody ever, ever mentions - Democrats win rich people. Over
100,000 in income, you are likely more than not to vote for Democrats. People never point that
out. Rich people vote liberal. I don't know what that's all about."
Actually, people mention this alleged fact all the time - but the truth is just the opposite.
From the 2006 exit polls:
Vote by Income (Total) Democrat Republican
Less than $100,000 (78%) 55% 43%
$100,000 or more (22%) 47% 52%
And the fact that people with higher incomes are more likely to vote Republican has been consistently
true since 1972. **
The interesting question is why so many pundits know for a fact something that simply ain't
so.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, * there's a weird myth among the commentariat that rich
people vote Democratic. There's another strange thing about that myth: the notion that income
class doesn't matter for voting, or that it's perverse, has spread even as the actual relationship
between income and voting has become much stronger.
Larry Bartels ** offers us these data, which I also provide in "Conscience of a Liberal," on
white voting patterns in presidential elections by income:
Democratic Share of Vote
1952-1972
Bottom third ( 46)
Middle third ( 47)
Top third ( 42)
Democratic Share of Vote
1976-2004
Bottom third ( 51)
Middle third ( 44)
Top third ( 37)
As you can see, a 4-point difference between top and bottom became a 14-point difference.
Andrew Gelman et al *** offer us an election-by-election graph; the dots represent an estimate
of the effect of income on the tendency to vote Republican, the whiskers the range of statistical
uncertainty. Again, a weak link in the earlier period, except when Barry Goldwater was the candidate,
and a much stronger link since then.
So the conventional pundit wisdom about the relationship between class and voting is, literally,
the opposite of the truth.
If you are trying to suggest that a mere prole couldn't possibly understand how the well-off people
actually think, you may be comforted to know that my wife and I are comfortably part of that upper
20%.
The people I am criticizing are the kinds of people I have known all my life. I went to college
and graduate school with them, and have known them socially and professionally. Quite the contrary
to your suggestion, I think if people from humbler walks of life had a clearer idea of how knowledge
class yuppies actually think and talk when they are not behaving themselves in public forums and
trying to act like compassionate and concerned citizens, the resentment and determination to act
on the part of the former would be even more intense than it is now.
I dearly recall the day one of my college friends told me that it was so unfair that smart
college kids might be subject to the same kinds of military service requirements that less educated
people faced, because the college kids "had so much more to lose." Their heads, after all, were
stuffed with big, valuable, meaningful brains; while the existences of the plebs were so much
less meaningful. Of course, she's probably running some health care outfit these days.
Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
I had a very similar experience with the people I met at my Ivy League university. A depressing
percentage of the student body consisted of spoiled trust fund babies, many of whom were apparently
ignored or otherwise mistreated by their parents and exhibited a shocking array of psychological
and substance abuse problems.
The most shocking incident I encountered was when a decent-seeming girl I met at the beginning
of sophomore year calmly explained during a discussion with myself and a high school friend the
"difference between black people and [n-word]s" as if this were a totally natural and uncontroversial
position. And she wasn't from the Deep South, either -- she was from Columbia MD.
But these people were of a distinctly different class than the many nominally upper-middle
class people I encounter in daily life. Even now, high as my household income is, I would immediately
be detected as a "mere prole" by them, a "lower class" person.
Fitzgerald was absolutely right -- the truly well off are indeed different from you and
me. Even if you don't realize it, rest assured that they do.
cm -> Dan Kervick...
Did your friend actually say these things about the brain value or are you extrapolating?
I had to go to military service *before* going to college, before the question of occupational
deferments could even come up, and incidentally so that the conscripts could be coerced with the
threat of having their college admission canceled. It was a good opportunity to purge our heads
of some of the highschool knowledge and attitudes, and fill it with more practical things like
avoiding or shirking work assignments, creative ways of procuring and hiding alcohol, and learning
a bit about sizing up people and power dynamics as well as losing some illusions about the universality
of human qualities. The latter part was actually useful.
cm -> Dan Kervick...
The concept of class is also just a model, and not rigidly tied to economic markers. People
in comparable occupational settings or type of economic participation can have very different
incomes and ability to afford certain lifestyles.
This is not only related to geographic differences, but jobs with similar skill profiles and
job content can have significantly different pay/perk structures across public/private sector,
different industries, and even within the same company. And by significantly I mean easily 2X.
E.g. regardless of your pay level, if your occupational situation is such that you have
to essentially show up for work every day and follow somebody else's directives (to make a relatively
low-risk income), then it would be a stretch to consider you upper middle class.
cm -> cm...
This is in response to your "wedges" comment, which may not be obvious in the web page layout.
Dan Kervick -> cm...
I definitely agree with those observations, although I have to say that following the crash in
2008 I was startled to realize just how much truth there is in the old Marxian idea that in an
economic pinch, people will rapidly form coalitions with other people on the basis of economic
affinities to protect their mutual interests.
cm -> Dan Kervick...
It is probably less about *mutual* interests and more about *common* interests. OTOH (but perhaps
fundamentally the same phenomenon) I and others have observed how people switch (declared?) allegiances
and ideological leanings and patterns of acting, as well the people they associate with, when
changing occupational roles, e.g. from individual contributor to manager or lower to middle management.
That usually comes with an income bump, but I don't think it is much related to income level.
Syaloch -> cm...
From what I've observed, following the 2008 crash a lot of upper-middle class people suddenly
realized that the differences between themselves and those living in poverty are actually much
smaller than the differences between themselves and the truly wealthy.
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.
Joe100 said in reply to
Tyler...
Tyler -
The crisis of Republican
Party then establishment no longer can control rank-and-file members reflects not only the crisis
of neoliberalism as a social system, but might also reflect the fact that with 300 million of people
the county became too big and too diverse to be governed from a single center of political power in
non authoritarian ways. a Hillary v Trump scenario will bee a difficult choice
for most Americans. A jingoistic sociopathic woman, essentially a puppet of financial oligarchy, who
is a front for the neoliberal forces hell-bent of destroying Russia vs. a narcissistic person with zero
political experience and vague set of ideas (but at the same time with more realistic foreign
policy ideas at least).
just as an additional note: the 28 pages regarding the Saudi involvement in 9/11 were finally released today: http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/declasspart4.pdf
Thanks. A quick visual inspection suggests that they "only" blacked out about 10% of the document. Some pages almost everything is visible, and on a few, almost half of the text is obscured.
A couple of days ago there was a discussion of infantilization by politicians via the use of emojis. I think that preventing people from reading the full report is a far more serious form of infantilization. Only the elite philosopher kings are allowed access to information. The rest of us children might be traumatized if we could read the full report.
Yes. I feel that infantilization should be mocked and discouraged where found.
The information about the dry-run of 1999 on America West flight from Phx to DC Saudi Embassy party was especially interesting to me. I suspect that Saudi Arabia played both sides (al-quaeda and the US) in order to bring about the Sunni alliance we are currently being worked out in Libya and Syria. Iraq was on this analysis definitely an expected casualty of the events of 9/11, which suggests that the Saudis had good reason to believe that US officials were already waiting for any excuse to take over that country.
Sober reading.
There's this sort of hole prior to 9-11-2001 where it sounds like no one knows anything but actually, the Joint Forces intelligence group knew quite a bit. The Joint Inquiry never interviewed anyone from DO-5.
nice catch…short version: Saudis were all over this.
This may amuse readers:
Saudi says hopes release of '28 pages' clears up 9/11 suspicions Jerusalem Post
OK, OK, it's really from Reuters. But still….
Alternatively:
Congress releases long-secret '28 pages' indicating Saudi ties to 9/11 Russia Today
While saudis offer big bux to turkish military to stage a coup to distract the audience…???
a coup..???
in turkey in the 21st century ??
How silly is that ?…
So strange! Why it seems just yesterday Chancellor Merkel and other wise EU leaders were trying to get Turkey admitted to the European Union, enabling Turks to move freely about the Continent, and they were pressing that nice Mr. Erdogan to accept billions of Euros to handle Muslim refugees for them. How could a stable European society like Turkey still be experiencing things like military coups? There must be a more polite explanation for what's really going on over there.